lust said:

2freaky4church1 said:

You ever hear of hackers? Imagine a one hundred car pile up of disasterous proportions.

The insurance for each car would be bonkers. We should always reject technology that kills human beings.

What if less people die because of the technology than due to the lack of it?

the proof of the pudding is in the eating, of course, but if the benefits of the technology are what proponents say they might be, we would be looking at 90-95% reductions in vehicle fatalities. right now, there are about 35k traffic fatalities in the us each year, so it's not an exaggeration to say that there could be tens of thousands of lives saved every year.

.

and that doesn't get into injuries, paralysis, everything else.

.

so it seems likely to me that, if this does come to pass, we'll be in a scenario where people who continue to use their inferior ape brains to drive will pay far steeper insurance premiums.

.

there are risks in adopting any new tech, but it's also often the case that the biggest risk is not adopting it because of being change averse.

Folks are scared of this cloud stuff.

damosuzuki said:

TrivialPursuit said:

LadyLayla said:

I heartily agree with the second statement! Our (USA) rail system is in third world status compared to China and especially Japan. Our subways are an embarrassment compared to these countries. Bringing these items into the 21st century would be a huge investment but as long as we are trying to rebuild our infrastructure it would be an optimal time.

But American culture is so dependent on the car. Driverless....mmm...jury is still out for me.

Even places like Portland and Seattle have amazing light rail systems, while other places have a good subway structure (NY). Why the rest of the U.S. suffers (meaning those that don't have great metro) is beyond me. Amtrak of repeatedly dropped the ball on redeveloping their technology and working with regions or states to develop light rail for public transportation as well as long distance travel.

I was real impressed with Seattle lite rail system/Bus and ferry system works. Here in Hawaii it's so corrupted with our one party system. Our rail system being built is a joke, cost out of porportion, people making money off of it at the cost of the tax payers. Had a ferry system but the powers that be (Hawaiian Air lines) ruined it.

just this morning another driver was swerving in and out of traffic, she nearly clipped me not once, but twice, by pulling into my lane out AS i was in the lane next to her (happened once, then she fell behind and did the same damn thing again) both times i hd to blow my horn to avoid a collision whereupon she swerved back into her own lane. on this occasion, i was totally pumped when a cop car pulled out and nailed her as she sped by us all doing about 15 mph over the limit. i think she was drunk or high....

if all cars were driverless and connected to the same UN-HACKABLE cloud source, then i might be more willing to trust them. in these early days, still a nay

TrivialPursuit said:

When Driverless cars become the Standard Black folks will get accused of riding Driverless while Black...If we can't get the car to stop for a Cop they will send a tiny-Robot to Blow us up to Bits...

Chancellor said:

When Driverless cars become the Standard Black folks will get accused of riding Driverless while Black...If we can't get the car to stop for a Cop they will send a tiny-Robot to Blow us up to Bits...

So much style , looks very sporty. Darth Vader on the roof optional extra

[Edited 3/29/17 10:58am]

Guitarhero said:

Lust, another issue.

Ingela said:

Guitarhero said:

So much style , looks very sporty. Darth Vader on the roof optional extra

[Edited 3/29/17 10:58am]

Ever hear of Tesla?

Not till i just looked. now your talking.

Guitarhero said:

2freaky4church1 said:

kpowers said:

TrivialPursuit said:

Even places like Portland and Seattle have amazing light rail systems, while other places have a good subway structure (NY). Why the rest of the U.S. suffers (meaning those that don't have great metro) is beyond me. Amtrak of repeatedly dropped the ball on redeveloping their technology and working with regions or states to develop light rail for public transportation as well as long distance travel.

I was real impressed with Seattle lite rail system/Bus and ferry system works. Here in Hawaii it's so corrupted with our one party system. Our rail system being built is a joke, cost out of porportion, people making money off of it at the cost of the tax payers. Had a ferry system but the powers that be (Hawaiian Air lines) ruined it.

That is probably one of the big issues that would keep a more modernized transit system from happening in the states.

The ability to get to most anyplace needed without the use of a car is unbelievably refreshing. And we traveled to some rather remote (to me) places. Walk to a bus, bus to subway, subway to train, train to bullet train....it reminds me of the saying, "It's not the destination, it's the journey".

Driverless cars.....yeah I know that's where $$$ are going now. Aren't we lazy enough already? JMO

maybe we'll reach a point here once a person has too many strikes against them they have to use a driverless car. i

XxAxX said:

Horsefeathers said:

XxAxX said:

maybe we'll reach a point here once a person has too many strikes against them they have to use a driverless car. i

Lots of people with no business driving still being able to function and participate in society such as those with disabilities also.

it's happening and for those with disabilities i see that as a good thing. i'm just afraid that some will remotely hack driverless cars and do weird shit.

Acceptable percentage of risk?

morningsong said:

Acceptable percentage of risk?

this is all pretty speculative needless to say - perhaps driverless cars are the new individual jet pack, a promised tech that never comes to be (i doubt that, but i guess it's possible)...

.

but if driverless cars come to be as safe as some people say they will be, i think it's really interesting to consider how we'll perceive people who insist on driving manually at that time.

.

if even the safest human driver is several times more dangerous than a driverless car, will we come to a point where we think of people who insist on driving as reckless as someone who smokes cigarettes or a drunk driver?

.

if you insist on driving, knowing that you're far more likely to kill or injure yourself or someone else than if you'd let the car do the job, you'd be doing something wrong, no?

.

i imagine that this is something that will for the most part be recognized in the market: anyone who insists on driving in that scenario will have to accept a much higher insurance premium to allow for the risk.

[Edited 3/30/17 19:29pm]

damosuzuki said:

morningsong said:

Acceptable percentage of risk?

this is all pretty speculative needless to say - perhaps driverless cars are the new individual jet pack, a promised tech that never comes to be (i doubt that, but i guess it's possible)...

.

but if driverless cars come to be as safe as some people say they will be, i think it's really interesting to consider how we'll perceive people who insist on driving manually at that time.

.

if even the safest human driver is several times more dangerous than a driverless car, will we come to a point where we think of people who insist on driving as reckless as someone who smokes cigarettes or a drunk driver?

.

if you insist on driving, knowing that you're far more likely to kill or injure yourself or someone else than if you'd let the car do the job, you'd be doing something wrong, no?

.

i imagine that this is something that will for the most part be recognized in the market: anyone who insists on driving in that scenario will have to accept a much higher insurance premium to allow for the risk.

[Edited 3/30/17 19:29pm]

We'll cross that bridge when we get there, but my guess is that these systems will always allow us to take over from autanamous mode whenever we want.

It just may not let you crash into someone or something.

damosuzuki said:

morningsong said:

Acceptable percentage of risk?

this is all pretty speculative needless to say - perhaps driverless cars are the new individual jet pack, a promised tech that never comes to be (i doubt that, but i guess it's possible)...

.

but if driverless cars come to be as safe as some people say they will be, i think it's really interesting to consider how we'll perceive people who insist on driving manually at that time.

.

if even the safest human driver is several times more dangerous than a driverless car, will we come to a point where we think of people who insist on driving as reckless as someone who smokes cigarettes or a drunk driver?

.

if you insist on driving, knowing that you're far more likely to kill or injure yourself or someone else than if you'd let the car do the job, you'd be doing something wrong, no?

.

i imagine that this is something that will for the most part be recognized in the market: anyone who insists on driving in that scenario will have to accept a much higher insurance premium to allow for the risk.

[Edited 3/30/17 19:29pm]

I can see what you are saying happening, but is it really a bad thing? There is always a subgroup in anytime that refuse to get with whatever the preceived times are and they are somewhat ostasized to a degree. Nothing new there.

It's the risk factor. Some people seem to hold a belief that everything new should come with an absolute zero risk factor. That's just simply not possible. The Tesla autopilot has one fatality under it's belt, yet everyday across the nation there are and have been several fatalities due to driver error. We haven't opted out of driving completely because of the risk of a fatality, correct? Perspective needs to be put into play.


I can see XxAxX concern about hackers and the cloud, though. The cloud has become a central target for hackers.

Nay

morningsong said:

damosuzuki said:

this is all pretty speculative needless to say - perhaps driverless cars are the new individual jet pack, a promised tech that never comes to be (i doubt that, but i guess it's possible)...

.

but if driverless cars come to be as safe as some people say they will be, i think it's really interesting to consider how we'll perceive people who insist on driving manually at that time.

.

if even the safest human driver is several times more dangerous than a driverless car, will we come to a point where we think of people who insist on driving as reckless as someone who smokes cigarettes or a drunk driver?

.

if you insist on driving, knowing that you're far more likely to kill or injure yourself or someone else than if you'd let the car do the job, you'd be doing something wrong, no?

.

i imagine that this is something that will for the most part be recognized in the market: anyone who insists on driving in that scenario will have to accept a much higher insurance premium to allow for the risk.

[Edited 3/30/17 19:29pm]

I can see what you are saying happening, but is it really a bad thing? There is always a subgroup in anytime that refuse to get with whatever the preceived times are and they are somewhat ostasized to a degree. Nothing new there.

It's the risk factor. Some people seem to hold a belief that everything new should come with an absolute zero risk factor. That's just simply not possible. The Tesla autopilot has one fatality under it's belt, yet everyday across the nation there are and have been several fatalities due to driver error. We haven't opted out of driving completely because of the risk of a fatality, correct? Perspective needs to be put into play.


I can see XxAxX concern about hackers and the cloud, though. The cloud has become a central target for hackers.

No never....at the moment!