Utter madness

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
I think it *could* be a great leap in technology.

Imagine getting on the motorway and being able to tuck yourself into bed and wake as you arrive at your destination.
 
I think it *could* be a great leap in technology.

Imagine getting on the motorway and being able to tuck yourself into bed with a nubile blonde and wake as you arrive at your destination.

Fixed that for you :thumb:.
 
In all seriousness I guess that it's often the driver of a vehicle that's the weakest link.

Accident reports would be interesting where both drivers claimed to be asleep at the time of the collision. Dashcams may reveal the culprit. Would the offending vehicle have to be banned for a time and reprogrammed?
Three strikes and it's crushed? I wonder if they'll use the shock-absorbing foam used on Sly Stallone's film "Demolition Man"?

Interesting times indeed :thumb:
 
In all seriousness I guess that it's often the driver of a vehicle that's the weakest link.
Automation is prevalent in other transport sectors, such as commercial aviation, and the primary driver (no pun intended) for its introduction has always been that the person at the controls is often the weakest link in the whole chain of control.

It's quite possible to have a commercial aircraft complete a flight from A to B autonomously, but we don't do that. Why? Because as humans we have more faith in the instincts for self preservation in the guys (or girls) at the pointy end getting us back on the ground safely when something unexpected happens than we do in a programmer who is sat on the ground watching TV.

The interesting thing is that recent aviation accidents are drawing attention to the fact that complex automation is not always readily understood by the humans who have to intervene when the metaphoric wheel comes off, and they misinterpret signals they are given and are puzzled by the vehicle's actions not correlating with the inputs they have made, often due to other automation effects, with catastrophic results.

Autonomous (or "driverless") cars sound like an interesting proposition, but there are decades of experience with automation systems that tell us it can be an unexpectedly dangerous route to take, especially if it still relies on a human as the last failsafe device.
 
In principle the idea is good but like the electric car the immense lack of supporting infrastructure surely means it will remain a pipe dream for the majority of motorists for the forseeable future? If you examine the reality- do you have purpose roads built? - do you modify existing motorways? ---- it would surely be hazardous to mix controlled and uncontrolled traffic meaning reserving one lane for driverless vehicles---- so 3 lanes down to 2-- that will speed up traffic flow----- for some! Do you use traffic density to assign priority for "automating" a particular route? Many of the routes in major conurbations are already served by public transport systems- what happens to them?
The UK is still wrestling with getting all its citizens a decent broadband connection?:doh:
 
If they are allowing testing on public roads surely they mean to use them on the existing road network?

Not sure what supporting infrastructure you think is required?
 
If they are allowing testing on public roads surely they mean to use them on the existing road network?
That's what's happening in Stockholm already, I understand
Not sure what supporting infrastructure you think is required?

It seems, according to a Radio 5 interview this morning, that all the technology is in the vehicle itself, so there will be no supporting infrastructure.

A couple of other interesting points also came up - the interviewee said that the human "driver" would be able to concentrate on conversations, and things like texting while the car drives itself, (presumably huge changes in the law needed here), and she wasn't able to come up with any solution to accident blame, saying that the car would 'see' all pedestrians/cyclists/other vehicles etc, and would react accordingly.

The comparisons to aircraft and such as as DLR made earlier aren't really valid as there is nothing like the amount of other traffic, and there IS supporting infrastructure - air traffic control, ILS for aircraft and dedicated control systems for DLR for instance, which wouldn't apply to UK roads.

I am not a Luddite by any means, but I just can't see any benefits
 
^ It could take you home from the pub when you was pi$$ed as long as you sat in the back seat. :bannana:
 
I can imagine that the real bugbear of these autonomous cars will be that they will drive like Miss Daisy and annoy everyone around them by being too slow and cautious.

That is until the tuners start offering chip upgrades of course :devil:
 
Weren't driverless cars recently launched in Saudi? (something I read on a headline, about women being banned from "not driving" driverless cars in Saudi, but didn't really read much more...)
 
The next stage will then be driverless taxis that you just hail when needed (Smart phone apps). Then there would be no reason to give the population their own cars at all. The taxis would only take you to places permitted by your microchipped id card. That's it.......... we're doomed :confused:
 
The next stage will then be driverless taxis that you just hail when needed (Smart phone apps). Then there would be no reason to give the population their own cars at all.

Yes - I wonder if anyone has thought that this is going to mess up the car industry big time? Owning "The Ultimate Driving Machine" will become pretty pointless.
 
I suppose that the biggest issue would be mixing driver-less and human driven cars on the road at the same time.

Imagine a driver tries to cheekily cut up another car, if it's human driven it will probably brake and allow the manoeuvre to complete. If it's driver-less it might not be programmed to actively avoid such a collision - who gets to claim on their insurance?
 
Apparently its all contained within the car itself with a few minor additions :eek:

Google driverless car - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

quote:-Google's robotic cars have about $150,000 in equipment including a $70,000 lidar (light radar) system. The range finder mounted on the top is a Velodyne 64-beam laser. This laser allows the vehicle to generate a detailed 3D map of its environment. The car then takes these generated maps and combines them with high-resolution maps of the world, producing different types of data models that allow it to drive itself.
Currently (as of June 2014), the system works with a very high definition inch-precision map of the area the vehicle is expected to use, including how high the traffic lights are; in addition to on-board systems, some computation is performed on remote computer farms. :eek:

I like it------" Bing Bong ! Attention Google has received a request to transport you to Luigi Papa's "All you can eat" Pizzeria. Warning this establishment has been flagged as an unhealthy eating venue. Redirecting------ why not visit Fernando's Sea Food Takeway. Fernando's is our restaurant sponsor of the week Tonite's special --- Squid Rings fried in their own ink. This redirect will be charged to your GoogleDrive account and will show as 5 euros Thank you for travelling with GoogleDrive--- always a pleasure.
 
Last edited:
total-recall_pic.jpg
 
I suppose that the biggest issue would be mixing driver-less and human driven cars on the road at the same time.

Imagine a driver tries to cheekily cut up another car, if it's human driven it will probably brake and allow the manoeuvre to complete. If it's driver-less it might not be programmed to actively avoid such a collision - who gets to claim on their insurance?

But a driverless car won't get involved in road rage, and won't take issue with a cyclist leaning on it….. :D
 
So if a driverless car crashes into someone who's to blame, the car owner or the manufacturer?
 
Google product liability?--- good luck with that one. ;)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom