|
That is true but experience tells me that if the traffic is better more people will take their cars instead of the public transports.
On top of the traffic jams you also have the parking issues that won't be solved even if your car is smart enough to drop you and go park itself.
So still I think that no major issue will be solved with self-driving cars.
|
|
|
|
|
I could tell it to go park itself at home, or any place within 5 miles or so. When I want it to come pick me up, it's only a smartphone message away...
|
|
|
|
|
That's a good idea but if everyone did it, it would cause even more traffic 
Again, it's geek but, in my opinion, doesn't solve any of the big city traffic problems.
|
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't say "for no reason". While there isn't an obvious one to see, there are probably more cars on the road than it should be able to handle. If you take into account that you need (or want) 2 seconds of time between each car and some people react faster than others. I'd say if every car and every driver would react exactly the same way there wouldn't be a traffic jam in this case. But as humans aren't flawless only computers could provide that.
If you're in a traffic jam yourself it's usually better to keep your car rolling slowly as the cars behind you are very likely to do the same, thus bringing back some kind of flow back.
Having "smart" cars that coordinate themselves to use various routes to improve the road usage would probably also help but it isn't necessarily the thing that has the biggest impact.
|
|
|
|
|
AlexCode wrote: There's also the pleasure of driving...
I could not have said it better. If it wasn't fun, there would only need to be 2 or 3 car models at most to suite all needs.
Now if I could just afford a few more models myself 
Hogan
|
|
|
|
|
AlexCode wrote: We already jump inside self driving aeroplanes
I don't think that's a valid comparison. The environment is completely different: Airplanes are flying in larger distances from one another than cars are driving from one another (even when accounting the higher speed) and airplanes fly on different altitudes. Also there are no obstacles in air-traffic (a pilot wouldn't engage autopilot when flying near ground or mountains). In consequence an autopilot-software of an airplane has sufficient time to alert the pilot to take over. The only option for an autopilot-software in a car to deal with something unforeseen would be a full braking which might or might not be a good solution.
- Sebastian
|
|
|
|
|
manchanx wrote: The only option for an autopilot-software in a car to deal with something unforeseen would be a full braking which might or might not be a good solution.
Not necessarily; a good driver can also accelerate out of danger.
I agree that building driverless cars is a non-trivial task, but I also believe that in the long run - they will be safer than manual driving. That does not mean that accidents will disappear; only that they will become rarer.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: Not necessarily; a good driver can also accelerate out of danger.
But what would be the point of a self-driving car if you'd be required to be ready to take over from the autopilot in a split second? I can't imagine that being more relaxing than driving myself, rather the contrary.
|
|
|
|
|
I expressed myself poorly. I meant that the software could be taught to accelarate just as easily as it could be taught to brake.
Now that I think of it, this part would actually be easier to program than crash avoidance in an aircraft - only 2 dimensions to play with...
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
True, but it's also true that you're nowhere to be saved in case of accident or technical error.
In a car, and as everyone is stating above, self-driving will be slow and clearly under the speed limits on which most cars protect its occupants pretty well.
I fully agree that planes have less variables to take in consideration but for most people the perception is that flying is more "dangerous" than driving, even though statistics point clearly otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
Devices are being sent to market with Beta software on the device, watch with a tiny bug is not a big deal sending a software update OK (or what we have come to expect).
Time to ship in a competitive industry will always be driven down as much as possible.
http://doubin.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Modern cars (and aircraft) already include a lot of "drive (fly) by wire" technology, which can go horribly wrong (see Toyota's braking issues, a few years back). While bad software has the potential to cause crashes, it also has the potential to reduce them - no more drunken driving, for example.
On the whole, trying to improve software is much easier (and much less frustrating) than trying to improve people.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, we are going to improve the software, meanwhile they hopefully scrape our remains off that tree the software smacked us against.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
|
|
|
|
|
And how does this differ from the results of car accidents caused by human driver error?
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
The results are the same. I just have more confidence in a driver's abilities than in a mindless machine.
At the moment I'm looking at the firmware for the control module of a model helicopter. It's open source, a real little autopilot. Last summer I lost one of the servos at the swashplate while I was flying. The result usually is a crash. My improvised reaction prevented that and then I even managed to land it. A rough landing, but one without any further damage. Most important of all, no people were in danger of being hit by a crashing heli out of control.
Now, how shall I teach the firmware of the autopilot to detect the loss of any one of the three servos and perform a controlled landing with the broken servo frozen in its last position and a totally different model of control?
As it is now, the program will try to compensate and not take into account that one servo is gone. Or I can keep on flying myself, which is a lot more fun.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
|
|
|
|
|
CDP1802 wrote: I just have more confidence in a driver's abilities than in a mindless machine.
A mindless machine has some advantages - it never gets tired, drunk, or distracted.
I agree that the current state of the art is inadequate for driverless cars. Where we appear to disagree is on whether the state of the art will ever advance sufficiently.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Personally, I think I would approach the problem with some kind of evolved (GA) neural network, with the initial training (both good and bad results - you have to do both) done inside a simulator. Once the initial training is done, you could probably then continue training using a real machine with methods to fake the issues. With enough training (and constant update during regular flight), the system likely could even recover somewhat gracefully with a problem it hadn't seen before (with the exception of a complete and total failure of all systems - not even a human can recover from that).
|
|
|
|
|
I love evolutional algorithms, but they have the devilish habit tp follow your directives to the letter and still do all kinds of things you never intended.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
|
|
|
|
|
be drip-fed intead of eating?
Geek code v 3.12
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- r++>+++ y+++*
Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
... it is from Apple, it probably won't let me in and I'd have to walk behind.
If it is from Microsoft, I would wait till version 3+.
|
|
|
|
|
You missed Google: it rides a detour (while it knows your shopping because of your smartphone position) to update the maps database. 
Press F1 for help or google it.
Greetings from Germany
|
|
|
|
|
Because it will be tested extremely carefully, and let's be honest here:
1) The testing will be a lot, lot more careful and rigorous than the testing given to teenagers before they are allowed on the road.
2) Even a computer with no IQ or common sense is going to be a better driver than 90% of the idiots already on the road.
I mean, come on! Never mind people driving while on their mobile / cell, or texting: I've seen people reading the paper while driving in heavy traffic; searching in the glove box for the right CD; so drunk they can't stand up unaided; once I saw someone with his laptop open on his dashboard, typing away and steering with his elbows!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Well, might be better if those other drivers would try self-driving cars first. 
|
|
|
|
|
Oh come on! Most geeks are early adopters!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Most geeks are early adopters
I guess I just lost any hope of becoming a geek.
I always wait for others (early adopters as you called them) to take the first bullet. Or three.
Saves lots of time, expense, and it extreme cases, getting in line for two days for the latest Apple phone which has a massive improvement over the last: they gave it a new and higher number!
Or perhaps I'm a new improved version of geek: having learned from observation I find waiting for something that actually works supplies that satisfying thrill (in this case, because I didn't buy something that either needed six upgrades or was beta-max'd off of life's shelf)
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
