But do those cars not have side mirrors? Because if you don't have side mirrors there's no way the center panel is going to work. You'd need dedicated panels just to perform the mirror function.
or just a larger panel on which multiple images are displayed
those cars have side mirrors (in the US) because the US federal government requires it.
I agree that the regulatory hurdles are a challenge. I don't agree that there are technological challenges. This is technologically simple. It's just convincing bureaucrats that you can do this without the sky falling.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
If my car had better reflexes then me, knew what it could handle better than me, and had more situational awareness than me, I would absolutely want to read a book while my car drives itself with morons on the road.
I challenge the claim that it has more situational awareness than me. More than the average driver? maybe, sure, why not.
Do you have 360-degree ultrasound that accurately detects the size, position, and velocity of everything around you in a 200 foot radius?
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
If my car had better reflexes then me, knew what it could handle better than me, and had more situational awareness than me, I would absolutely want to read a book while my car drives itself with morons on the road.
I challenge the claim that it has more situational awareness than me. More than the average driver? maybe, sure, why not.
Do you have 360-degree ultrasound that accurately detects the size, position, and velocity of everything around you in a 200 foot radius?
Trick question; Feral is actually trying to reveal Daredevil's secret identity.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
the problem with any kind of 'computer assisted driving' or whatever setup is that roads have to accomodate a wide variety of traffic; Minority Report-style superhighways are cool looking, but in reality it's tough to get there because you can't just change out your entire consumer car fleet at the same time.
I've always thought a good solution would be some type of 'assist lane' on the freeway; you could merge in and then let some type of central coordination govern all the vehicles in that lane. But even something like that would be a big up-front investment.
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
the problem with any kind of 'computer assisted driving' or whatever setup is that roads have to accomodate a wide variety of traffic; Minority Report-style superhighways are cool looking, but in reality it's tough to get there because you can't just change out your entire consumer car fleet at the same time.
I've always thought a good solution would be some type of 'assist lane' on the freeway; you could merge in and then let some type of central coordination govern all the vehicles in that lane. But even something like that would be a big up-front investment.
...why assume the infrastructure has to change?
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Er...have you ever driven a car with the power steering out? If you're going 70 and need to steer you're probably also dead. Those bastards are just barely turntable, you might just be able to keep it straight but forget adjusting or actual evasive maneuvers.
Yes? It was an older car - like, 80s-older - so maybe things are different now? It was actually much harder to steer without power steering while going slow than while going fast, and virtually impossible when the car was at rest. Overall, it wasn't any harder to steer a car with failed power steering than one which just didn't have it at all, in my experience.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Also, the problem with replacing mirrors with screens is what happens when the screen system breaks? Cause without actual mirrors, you are now driving mostly blind.
I can't see them adding the feature because it's too expensive and you likely can't get rid of the mirror so there's little savings.
on the other hand, what happens when some jackass sideswipes your mirror?
and what is more liable to be damaged? a self-contained camera system with no moving parts, or a 6-inch protrusion on the side of a moving vehicle?
A camera system is more likely to have issues then your mirror. "Some jackass sideswiping your mirror" is not terribly common. Not without an accompanying sideswiping of alot more of the car.
Anyway, the "now I am dead" thing was probably a bad tangent to make, because it wasn't really the focus of what I was trying to get across.
My focus was: I am wary of cars becoming increasingly tied to fancier things that, when they fail, completely incapacitate the car. Like, once upon a time, there's a problem with my transmission? I hear a weird noise and I take it to the mechanic when I have a chance. My muffler is shot? My car is really noisy and I take it to the mechanic when I have a chance. Small things, I might even be able to fix it myself.
So what happens if my hi-tech automatic robo car gets a bug in the firmware? Okay, it doesn't kill me, that's nice. But if we're talking a system in which the outcome of a sizeable problem might be death the best failsafe is to just render the car inoperable. So now the smallish problem lands me without a car. Yay, progress?
We're already at the point where the only way to fix almost any kind of problem with your car is to take it to a mechanic with a $50k diagnostics machine so it can talk to your car's computer and figure out what's wrong, which renders a lot of fixes outside the capabilities of your average Joe. My father-in-law is a mechanic, and sees a decent number of cases in which a car's computer system goes out and basically bricks the car until it can be fixed. I guess I'm not wild about increasing the number of instances in which my car gets bricked for stupid software reasons.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
You're not going to avoid that Jeffe, I mean once upon a time people used to have home phones and you'd have issues with that, now most people have cell phones, no one was really sad that home phone repair went out of style.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I'm not a big fan of technology that, if it fails, makes your car either undrivable or a death trap. If my mirrors fall off? I can look behind me and to my side and see most of what I need to see. If my power steering goes out? Well, I can still use manual steering, it's just tougher. If my cruise control dies, well, I'll just have to use my foot pedal. Fancy stereo fails? Guess I'll just sing my own damned songs.
Robot butler AI fails while it's driving down the freeway at 70 mph and I'm reading a book? Oh, bummer, I'm dead.
Er...have you ever driven a car with the power steering out? If you're going 70 and need to steer you're probably also dead. Those bastards are just barely turntable, you might just be able to keep it straight but forget adjusting or actual evasive maneuvers.
Yeah it's ridiculous how hard non-power steering actually is. If it suddenly fails while driving you're not going to go "oh well, I'll just steer normally."
This is why statistics should be taught in high school. I don't really want to get into this too far, but if 93% of people think that they are above average, that means ~51.5% of them are right, which means your 100% belief is pretty far off.
Well they may be above average but that doesn't mean they still aren't mistaken about how good they are at driving.
Like, I believe that I'm in the top 0,1% of the population with regards to sexual prowess. But the reality is that I'm probably only in the top 1%.
I'm not a big fan of technology that, if it fails, makes your car either undrivable or a death trap. If my mirrors fall off? I can look behind me and to my side and see most of what I need to see. If my power steering goes out? Well, I can still use manual steering, it's just tougher. If my cruise control dies, well, I'll just have to use my foot pedal. Fancy stereo fails? Guess I'll just sing my own damned songs.
Robot butler AI fails while it's driving down the freeway at 70 mph and I'm reading a book? Oh, bummer, I'm dead.
Er...have you ever driven a car with the power steering out? If you're going 70 and need to steer you're probably also dead. Those bastards are just barely turntable, you might just be able to keep it straight but forget adjusting or actual evasive maneuvers.
Yeah it's ridiculous how hard non-power steering actually is. If it suddenly fails while driving you're not going to go "oh well, I'll just steer normally."
This is why statistics should be taught in high school. I don't really want to get into this too far, but if 93% of people think that they are above average, that means ~51.5% of them are right, which means your 100% belief is pretty far off.
Well they may be above average but that doesn't mean they still aren't mistaken about how good they are at driving.
Like, I believe that I'm in the top 0,1% of the population with regards to sexual prowess. But the reality is that I'm probably only in the top 1%.
Well you're definitely in the top 10% for lying.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Well, the advantage of modern smart phones is <insert 253 things here>. Also, cell phones haven't really replaced land lines. to the extent they replaced anything, it was payphones. Which were never something privately owned. Also, the other thirty-seven reasons why the analogy is terrible.
The advantage of robo cars is... potentially better safety, and I can read a book while Jarvis drives me to work? And I guess a decrease in traffic congestion as robots do everything more efficiently, mitigated by an increase in traffic congestion as one of the big incentives to use public transportation (ie, you can do things with your time other than drive) vanishes?
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I don't think the primary motivator for people on public transit is doing things instead of driving. If anything with robo cars public transit would be more efficient same as every other car on the road.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Er...have you ever driven a car with the power steering out? If you're going 70 and need to steer you're probably also dead. Those bastards are just barely turntable, you might just be able to keep it straight but forget adjusting or actual evasive maneuvers.
Yes? It was an older car - like, 80s-older - so maybe things are different now? It was actually much harder to steer without power steering while going slow than while going fast, and virtually impossible when the car was at rest. Overall, it wasn't any harder to steer a car with failed power steering than one which just didn't have it at all, in my experience.
I think the issue is more that if it suddenly happens while you're driving 70 it's no fun. It's a bit silly to be wary of AI because if it fails suddenly in a situation it's dangerous because we already have plenty of things in our car where sudden failure is a pretty big problem.
I feel confidant there would be some sort of law or mandate requiring somebody in the driver seat of an auto driving car that must be ready to take control in the event of some sort of failure.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
I don't think the primary motivator for people on public transit is doing things instead of driving.
It absolutely is for me. I can't speak for other people.
I would rather spend 60m napping or reading a book or doing work than 30m driving through traffic.
Commuting is dead time. It's part of my life that served no purpose that I can never ever get back.
I don't think people on this board would make up the most of people on community transit. From my brief forays on to it, it seemed like for the majority of passengers it was their only way of getting where they wanted to go.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
A camera system is more likely to have issues then your mirror. "Some jackass sideswiping your mirror" is not terribly common. Not without an accompanying sideswiping of alot more of the car.
I completely disagree, honestly, but I am struggling to see how I can argue the point further without just going in circles.
This might be one of those agree-to-disagree moments.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I want the robo-cars from The Sixth Day: computer operated driving that was completely optional and you could turn it off whenever you wanted. I highly doubt we'd jump directly to I, Robot-style 100% automated traffic (with emergency overrides that are more dangerous due to super high speeds) without an intermediate step like that.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
A camera system is more likely to have issues then your mirror. "Some jackass sideswiping your mirror" is not terribly common. Not without an accompanying sideswiping of alot more of the car.
I completely disagree, honestly, but I am struggling to see how I can argue the point further without just going in circles.
This might be one of those agree-to-disagree moments.
I'm really trying to decide just how much more costly it would be. The big issue is I have no ball park for LCD screens. Replacement laptop screens run about $50 though we're talking about something that is both smaller and would need a greater lifespan.
Though really, I'm not sure a $50 dollar part every five years is that silly for a car. I mean, ideally they'd pick a standardized fucking screen dimension, thickness and connector and we'd be talking about millions of these fucking units to drive down piece price. We won't get that of course, we'll get 39 different flavors all stuck behind bezel that require the entire dash to be removed to service.
Hmm....I want some Big Government intervention. "If your car has a screen instead of mirrors the screen must be x, y and z, connect through a ISO-blah blah blah connector and replaceable without proprietary tools."
A fully LCD mirror has so many more points of failure over a normal mirror. The screen could be defective, or the wiring could be shot, or the connected camera is broken, or it's simply not receiving power for whatever reason. A normal mirror just has a variation of the same failure: the mirror is broken. That's relatively simple to fix. An LCD one would be far more labor and cost intensive.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
A fully LCD mirror has so many more points of failure over a normal mirror. The screen could be defective, or the wiring could be shot, or the connected camera is broken, or it's simply not receiving power for whatever reason. A normal mirror just has a variation of the same failure: the mirror is broken. That's relatively simple to fix. An LCD one would be far more labor and cost intensive.
Conversely a LCD screen doesn't need to be angled with user adjustable servo motors. You also don't get to call out wiring then power as separate concerns. Ignoring the fact that if we got rid of everything with wiring in a car you wouldn't be going anywhere at all.
This isn't a discussion about "As good as" because of the optics we all expect that LCD mirror-alike would offer a far superior view than what we're limited to by physics from a flat piece of glass.
If my car had better reflexes then me, knew what it could handle better than me, and had more situational awareness than me, I would absolutely want to read a book while my car drives itself with morons on the road.
I challenge the claim that it has more situational awareness than me. More than the average driver? maybe, sure, why not.
But today on the way to work, i saw the car SUV next to me flip on his rear window wipers in the middle of a sunny day. I'm not sure that the Google car would know that meant he went for his turn signal and missed, but i did. And I backed up to give the guy room, because if he can't find his turn signal, what are the odds he has a good sense of how big that thing he's driving around is? He cuts over, crisis averted.
I would love it if the other morons on the road had one, but i'm not going to be a first adopter.
I am 100% sure that you are not as good of a driver as you think you are.
Because, like, everyone is not as good of a driver as they think they are, and to think that you have more situational awareness than something that would have 360 degrees of visibility and information at all times is crazy people talk.
Your car will never get tired. It will never get sick. It will never have a shitty day at work and be mad. It will never realize it's sunny and fumble around for its sunglasses, taking its eyes off the road.
Will it be able to in one very specific instance tell that someone missed their turn signal? Nah. Will it be able to react, like, a billion times faster than you when the car goes into its lane? Yeah.
To assume that every other driver is a moron and you are driver jesus is pure insanity. The car will be a better driver than you. An AI car will be literally a machine built with no other purpose than to drive really, really well. You are not.
This is why statistics should be taught in high school. I don't really want to get into this too far, but if 93% of people think that they are above average, that means ~51.5% of them are right, which means your 100% belief is pretty far off.
No level of reaction speed is better than prediction.
This is why basic reading should be taught in high school.
"Think they are better than they are"
and
"Think they are above average"
Are, surprisingly, two different things. Yes some of the people who think they are above average drivers are above average drivers. That does not mean that they are as good at driving as they think they are, it just means they are above average. And saying "WELL A MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WHO THINK THEY ARE ABOVE AVERAGE ARE ABOVE AVERAGE" to disprove a super well-documented phenomenon of people thinking they are better at things than they are is really, really, really dumb. Almost as dumb as any statement saying "Sure everyone else might be a terrible driver, but I'm a special snowflake who is the best driver ever", or "No the ability to literally at all times see everything around it pales in comparison to my amazing ability to see a windshield wiper"
And how do you know that an AI won't be able to have some level of prediction? Sure they may not be able to tell that the person randomly deciding to crank their steering wheel all the way to the right was going to do that, but neither would you. Prediction of human behaviours in certain situations isn't, like, an impossible thing. How do you think chess programs work?
With geese like you insisting that robot drivers just cannot be better than lord driver god BSoB, and concerns of "WELL WHAT IF MY CAR GOES ROGUE" causing crazy R+D going into failsafe after failsafe, by the time AI cars are on the road in large-scale commercial availability, they will be so incredibly superior to human drivers.
A fully LCD mirror has so many more points of failure over a normal mirror. The screen could be defective, or the wiring could be shot, or the connected camera is broken, or it's simply not receiving power for whatever reason. A normal mirror just has a variation of the same failure: the mirror is broken. That's relatively simple to fix. An LCD one would be far more labor and cost intensive.
Conversely a LCD screen doesn't need to be angled with user adjustable servo motors. You also don't get to call out wiring then power as separate concerns. Ignoring the fact that if we got rid of everything with wiring in a car you wouldn't be going anywhere at all.
This isn't a discussion about "As good as" because of the optics we all expect that LCD mirror-alike would offer a far superior view than what we're limited to by physics from a flat piece of glass.
Also: Coolness.
The critical question you need to ask after "How cool would this thing totally be?!" is "What happens if/when it fails?".
LCD's as a supplement to mirrors I can absolutely see. Full on replacement? That's going to depend on a bunch of factors. I'm not betting against it, it's just one of those things we'll have to see for ourselves.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
A fully LCD mirror has so many more points of failure over a normal mirror. The screen could be defective, or the wiring could be shot, or the connected camera is broken, or it's simply not receiving power for whatever reason. A normal mirror just has a variation of the same failure: the mirror is broken. That's relatively simple to fix. An LCD one would be far more labor and cost intensive*.
* depending on the car
on some cars, the side mirror assembly can be easily removed from the outside
on others, it requires removing and disassembling the entire door
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
A camera system is more likely to have issues then your mirror. "Some jackass sideswiping your mirror" is not terribly common. Not without an accompanying sideswiping of alot more of the car.
I completely disagree, honestly, but I am struggling to see how I can argue the point further without just going in circles.
This might be one of those agree-to-disagree moments.
I'm really trying to decide just how much more costly it would be. The big issue is I have no ball park for LCD screens. Replacement laptop screens run about $50 though we're talking about something that is both smaller and would need a greater lifespan.
Though really, I'm not sure a $50 dollar part every five years is that silly for a car. I mean, ideally they'd pick a standardized fucking screen dimension, thickness and connector and we'd be talking about millions of these fucking units to drive down piece price. We won't get that of course, we'll get 39 different flavors all stuck behind bezel that require the entire dash to be removed to service.
Hmm....I want some Big Government intervention. "If your car has a screen instead of mirrors the screen must be x, y and z, connect through a ISO-blah blah blah connector and replaceable without proprietary tools."
Never gonna happen.
Adding a backup camera at the factory costs $150 if you don't already have an in-dash LCD, or $50 if you do. (Edit: obviously side cameras would cost a little more, but that gives us a ballpark)
LCD screens have expected lifetimes of 40k hours or higher. If you keep your car on 4 hours a day, that's an expected lifetime of 27 years.
I haven't even been driving for 27 years and I've already had to replace side mirrors on every car I've owned.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
A camera system is more likely to have issues then your mirror. "Some jackass sideswiping your mirror" is not terribly common. Not without an accompanying sideswiping of alot more of the car.
I completely disagree, honestly, but I am struggling to see how I can argue the point further without just going in circles.
This might be one of those agree-to-disagree moments.
I'm really trying to decide just how much more costly it would be. The big issue is I have no ball park for LCD screens. Replacement laptop screens run about $50 though we're talking about something that is both smaller and would need a greater lifespan.
Though really, I'm not sure a $50 dollar part every five years is that silly for a car. I mean, ideally they'd pick a standardized fucking screen dimension, thickness and connector and we'd be talking about millions of these fucking units to drive down piece price. We won't get that of course, we'll get 39 different flavors all stuck behind bezel that require the entire dash to be removed to service.
Hmm....I want some Big Government intervention. "If your car has a screen instead of mirrors the screen must be x, y and z, connect through a ISO-blah blah blah connector and replaceable without proprietary tools."
Never gonna happen.
Adding a backup camera at the factory costs $150 if you don't already have an in-dash LCD, or $50 if you do. (Edit: obviously side cameras would cost a little more, but that gives us a ballpark)
LCD screens have expected lifetimes of 40k hours or higher. If you keep your car on 4 hours a day, that's an expected lifetime of 27 years.
I haven't even been driving for 27 years and I've already had to replace side mirrors on every car I've owned.
Well for those of us who don't live in california...
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Er...have you ever driven a car with the power steering out? If you're going 70 and need to steer you're probably also dead. Those bastards are just barely turntable, you might just be able to keep it straight but forget adjusting or actual evasive maneuvers.
Yes? It was an older car - like, 80s-older - so maybe things are different now? It was actually much harder to steer without power steering while going slow than while going fast, and virtually impossible when the car was at rest. Overall, it wasn't any harder to steer a car with failed power steering than one which just didn't have it at all, in my experience.
I think the issue is more that if it suddenly happens while you're driving 70 it's no fun. It's a bit silly to be wary of AI because if it fails suddenly in a situation it's dangerous because we already have plenty of things in our car where sudden failure is a pretty big problem.
If it happens suddenly at 70 you might not even notice until you slow down.
I drove around without power steering for almost a month and basically the faster you're going the easier it is to deal with. You don't even really notice it on the interstate. When going slow or god forbid trying to turn the wheel at a stop? You absolutely notice it, at a dead stop it's almost impossible to even do. But going 70 the adjustments you're making are small enough and spread over such distance that you don't really notice it at all.
Now if you instantly had to crank your wheel 90 degrees you might have a problem but cranking your wheel like that while going 70 is kind of a terrible idea in the first place.
Hey, @Khavall and @BSoB, please stop dicking up the thread with your silly spat.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
the problem with any kind of 'computer assisted driving' or whatever setup is that roads have to accomodate a wide variety of traffic; Minority Report-style superhighways are cool looking, but in reality it's tough to get there because you can't just change out your entire consumer car fleet at the same time.
I've always thought a good solution would be some type of 'assist lane' on the freeway; you could merge in and then let some type of central coordination govern all the vehicles in that lane. But even something like that would be a big up-front investment.
...why assume the infrastructure has to change?
I guess it seems obvious to me that it would?
I dunno, I guess it depends on what we're imagining when we think of automatically-driven cars, but I usually think of a level of automation/density that would be incompatible with random human drivers
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
the problem with any kind of 'computer assisted driving' or whatever setup is that roads have to accomodate a wide variety of traffic; Minority Report-style superhighways are cool looking, but in reality it's tough to get there because you can't just change out your entire consumer car fleet at the same time.
I've always thought a good solution would be some type of 'assist lane' on the freeway; you could merge in and then let some type of central coordination govern all the vehicles in that lane. But even something like that would be a big up-front investment.
...why assume the infrastructure has to change?
I guess it seems obvious to me that it would?
I dunno, I guess it depends on what we're imagining when we think of automatically-driven cars, but I usually think of a level of automation/density that would be incompatible with random human drivers
Google self-driving cars are on the roads today in California and Nevada. The ultrasound emitter is ugly as sin, and it can only navigate a route that has been driven manually once (great for commuters, bad for taxis), but they work and they're safe. The only accidents that have occurred with Google self-driving cars happened while a human was in control.
And if you're going for partial automation, like adaptive cruise control, then there's a point where if a large minority are all using similar technology, then a lot of the 'pressure wave' and irregular braking of traffic gets smoothed out, and traffic flows more smoothly for everybody.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the problem with any kind of 'computer assisted driving' or whatever setup is that roads have to accomodate a wide variety of traffic; Minority Report-style superhighways are cool looking, but in reality it's tough to get there because you can't just change out your entire consumer car fleet at the same time.
I've always thought a good solution would be some type of 'assist lane' on the freeway; you could merge in and then let some type of central coordination govern all the vehicles in that lane. But even something like that would be a big up-front investment.
...why assume the infrastructure has to change?
I guess it seems obvious to me that it would?
I dunno, I guess it depends on what we're imagining when we think of automatically-driven cars, but I usually think of a level of automation/density that would be incompatible with random human drivers
Google self-driving cars are on the roads today in California and Nevada. The ultrasound emitter is ugly as sin, and it can only navigate a route that has been driven manually once (great for commuters, bad for taxis), but they work and they're safe. The only accidents that have occurred with Google self-driving cars happened while a human was in control.
And if you're going for partial automation, like adaptive cruise control, then there's a point where if a large minority are all using similar technology, then a lot of the 'pressure wave' and irregular braking of traffic gets smoothed out, and traffic flows more smoothly for everybody.
I think one while driving automatically was also rear-ended at a red light back in 2011.
So 1 accident while there wasn't a human driver, where the car was just clearly stopped at a red light.
+1
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
the problem with any kind of 'computer assisted driving' or whatever setup is that roads have to accomodate a wide variety of traffic; Minority Report-style superhighways are cool looking, but in reality it's tough to get there because you can't just change out your entire consumer car fleet at the same time.
I've always thought a good solution would be some type of 'assist lane' on the freeway; you could merge in and then let some type of central coordination govern all the vehicles in that lane. But even something like that would be a big up-front investment.
...why assume the infrastructure has to change?
I guess it seems obvious to me that it would?
I dunno, I guess it depends on what we're imagining when we think of automatically-driven cars, but I usually think of a level of automation/density that would be incompatible with random human drivers
Google self-driving cars are on the roads today in California and Nevada. The ultrasound emitter is ugly as sin, and it can only navigate a route that has been driven manually once (great for commuters, bad for taxis), but they work and they're safe. The only accidents that have occurred with Google self-driving cars happened while a human was in control.
And if you're going for partial automation, like adaptive cruise control, then there's a point where if a large minority are all using similar technology, then a lot of the 'pressure wave' and irregular braking of traffic gets smoothed out, and traffic flows more smoothly for everybody.
I can't remember where I read it, but I once saw a thing that said that "pressure wave" traveled at about 20 mph.
Gotta love California. I just saw someone with a CDL application printed in Spanish. By law, commercial drivers are required to be conversant and literate in English.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
Posts
or just a larger panel on which multiple images are displayed
those cars have side mirrors (in the US) because the US federal government requires it.
I agree that the regulatory hurdles are a challenge. I don't agree that there are technological challenges. This is technologically simple. It's just convincing bureaucrats that you can do this without the sky falling.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Do you have 360-degree ultrasound that accurately detects the size, position, and velocity of everything around you in a 200 foot radius?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Trick question; Feral is actually trying to reveal Daredevil's secret identity.
I've always thought a good solution would be some type of 'assist lane' on the freeway; you could merge in and then let some type of central coordination govern all the vehicles in that lane. But even something like that would be a big up-front investment.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
...why assume the infrastructure has to change?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Yes? It was an older car - like, 80s-older - so maybe things are different now? It was actually much harder to steer without power steering while going slow than while going fast, and virtually impossible when the car was at rest. Overall, it wasn't any harder to steer a car with failed power steering than one which just didn't have it at all, in my experience.
A camera system is more likely to have issues then your mirror. "Some jackass sideswiping your mirror" is not terribly common. Not without an accompanying sideswiping of alot more of the car.
My focus was: I am wary of cars becoming increasingly tied to fancier things that, when they fail, completely incapacitate the car. Like, once upon a time, there's a problem with my transmission? I hear a weird noise and I take it to the mechanic when I have a chance. My muffler is shot? My car is really noisy and I take it to the mechanic when I have a chance. Small things, I might even be able to fix it myself.
So what happens if my hi-tech automatic robo car gets a bug in the firmware? Okay, it doesn't kill me, that's nice. But if we're talking a system in which the outcome of a sizeable problem might be death the best failsafe is to just render the car inoperable. So now the smallish problem lands me without a car. Yay, progress?
We're already at the point where the only way to fix almost any kind of problem with your car is to take it to a mechanic with a $50k diagnostics machine so it can talk to your car's computer and figure out what's wrong, which renders a lot of fixes outside the capabilities of your average Joe. My father-in-law is a mechanic, and sees a decent number of cases in which a car's computer system goes out and basically bricks the car until it can be fixed. I guess I'm not wild about increasing the number of instances in which my car gets bricked for stupid software reasons.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Yeah it's ridiculous how hard non-power steering actually is. If it suddenly fails while driving you're not going to go "oh well, I'll just steer normally."
Well they may be above average but that doesn't mean they still aren't mistaken about how good they are at driving.
Like, I believe that I'm in the top 0,1% of the population with regards to sexual prowess. But the reality is that I'm probably only in the top 1%.
Well you're definitely in the top 10% for lying.
pleasepaypreacher.net
The advantage of robo cars is... potentially better safety, and I can read a book while Jarvis drives me to work? And I guess a decrease in traffic congestion as robots do everything more efficiently, mitigated by an increase in traffic congestion as one of the big incentives to use public transportation (ie, you can do things with your time other than drive) vanishes?
pleasepaypreacher.net
I think the issue is more that if it suddenly happens while you're driving 70 it's no fun. It's a bit silly to be wary of AI because if it fails suddenly in a situation it's dangerous because we already have plenty of things in our car where sudden failure is a pretty big problem.
It absolutely is for me. I can't speak for other people.
I would rather spend 60m napping or reading a book or doing work than 30m driving through traffic.
Commuting is dead time. It's part of my life that served no purpose that I can never ever get back.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I don't think people on this board would make up the most of people on community transit. From my brief forays on to it, it seemed like for the majority of passengers it was their only way of getting where they wanted to go.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I completely disagree, honestly, but I am struggling to see how I can argue the point further without just going in circles.
This might be one of those agree-to-disagree moments.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I'm really trying to decide just how much more costly it would be. The big issue is I have no ball park for LCD screens. Replacement laptop screens run about $50 though we're talking about something that is both smaller and would need a greater lifespan.
Though really, I'm not sure a $50 dollar part every five years is that silly for a car. I mean, ideally they'd pick a standardized fucking screen dimension, thickness and connector and we'd be talking about millions of these fucking units to drive down piece price. We won't get that of course, we'll get 39 different flavors all stuck behind bezel that require the entire dash to be removed to service.
Hmm....I want some Big Government intervention. "If your car has a screen instead of mirrors the screen must be x, y and z, connect through a ISO-blah blah blah connector and replaceable without proprietary tools."
Never gonna happen.
Conversely a LCD screen doesn't need to be angled with user adjustable servo motors. You also don't get to call out wiring then power as separate concerns. Ignoring the fact that if we got rid of everything with wiring in a car you wouldn't be going anywhere at all.
This isn't a discussion about "As good as" because of the optics we all expect that LCD mirror-alike would offer a far superior view than what we're limited to by physics from a flat piece of glass.
Also: Coolness.
This is why basic reading should be taught in high school.
"Think they are better than they are"
and
"Think they are above average"
Are, surprisingly, two different things. Yes some of the people who think they are above average drivers are above average drivers. That does not mean that they are as good at driving as they think they are, it just means they are above average. And saying "WELL A MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WHO THINK THEY ARE ABOVE AVERAGE ARE ABOVE AVERAGE" to disprove a super well-documented phenomenon of people thinking they are better at things than they are is really, really, really dumb. Almost as dumb as any statement saying "Sure everyone else might be a terrible driver, but I'm a special snowflake who is the best driver ever", or "No the ability to literally at all times see everything around it pales in comparison to my amazing ability to see a windshield wiper"
And how do you know that an AI won't be able to have some level of prediction? Sure they may not be able to tell that the person randomly deciding to crank their steering wheel all the way to the right was going to do that, but neither would you. Prediction of human behaviours in certain situations isn't, like, an impossible thing. How do you think chess programs work?
With geese like you insisting that robot drivers just cannot be better than lord driver god BSoB, and concerns of "WELL WHAT IF MY CAR GOES ROGUE" causing crazy R+D going into failsafe after failsafe, by the time AI cars are on the road in large-scale commercial availability, they will be so incredibly superior to human drivers.
The critical question you need to ask after "How cool would this thing totally be?!" is "What happens if/when it fails?".
LCD's as a supplement to mirrors I can absolutely see. Full on replacement? That's going to depend on a bunch of factors. I'm not betting against it, it's just one of those things we'll have to see for ourselves.
Robo car has a fault on the road and crashes into somebody, causing a fatality. Who is to blame?
There are valid, compelling arguments to be made on all sides of that can of worms. But you're still going to have to answer it.
* depending on the car
on some cars, the side mirror assembly can be easily removed from the outside
on others, it requires removing and disassembling the entire door
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Adding a backup camera at the factory costs $150 if you don't already have an in-dash LCD, or $50 if you do. (Edit: obviously side cameras would cost a little more, but that gives us a ballpark)
LCD screens have expected lifetimes of 40k hours or higher. If you keep your car on 4 hours a day, that's an expected lifetime of 27 years.
I haven't even been driving for 27 years and I've already had to replace side mirrors on every car I've owned.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Well for those of us who don't live in california...
pleasepaypreacher.net
Ok, when we hit the deer it took out the mirror on it's way by. So ... once.
WTF are you doing with your car mirrors?
If it happens suddenly at 70 you might not even notice until you slow down.
I drove around without power steering for almost a month and basically the faster you're going the easier it is to deal with. You don't even really notice it on the interstate. When going slow or god forbid trying to turn the wheel at a stop? You absolutely notice it, at a dead stop it's almost impossible to even do. But going 70 the adjustments you're making are small enough and spread over such distance that you don't really notice it at all.
Now if you instantly had to crank your wheel 90 degrees you might have a problem but cranking your wheel like that while going 70 is kind of a terrible idea in the first place.
Well you know how cats have whiskers? In california that's what your car mirrors are like.
pleasepaypreacher.net
yep, that's how i know it's safe to lanesplit in my jetta
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I guess it seems obvious to me that it would?
I dunno, I guess it depends on what we're imagining when we think of automatically-driven cars, but I usually think of a level of automation/density that would be incompatible with random human drivers
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Google self-driving cars are on the roads today in California and Nevada. The ultrasound emitter is ugly as sin, and it can only navigate a route that has been driven manually once (great for commuters, bad for taxis), but they work and they're safe. The only accidents that have occurred with Google self-driving cars happened while a human was in control.
And if you're going for partial automation, like adaptive cruise control, then there's a point where if a large minority are all using similar technology, then a lot of the 'pressure wave' and irregular braking of traffic gets smoothed out, and traffic flows more smoothly for everybody.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I think one while driving automatically was also rear-ended at a red light back in 2011.
So 1 accident while there wasn't a human driver, where the car was just clearly stopped at a red light.
I can't remember where I read it, but I once saw a thing that said that "pressure wave" traveled at about 20 mph.
- John Stuart Mill