Yeah really...get your wingless flying mammals straight. Focus: I think self driving vehicles would be very cool. I like to drive a lot but there are times, during the six hour trip up north to go fishing, I'd rather just take a nap. I take public transportation to and from work every day and although I thought I'd hate it at first, in the nine months I've been doing it, I've actually come to love it. Drink coffee, read my book, and let someone else worry about rush hour traffic? Yes please. It seems like it would have to be all or nothing, though. As in ALL vehicles would have to be equipped with the self driving unit (GPS type thing) so even if it's being manually driven, the other automatic ones still know it's there and can "see" what it's doing. Essentially all vehicles would have to be connected to Skynet. I don't see any drawbacks.
This would be amazing just for the simple fact that it makes Asian women drivers less scary. I'm not shitting you, today, merging onto the expressway some tiger mom was going about 25 mph.
Keep in mind that if cars were to be fully automated, they would have to have proximity sensors that would instantly detect objects within hundreds of feet of them. That way if a deer were to jump out it could try to avoid a collision. A car would be able to spot things like this and react to them faster than humans but, of course, shit happens. Even with full automation there will be accidents, which brings us back to the "who's to blame" question and fucking lawyers.
I hate the, we-can't-do-this-because-of-the-lawyers, argument. Yes, there are plaintiff's attorneys salivating over the thought of suing US Robotics when one of these things malfunctions and runs into a school bus full of kids from the Make a Wish Foundation, but I promise you there are defense attorneys drooling over that same accident and the 15 associates they can cram onto the case spending 10 hours a day researching and drafting pleadings on useless crap. Legislate the rules. Make the state legislatures do something useful and write down what the rules are and who is at fault. Sure it's complicated, but it's less haphazard than letting attorneys do it in a trial setting.
Plus... human beings SUCK at driving. We're really bad at it. I truly believe that full scale adoption self-driving car will not only save lives, but cut down on lawsuits. Because sure, a self-driving car killing someone is a lawsuit, but so is a human operated car killing someone and I think the former will happen less frequently. Especially after the various pilot/test programs that will happen and are happening iron out the kinks. If self-driving cars kill 1,000 people a year that is a monumental improvement. If fatalities FELL to 20,000 a year that would also be a huge improvement. So yeah, lawsuits and lawyers and complicated litigation will happen, but it will be a net savings because those things happen now anyway.
Isn't this what the google mapping cars used? I believe that they had self driving computers that totally controlled the car but still had a human in there just in case. And they were far, FAR fewer incidents than with normal human drivers. I think there was one reported accident of some sort, and the car was in manual mode at that time (<a class="postlink" href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/237450/googles_selfdriving_car_crashes.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.pcworld.com/article/237450/g ... ashes.html</a>). So, this technology has not only been around for at least a couple years, but it has been used on the road with good results. I am all for this. It would make a ton of normal activities so much more convenient. For instance, my parents make an annual trip to TX from AL each year. It's an 8-9 hour drive and they have to take turns driving to maintain a high level of alertness. They are also getting a little older and it is a more stressful experience than in years past. It wouldn't make sitting in the same spot any more fun, but they would have a much nicer trip. It would also be a huge plus for truck drivers and people who have to drive long distances as a part of their job. And not to be the boozy one, but it's been said and I agree. It would be great to be able to go out with your significant other or friend and have some drinks without having to worry about a DD. I think it would still be unsafe for someone completely smashed to use this because you have to be able to see and reliably program the device to take you home, but a BAH of .08? .1? It would be great. As for liability, wasn't there a case awhile back of some Toyota or Honda cars that were accelerating because the computer system messed up? Obviously that is the fault of the manufacturer. With a computer device, assuming it has been used properly and reasonably maintained, it seems like an easier case to assign fault in that with some regular car accidents.
The hell would you need a professional truck driver for? Shipments can move themselves cheaper and faster without someone behind the wheel who needs to sleep and piss.
I think one thing people AREN'T taking into account, however, is bad weather. Snow storms, drifting snow, black ice, and slippery roads are the norm up here. Humans are used to driving in it, but would a computer controlled car be able to fully compensate for conditions? What if a downpour starts out of nowhere, or a big gust of wind catches a computer-controlled Semi-trailer? In an ideal world without poor weather, these things could work. I just don't see them working in an area like mine where snow and ice result in stupidly long commutes where we have to drive 20 miles an hour to keep from spinning out. Don't get me wrong, I would LOVE a car that drove itself, especially for long trips, but I'm just not sure about how feasible it really is.
If it worked properly, this would be awesome. However, as others have mentioned, it's one thing when you have a car on an empty road using a GPS navigation system. It's quite another when you have a car in bumper-to-bumper traffic or bad road conditions. In that case, there are a bunch of engineering problems and tasks that I think would be very difficult to solve. For instance, say that this device is changing lanes in a freeway. How close is too close for the other car? Does it take relative speeds into account? By the time it figures out the relative speed of the other car, would it be too late?
I'm a bit more faithful thanks to the few hundred thousand miles they've logged on these things by now. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2395049,00.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2395049,00.asp</a> In the article, they state the goal is a million miles without a driver, which I think is an admirable goal. Will it be perfect, accident free and flawless? No, but I'd imagine a computer updating and re-interpreting it's surroundings thousands of times per minute would be much safer than a human driver. At this point, I'm thinking a lot like Demolition Man: hands-off when it's boring, interstate driving, hands on when you have a serial killer to chase.
Agreed 1000%. I drive for driving's sake whenever I can. So long as I have: 1. My iPhone plugged in to listen to music/Audible/History Podcasts 2. Coffee and a cigar 3. The time and the money 4. The open road I'll drive almost anywhere in the country.
I drove from New York to Arizona when I got my current job. As much as the podcasts and music helped, I would have killed to just sleep the whole time (or if I had my way, the law would let me drink, as long as I was in the back seat. Maybe they can work out a breathalyzer system). Spending 16 hours a day driving is horrible.
Vehicles already have this to a certain extent, and they keep getting better. I have a new truck that has a couple of traction control features that make it very hard to spin out. I've tried pretty hard to get it sideways on curved gravel roads and it just won't do it. It works just as well in the winter. I can stomp on it on ice and the rpm's will back off as soon as any slippage happens. It works surprisingly well. It is annoying if you want to drive like the Dukes of Hazzard though.
Add me to this list. There have been many a time where I'll take the hot rod out on a warm summer night and burn a tank of gas. Come back home feeling stress free and relaxed.
No doubt this is the future. I think it won't be hard for technology to exceed the sensory and reactive capacity of people. Reaction speed and sensors will only get better - even more once this stuff begins to take off. Then it's just a matter of programming some 'instinct' and communication between cars. The things I think will be really hard - more subtle detection. If you see a scraggly long haired homeless guy sitting near a car on the side of the road having a hard time standing, there's a pretty decent chance he's going to stumble in the middle of the road. Teaching a computer that is tough. Or a little kid on a corner that you notice isn't paying attention. So it's like public transportation, but without other people. By yourself. For long periods of time. With access to the internet, and privacy. This leads me to one conclusion. Porn on the highway.
There's quite a difference between taking the whip out for a joyride and having to drive half an hour to work every day at 6:45 in the morning. I feel like more people would choose "sleep during my commute" than not.
You obviously don't enjoy driving. EDIT: Just so there's no misunderstanding, I thoroughly enjoy being in total control of my car, and I can't fathom why anyone would want to give up that control. I don't give two shits what my car looks like, as long as it runs as fast as I want it to, stops as fast as I want it to, and handles as well as I want it to.
Well, you buy an //M BMW because of the way it drives. You buy a regular BMW for the smooth ride, creature comforts, cachet, and best in class handling. Most of the non-M BMW's I see on the road were not bought by people because of their performance (which isn't to diminish performance, because many, especially the 3-series, are tops). I adore spirited driving, and can't imagine having that taken away from me. For me, it would be like getting a driver-less dirt bike, or driver-less wave runner. I know many treat cars purely as transportation, but there are a lot of enthusiasts out there.
You can have a lot of fun on the twisties in a high-powered car that you can't have with a lower powered one. There are some fantastic roads near where I live that, due to the hills, aren't as much fun in a car making less than 300hp. My favorite American road, Deal's Gap, is also a TON more fun in a high powered car. Add to that the fact the suspension setups are totally different in the M cars, and you have some serious road carvers. I totally agree that supreme top speeds are something that can only be utilized on German roads, but to me those numbers are a byproduct of the torque and power that make a car super fun to drive at slower speeds as well. Beyond that, a lot of the M3 and M-coupe owners I know track their cars as well. Which, I'm sure, you consider jackassery.