Autonomous Vehicles

[Colonel Hogan]

I think it's HILARIOUS that one of your suggestions will almost certainly be done by autonomous cars in the future.

That was the "ambulance chasing tort lawyers," right?

 

[chillywilly2]

This is precisely the point. These technological advances are intended to further concentrate wealth in the hands of very few (in this case tech owners). Eroding lower and mid-income jobs are a part of the plan.

These displaced truckers can go pour coffee at Starbucks or stock shelves at Walmart.

Know what a truck driver is?.....A labourer with his brains knocked out...they can drink coffee but they can't pour it

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Only if they institute separate--and separated--lanes for such traffic. I don't want anything on the road without someone in the driver's seat and with control of the vehicle. I don't even use cruise control.

I think I found the fallacy you're operating under.

 

[Hard_Rom]

Until folk get used to new technology likely to be an operator who just holds a deadman's switch.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I'm not sure I want vehicles deciding who lives and who dies.

You'd rather leave it to the guy in the foreground?

http://lowelawgroupnd.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Traffic_Stop_-_Sobriety_Test_3183660-400x300.jpg

 

[Hard_Rom]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_(short_story)

The story portrays a future in which the only cars allowed on the road are those that contain positronic brains; these do not require a human driver. The cars communicate by slamming doors and honking their horns, and by misfiring, causing audible engine knocking.

Page 7 it starts

http://ebooktrove.com/Asimov, Isaac/Asimov, Isaac - The Complete Robot.pdf


I seem to recall a story about wild autonomous cars. They would 'mono' their drivers and head out into the desert and badlands living in herds like wild mustang.

 

[Emerson40]

http://www.tfltruck.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/maximum-overdrive.jpeg

 

[sr71plt]

I think I found the fallacy you're operating under.

It's not a fallacy for me to want that, is it? That's what I posted. You don't want that? (I think I see the fallacy in your post. You didn't absorb what I wrote in mine.)

 

[sharingfantasies]

Scares the heck out of me. Even trains and airplanes with auto pilot have a person there with the ability to override. Sending out vehicles with no person inside, seems really stupid. The other night, lightning caused my computer to shut down for a couple of seconds. What happens when a truck's computer does that? There won't be a human to grab the wheel. A lot can happen on the road in a couple of seconds.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

It's not a fallacy for me to want that, is it? That's what I posted. You don't want that? (I think I see the fallacy in your post. You didn't absorb what I wrote in mine.)

You can want anything you.....well, want. The fallacy is whether or not you think it is realistic. It appears you do because you used it as an argument against autonomous vehicles mixed in with driver-controlled vehicles, your implication being that autonomous vehicles were potentially more dangerous than driver-controlled vehicles -- otherwise, what is the nature of your objection?

If driver-controlled vehicles were inherently safer than autonomous vehicles there would be little compelling reason to take the wheel out of your and my hands.

You realize, do you not, that commercial flight technology has the capability to take off, fly and land an entire cross-country flight without a single human being in the flight deck? It is the ultimate drone technology. If implemented, it would almost certainly eradicate those airline crashes attributable to pilot error -- assuming there was no drone pilot to introduce MORE error. What it would NOT do is save the lives of those who might benefit from the rare but nonetheless superior piloting of Capt. "Sully" Sullenberger's landing completing the "Miracle on the Hudson."

Of course, the reason it was a "miracle" was because the overwhelming number of even highly trained commercial pilots, including Sullenberger himself, couldn't do that as few as five out of 100 attempts. And most automobile operators are nowhere nearly as well trained as commercial airline pilots -- trained pilots who, even today, are little more than radio and navigation equipment managers the vast majority of the time.

 

[Bookishleigh]

This was my traffic nightmare a couple weeks ago:

http://wishtv.com/2016/10/04/semi-t...25000-pounds-of-cookie-dough-catches-on-fire/

And it DID not smell like baking cookies.

Bring on the autonomous trucks!

 

[thør]

You can want anything you.....well, want. The fallacy is whether or not you think it is realistic. It appears you do because you used it as an argument against autonomous vehicles mixed in with driver-controlled vehicles, your implication being that autonomous vehicles were potentially more dangerous than driver-controlled vehicles -- otherwise, what is the nature of your objection?

If driver-controlled vehicles were inherently safer than autonomous vehicles there would be little compelling reason to take the wheel out of your and my hands.

You realize, do you not, that commercial flight technology has the capability to take off, fly and land an entire cross-country flight without a single human being in the flight deck? It is the ultimate drone technology. If implemented, it would almost certainly eradicate those airline crashes attributable to pilot error -- assuming there was no drone pilot to introduce MORE error. What it would NOT do is save the lives of those who might benefit from the rare but nonetheless superior piloting of Capt. "Sully" Sullenberger's landing completing the "Miracle on the Hudson."

Of course, the reason it was a "miracle" was because the overwhelming number of even highly trained commercial pilots, including Sullenberger himself, couldn't do that as few as five out of 100 attempts. And most automobile operators are nowhere nearly as well trained as commercial airline pilots -- trained pilots who, even today, are little more than radio and navigation equipment managers the vast majority of the time.

Of course, there are very few driveways abutting the jet airline's path. And planes are "supposed" to have transponders.

The autonomous vehicle thing is coming. I am concerned that it might be coming a bit too fast for the infrastructure.

 

[sr71plt]

You can want anything you.....well, want. The fallacy is whether or not you think it is realistic. It appears you do because you used it as an argument against autonomous vehicles mixed in with driver-controlled vehicles, your implication being that autonomous vehicles were potentially more dangerous than driver-controlled vehicles -- otherwise, what is the nature of your objection?

If driver-controlled vehicles were inherently safer than autonomous vehicles there would be little compelling reason to take the wheel out of your and my hands.

You realize, do you not, that commercial flight technology has the capability to take off, fly and land an entire cross-country flight without a single human being in the flight deck? It is the ultimate drone technology. If implemented, it would almost certainly eradicate those airline crashes attributable to pilot error -- assuming there was no drone pilot to introduce MORE error. What it would NOT do is save the lives of those who might benefit from the rare but nonetheless superior piloting of Capt. "Sully" Sullenberger's landing completing the "Miracle on the Hudson."

Of course, the reason it was a "miracle" was because the overwhelming number of even highly trained commercial pilots, including Sullenberger himself, couldn't do that as few as five out of 100 attempts. And most automobile operators are nowhere nearly as well trained as commercial airline pilots -- trained pilots who, even today, are little more than radio and navigation equipment managers the vast majority of the time.

You're right, I don't buy your argument. I'm sure you'll recover from the disagreement.

 

[thør]

This was my traffic nightmare a couple weeks ago:

http://wishtv.com/2016/10/04/semi-t...25000-pounds-of-cookie-dough-catches-on-fire/

And it DID not smell like baking cookies.

Bring on the autonomous trucks!

The trailer caught fire? Brakes or wheel bearings?

The carnage of all that butter, wasted.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Are we ready?

Budweiser delivered by self driving truck.

You'd think it would have been Coors.

Are you ready for self-driving big rigs out on the highways?

Can't stop the future no matter how many wooden clogs you throw at it...

 

[about_average]

You'd rather leave it to the guy in the foreground?

http://lowelawgroupnd.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Traffic_Stop_-_Sobriety_Test_3183660-400x300.jpg

I can't see the image for some reason, though I found it, or one similar, so yeah, I get your point.
The thing is, you don't need driverless cars to prevent drunk driving.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money...technology-to-prevent-drunk-driving/29125417/

And I've been rear-ended by a drunk who wasn't charged with anything. In fact the vehicle owner's insurance co tried to say it was my fault.

If driver-controlled vehicles were inherently safer than autonomous vehicles there would be little compelling reason to take the wheel out of your and my hands.

It would be interesting to see what the traffic injury/death rate would be if law enforcement actually started enforcing traffic laws.

I'm willing to bet just enforcing proper following distance laws would reduce traffic accidents by half.
Then enforce using indicators, keeping right (speaking of the US here) except to pass, making sure people know how to merge in to traffic, vehicle inspections, no driving while using the phone...

We have a solution to significantly reducing highway carnage already, it's called law enforcement.