Evel
Well-Known Member
Wasn't it a Benz?
Funnily enough, it was both.
Wasn't it a Benz?
That is how you think that is not how other people think. Also keep in mind that a self driving car can still take you anywhere you want to go, it will just not require that you drive it and likely will get you there faster. For freedom you can always get a motorcycle those will never be self-drivingBecause without full control you lose the fact that cars essentially are a form of freedom. You can go anywhere there is a road, at a variety of speeds in full control of something you have bought. How long before cars essentially become driver-less taxis?
From that point whoever controls this system of transport has complete control of freedom of movement. I just plain don't like the idea of this in any way shape or form.
If they took the money invested in this and made public transport better andcheaper and driving tests harder and more involved it would solve the problem they say they are trying to solve. Of people who don't like, or want, to drive and as thus don't put the effort into learning how properly.
Was leaving the office so couldn't respond to everythingNot to mention it will leave cars open to, in theory, being hacked. Hell even file corruption in the computer system could fuck the whole car.
But that's the point now isn't it? There is a limited number of good and safe drivers who can react to dangerous situations properly and quickly. Systems like this allows EVERYONE to be a safe driver, so what if someone just covers their head with their hands when they are about to hit something if the car goes "not on my watch" and safely avoids the accident? Sure that person is an idiot but at the end of the day that's one less accident and possibly one less death.The best and safest drivers I know are ones who drive older cars. Once you realise you have 40 year old tech in you braking and suspension system you drive a whole lot more carefully. Especially with the knowledge that if you crash your remains will be buried in a jam jar...
Safety devices give IDIOTS and bad drivers false confidence, this system is aimed at IDIOTS and bad drivers.
Air traffic safety have gotten further than cars (safest way to travel)
I really don't trust a system that takes control of the car, it could go wrong in so many ways. Really simple example: successfully avoided pedestrian A, but wait, there's pedestrian B on the other side.....
And Toyota is REALLY opening themselves up to lawsuits in that kind of situation.
You're thinking on the wrong scale - you don't need access to jam a signal. Not a big deal to cut off someone's cell phone, but cut off communications to all vehicles speeding down a highway.....
You wouldn't just rely on the one system to control the car, you have to build in safe guards and backup systems. If it loses a link to another vehicle because it's being jammed like you suggest, it could still drive itself using a camera, because we can't currently jam visible light.
Ducttape on the camera?Smoke? Dust?
I'm pretty sure flying has been safer than driving since before any aspect of air travel was controlled by computers.
Ducttape on the camera?
I don't really see cameras being used in ULV's (just made that up), more likely sonars/radars/lidars as they would have a greater precision and we already have a crapload of software that works with those for range estimation. It would be more complicated with a camera as it would require advanced shape recognition systems*. Lets face it cameras are for people, computers see better in a different EM spectrum.A more likely scenario is mud obscuring the camera. But yes, it's more than possible for 'normal' occurrences to disable such a system, as the DARPA tests show.
Yet your ABS never locked up randomly Thing is we are using a shitload of electronics in cars these days, you got ECU's, ABS, ESP, ECS, TC, OMGWTFBBQ and so on. You also have shit like brake assists and adaptive cruise control and so on and it works just fine.What about this scenario, modern cars use "soy coating" on their wires so rodents nibble on them. I mean fuck, happened to my car so obviously it is not too far fetched.
Yet your ABS never locked up randomly Thing is we are using a shitload of electronics in cars these days, you got ECU's, ABS, ESP, ECS, TC, OMGWTFBBQ and so on. You also have shit like brake assists and adaptive cruise control and so on and it works just fine.
I have never heard of that tech failing in a way that it causes your car to say no and do what it wants to do, I've had ABS fail and not work anymore but never had it randomly stop me in the middle of driving. The point is failure modes if the mode is such that it allows you to retain control of the vehicle then its not a big deal for it to fail.ABS wheel speed sensors do fail, and you can get an ABS system to freak out and lock up.
I'd also point out that legions of reviewers have commented on recent cars with lane departure warning systems that either plain don't work or are far too sensitive (Infiniti is notorious for the latter). Adaptive cruise control doesn't work 'just fine' either; they can fail to get a lock on a vehicle ahead or get confused.
I'd also point out that this was the result of the most recent public demonstration of Volvo's CitySafety system.
Yup, the system had become switched off automatically. Still doesn't mean that it'll work anyway.
Here's a prior demo when the system was ON.
It didn't work out a lot better.
Their pedestrian safety system works 'real well,' too.
Yes, the tech will get there someday. I don't think today is that day, tomorrow isn't looking good either.
Yes, the tech will get there someday. I don't think today is that day, tomorrow isn't looking good either.
The things is, regardless of the way in which it failed it DID fail.I have never heard of that tech failing in a way that it causes your car to say no and do what it wants to do, I've had ABS fail and not work anymore but never had it randomly stop me in the middle of driving. The point is failure modes if the mode is such that it allows you to retain control of the vehicle then its not a big deal for it to fail.
And this is EXACTLY why I don't want features like that in my car (but want them in cars for everyone else)The things is, regardless of the way in which it failed it DID fail.
See thing is that even a highly trained driver would have a 99% "success" rate for any given situation (the further you go down the chain the lower the rate will get obviously) a computer will have a 100% "success" rate for every situation that has been programmed into it (assuming correct programming of course). If you have a computer that can handle 90% of common accident situations on the road it would still be an improvement over a human driver. Looking at the accident statistics it seems like a fairly large number of humans cannot handle even common accident situations. Unless a driver is highly skilled/trained they are not likely to be able to respond properly to an uncommon one either. For instance I'm fairly certain I wouldn't be able to avoid a roll over if my car lifts on one side. In theory I know what to do but in reality....As has been said computer programs cannot be wrong, the can only function to the extent that they have been programmed to do. However they are programmed by humans, humans are very capable of being wrong. I also highly doubt humans can program in such a way that can predict any situation, it could be argued that the program would work in the majority of cases and that it would react in a superior fashion to a human.
But I can foresee situations where the computer would make decisions that would be detrimental in a bad way, it would also involve sensing everything around the car in all situations constantly. That's a lot of technology to go wrong...
And this is EXACTLY why I don't want features like that in my car (but want them in cars for everyone else)