Rise of the Machines

**Dave-** · 29th October 2016, 17:27

Originally Posted by Grumph

Saw a side effect of driverless vehicles mentioned on another forum by a guy who should know...

They're already using robot trucks underground in Aussie mines. They've turned out to be harder on the roadbeds...
The guidance systems are so accurate that they all follow exactly the same path. Human drivers typically are within about a meter each time round.

They found the same thing with automated plane landing, they had to add a bounded random number to the target landing spot.

Originally Posted by Akzle

or build roads proper...?

Build roads that don't wear out? Fuck, I bet no one has thought of that before!

**jonbuoy** · 30th October 2016, 05:29

Originally Posted by cassina

They will be unaffordable by most people for many years so you will be waiting a long time for deaths to drop in a big way. Road deaths will likely increase for a while as the technology is in its infancy. I hope ACC does not put premiums up for everyone else as a result of crashes caused by driverless cars.

None of the sensors or computers are massively expensive in the grand scheme of things. It's going to be driver assist for a while yet. It won't take long for the results to be felt. A car that won't let you pull out in front of someone or go into the back of someone will go a long way to reducing deaths. The anti rear end technology is already pretty common on high end cars. It won't be long before it's mandatory.

**Akzle** · 30th October 2016, 06:02

Originally Posted by Dave-

Build roads that don't wear out? Fuck, I bet no one has thought of that before!

better*. would be a good start.
the foot of base under the inch of bitch just doesn't really cut it for trucks hauling 50t

a pair of parrallel high carbon steel rails seems to last a whiley, too...

**Akzle** · 30th October 2016, 06:13

Originally Posted by jonbuoy

The anti rear end technology is already pretty common on high end cars. It won't be long before it's mandatory.

a shame they dont instead mandatorise not driving into shit.Most people manage, most of the time...

**Maha** · 30th October 2016, 06:29

Originally Posted by Akzle

a shame they dont instead mandatorise not driving into shit.Most people manage, most of the time...

Originally Posted by Madness

Serious question; Does this kind of post ^^^ make sense to you in your head when you type it?

As your shearing buddy once asked.

**Voltaire** · 30th October 2016, 07:50

I expect we will need a "Model T" equivalent to kick it off much like what happened in the US over about 10-20 years with the horse which had been around for some years.

As someone who only buys vehicles when they are 10 years old plus I'll have to wait a while

**R650R** · 30th October 2016, 19:07

Originally Posted by spanner spinner

....less maintance, no wages to pay and the computor dosen't have a maxium amount of hours it can drive. Buy a couple of extra trailers so you can pre load them and you can run the rig 24/7, more cost efective and you can move more freight with less tractor units....

How does owning more capital equipment equal less maintainance cost???? The freight wont load and unload itself either. Many current general freight operations rely on human skill and experience to 'cube out' a trailer to its maximum payload. The side issues here too are customer service in making sure all freight is shipped and undamaged. You could write a computer program for a robot forklift to load freight but here are many intangible variable and creative solutions to making freight fit....

The big wild card though is the price of commercial real estate which is why we have just in time manufacturing and transport operations. Its the reason why we cant have everything on rail 'like the old days' as storage costs are often higher than actually sending something somewhere. To have extra trailers you need extra space to park them and also loading unloading.

And how will these self drive vehicles cope with storms and natural disasters, minor and major.
And down the track just imagine once the wild life realises the machines will brake for them.... Imagine the point of evolution where a feral cow knows it can wander onto the roadway and nap in front of a roadtrain getting free winter heat of its idling engine as it wait for the cow to move on.... ohh hang on sounds like driving through remuera.... lol

**R650R** · 30th October 2016, 19:15

Originally Posted by onearmedbandit

I believe it was Mercedes who the other day answered in a round about way the question about the 'moral dilemma' manufacturers face regarding who the software chooses to kill, the driver or the innocent pedestrian etc. They said that their software would be programmed to protect the occupants first and foremost. This I can understand. If I was a CEO and was considering which luxury car I was going to buy, I'd want the one that chooses to save me, not kill me. Simple really. Morally ethical? Don't know, but it makes sense.

Yes and also the legal imnplication. Imagine the lawsuits if a customer buys a product and his safety is secondary to mere strangers.
Just look at trains and we have our answer already. The train is big heavy and cant stop easy. It can kill many people if the many people choose to get their tour bus in the way of the train. So do we have pre placed explosiuve charges to blow a train of its own tracks if a tour bus gets stuck on crossing... no its just hard luck for those in the way of the systems preffered mode of transport.
Same with shipping and pleasure craft boats/swimmers.

**jonbuoy** · 30th October 2016, 21:08

Originally Posted by Akzle

a shame they dont instead mandatorise not driving into shit.Most people manage, most of the time...

I'm pretty sure it is already mandatory not to drive into the back of someone. If 28% of accidents are rear end collisions it will make a huge difference. Especially to bikes.

With autonomous cars comes the end of an era for speeding, traffic violations and more than likely individual car ownership over the next 50 -100 years. Human piloted cars will be around for a while yet but it won't be long before they are deemed to dangerous.

**R650R** · 31st October 2016, 11:55

Originally Posted by jonbuoy

I'm pretty sure it is already mandatory not to drive into the back of someone. If 28% of accidents are rear end collisions it will make a huge difference. Especially to bikes.

Your allowed to, you just get a fine for failing to stop in time, $150. I've been hit twice but haven't decided to drive into someone else just yet

**onearmedbandit** · 31st October 2016, 12:18

Leaked footage of the new software doing its thing...

I think some work is still needed, as it hit the people but then tried to kill the driver by aiming for the wall.

**Akzle** · 31st October 2016, 15:36

Originally Posted by jonbuoy

I'm pretty sure it is already mandatory not to drive into the back of someone. If 28% of accidents are rear end collisions it will make a huge difference. Especially to bikes.

WHATTTTTTT!?!?!?!!? you mean people infringe legislation by failing to stop short?!?!?! how dare they! the police should do something. shirley.

**Banditbandit** · 31st October 2016, 15:47

Originally Posted by Akzle

WHATTTTTTT!?!?!?!!? you mean people infringe legislation by failing to stop short?!?!?! how dare they! the police should do something. shirley.

I'm wondering what an ACT MP has to do with anything?

**george formby** · 31st October 2016, 17:21

Originally Posted by jonbuoy

With autonomous cars comes the end of an era for speeding, traffic violations and more than likely individual car ownership over the next 50 -100 years. Human piloted cars will be around for a while yet but it won't be long before they are deemed to dangerous.

Now that's a point. As the self drive fleet increases the Police Christmas fund will get less and less.