Man too stupid to even drive a car gets Darwin Award

[gnorwebthgimi]

The more people are exploited by working from home, which means employers don't even have to invest in a fucking dismal little shitty workstation in an office, the more the self driving car is propagated "to make commuting less tedious". It doesn't really take a conspiracy theorist to figure out the conspiracy behind this.

I don't follow the logicin what you said. Are you able to break this down a bit for me?

[cros]

A Dutch friend and his wife were on their Yamaha at night when a vehicle overtook so close that her leg was severed completely. The subsequent investigation revealed that the driver had been knocking one out at the time and had failed to notice the motorcycle. The Tesla's electronics help to avoid this type of accident and is a good choice for wankers.

[Pillock]

The more people are exploited by working from home, which means employers don't even have to invest in a fucking dismal little shitty workstation in an office, the more the self driving car is propagated "to make commuting less tedious". It doesn't really take a conspiracy theorist to figure out the conspiracy behind this.

 

You've lost me.

 

People are "exploited" by working from home - that sounds bad

"dismal little shitty workstation" - that sounds bad too.

 

Are you for or against working from home?

 

And if we're working from home, how are self driving cars being propogated? 

Maybe it does take a conspiracy theorist to figure it out, because I've got no clue what you're on about!

[Pillock]

Never underestimate the stupidity of people.  As far as I'm concerned I want unfettered mechanical linkages between the steering wheel/brake pedal and the car.  

 

But then you're trusting people (who we accept are stupid) to make appropriate gestures with the controls.

Computers are capable of making faster decisions, but cannot cope with all eventualities. But neither can humans, this is why they crash stuff.

 

I don't think self driving cars need to be perfect, they just need to be better than an average human driven car. The trouble is then all humans think they're good drivers, so will switch it off because they're better than the computer when in fact 50% of people are below average in driving skill. 

If self driven cars kill or injure one less person than human driven cars per year, then it's a success. 

[cros]

But then you're trusting people (who we accept are stupid) to make appropriate gestures with the controls.

Computers are capable of making faster decisions, but cannot cope with all eventualities. But neither can humans, this is why they crash stuff.

 

I don't think self driving cars need to be perfect, they just need to be better than an average human driven car. The trouble is then all humans think they're good drivers, so will switch it off because they're better than the computer when in fact 50% of people are below average in driving skill. 

If self driven cars kill or injure one less person than human driven cars per year, then it's a success.

 

No it's not. I appreciate the point you're making but there is a downside to creating a situation in which responsibility and need for judgement is removed.

[cros]

Never underestimate the stupidity of people.  As far as I'm concerned I want unfettered mechanical linkages between the steering wheel/brake pedal and the car.

 

You'll be looking at an Austin 16 if you want a decent drive. FX3 taxi also had a good all mechanical braking system. Much better than you'd think. (Apologies if you've tried one)

[Pillock]

No it's not. I appreciate the point you're making but there is a downside to creating a situation in which responsibility and need for judgement is removed.

 

If computer driven cars can kill less people than human driven cars, then that's good. You will never have "no accidents" as long as there are heavy metal objects being propelled around in close proximity to squishy humans. 

 

Part of the problem is that through drink or drugs, or lack of experience, some people don't have the good judgement needed to drive a car well, so you have to make a call of "will this computer be able to drive better than this person". In some cases yes, in others no. I don't know whether a computer would be better than me, I've got a 100% clean accident record but I spend a lot of time on the road and occasionally do stuff that makes me go "ooooh, that could have gone badly". 

 

Responsibility is a different matter entirely, and I have no idea how that will pan out - the Tesla case will be interesting. I notice Adrian Flux are also offering insurance for self driving cars (which is 100% PR bullshit until we get the things, but it's at least on their minds) but if I'm sat, not touching a wheel, but there is a wheel in front of me to be touched and the car crashes - am I to blame? The car maker? The person who wrote that particular bit of code that made it crash? 

 

The Google cars have had 13 accidents in nearly 2 million miles - that seems pretty safe. Their reports show that the self driving cars haven't been at fault in any of them, and had the other cars involved been self driving too the accidents wouldn't have happened - things like rear-enders, merging into lanes where a car already exists - http://www.google.com/selfdrivingcar/reports/

 

BUT - they're being used in a lot of urban environments with nice clear signposts, marked lanes etc. Be interesting to see how that translates to a winding country road in Devon, splattered with mud off a tractor, no white lines and faded signposts.

[Tamworthbay]

As far as the insurance are concerned it will be the insured person who is 'at fault', whether that person can then sue for damages is something that American lawyers will be wapping one off to. Insurance in this country is very black and white, as an example, my wife was hit in a car park a couple of years back, the other lady immediately admitted liability (my wife wasn't in the car so not a difficult one really) but as a far as insurance is concerned it's me that has a claim against my insurance even though I was miles away. It doesn't make a difference but that's how it works.

[gnorwebthgimi]

But then you're trusting people (who we accept are stupid) to make appropriate gestures with the controls.

Computers are capable of making faster decisions, but cannot cope with all eventualities. But neither can humans, this is why they crash stuff.

 

I don't think self driving cars need to be perfect, they just need to be better than an average human driven car. The trouble is then all humans think they're good drivers, so will switch it off because they're better than the computer when in fact 50% of people are below average in driving skill.

If self driven cars kill or injure one less person than human driven cars per year, then it's a success.

I don't agree with the "if you save one life it's worth it" mentality. There are costs and other considerations. There is a connotation in what you have said that people should be made to give up driving because it is safer, which I will personally and gladly fight against because driving is fun. If automated driving is just an aide and manual override can be kicked in at any time then I believe that the standard of human driving will suffer as it will be a skill that isn't practiced. If human driving isn't good enough now why aren't annual competency tests required to reinforce driving standards? Lastly, technically most drivers are worse than average. Average, median and mode are different things.

[gnorwebthgimi]

But then you're trusting people (who we accept are stupid) to make appropriate gestures with the controls.

Computers are capable of making faster decisions, but cannot cope with all eventualities. But neither can humans, this is why they crash stuff.

 

I don't think self driving cars need to be perfect, they just need to be better than an average human driven car. The trouble is then all humans think they're good drivers, so will switch it off because they're better than the computer when in fact 50% of people are below average in driving skill.

If self driven cars kill or injure one less person than human driven cars per year, then it's a success.

I don't agree with the "if you save one life it's worth it" mentality. There are costs and other considerations. There is a connotation in what you have said that people should be made to give up driving because it is safer, which I will personally and gladly fight against because driving is fun. If automated driving is just an aide and manual override can be kicked in at any time then I believe that the standard of human driving will suffer as it will be a skill that isn't practiced. If human driving isn't good enough now why aren't annual competency tests required to reinforce driving standards? Lastly, technically most drivers are worse than average. Average, median and mode are different things.

[Felly Magic]

All it takes is one cleaver hacker, and then we have one very big problem. There is now too much technology in cars, and it's making your average motorist bone idle and pay nowhere near as much attention as they should. You do not need an internet/wifi connection in your car

[Pillock]

I don't agree with the "if you save one life it's worth it" mentality. There are costs and other considerations. There is a connotation in what you have said that people should be made to give up driving because it is safer, which I will personally and gladly fight against because driving is fun. If automated driving is just an aide and manual override can be kicked in at any time then I believe that the standard of human driving will suffer as it will be a skill that isn't practiced. If human driving isn't good enough now why aren't annual competency tests required to reinforce driving standards? Lastly, technically most drivers are worse than average. Average, median and mode are different things.

 

Are there costs and considerations? In the US Google trials, the cars have been designed to work with existing road infrastructure - no extra signs, no sensors, nothing. The cost is the car. 

I never said people should be made to give up driving - I also find it fun, and often would prefer to drive myself. However I can see the benefit of having a cruise-control style button for the dreary motorway drives, where you're far more likely to lose concentration. End of a day in the office, sit in the drivers seat, hit a button and it takes you home. There'd be no colliding with cars in your blind spot when changing lanes, there'd be no missing the car in front's brake lights and rear-ending them, all those driver error issues would be resolved. And then you go for a drive on a Sunday, music on, windows down, driving manually.

 

You've got to remember we're all car enthusiasts. What about Tina, the hairdresser, who sees the car as a necessary part of getting to work but isn't interested in the fun side of driving. Maybe she'd appreciate the help, the safety aspect, something driving with more care and attention that she does.

 

I would argue for more frequent testing of driving standards, but that's another matter entirely.  

 

You do not need an internet/wifi connection in your car

 

I do, for music, traffic, address searching and tracking.

[Eddie Honda]

What about Tina, the hairdresser, who sees the car as a necessary part of getting to work but isn't interested in the fun side of driving. Maybe she'd appreciate the help, the safety aspect, something driving with more care and attention that she does.

That's a bad eggsample, hairdressers are interested in the fun side of driving, that's why there are so many hairdressers cars on the market - they sell.

[Pillock]

I overheard the lass who cuts my hair on the phone to her dad about her car making a funny noise. She couldn't even tell him what make it was but did attempt to describe what the badge looked like (I'm guessing Renault, it was a "squishy square"). I'm going to suggest she doesn't give a shit about driving enjoyment.

[Jim Bell]

Batts!!!!

[gnorwebthgimi]

Don't get me wrong I like cruise control and I see your upside potential of new technology taking away some hassle. I'm just being sceptical and I appreciate being able to bounce ideas around on here. My main concerns are: 1. if automated/computer assisted driving is deemed to be safer then won't manual driving be either higher insurance (possibly making it prohibitively expensive) or worse at some point banned. 2. If people rely on automated driving aides won't their skills suffer if they hardly ever use them 3. Will automated or assisted driving need tracking devices in your car? (To be fair we aren't far off this level of self Imposed stasi regime). 4. How much maintenance will this new technology need to keep it safe.