Driverless Cars.

[awa355]

How could you possibly be done for D.I.C.?
Who picks where to park at the supermarket?.

[Scuba_Steve]

Wouldn't own one & would happily become a "criminal" if the Govt decides all manual operation vehicles be illegal

[oldrider]

I thought statistics show that most NZ cars are driver less anyway - what's new?

[george formby]

How could you possibly be done for D.I.C.?
Who picks where to park at the supermarket?.

How would you stop right next to the constibule? Maybe they would have to walk briskly alongside while you state name and addy.

[spanner spinner]

How could you possibly be done for D.I.C.?
Who picks where to park at the supermarket?.

who cares where the car parks as it could drop you off at the door and then be called back to pick you up with a swipe of your smartphone, supermarkets would quickly put in pick up drop off lanes to get one up on the competition. As for D.I.C. do you get charged for being drunk in the back of a taxi? If your cars driving not you it's no different to being a passenger in a taxi.

[jonbuoy]

A lot of people in the world commute in stop/start traffic for hours every day - they will be the first adopters - catch up on sleep/work or just goof around on the web and finish your breakfast while your car takes you to work. The stop start traffic would probably be more or less a thing of the past as your speed and route would be controlled to avoid build ups and bottle necks.

[swbarnett]

No, I will never own one and would be loath to even ride in one.

It's not that I think the technology is bad per se. What worries me is what happens when the sensors get dirty or just get old and don't function as well.

[Scuba_Steve]

It's not that I think the technology is bad per se. What worries me is what happens when the sensors get dirty or just get old and don't function as well.

They'll probably still perform better than when the human gets old & dirty

[swbarnett]

They'll probably still perform better than when the human gets old & dirty

That may well be true but how long will it take for this to happen? One good mud puddle may be enough to disable a visual sensor. Or worse, cause it to send incorrect data.

[jonbuoy]

That may well be true but how long will it take for this to happen? One good mud puddle may be enough to disable a visual sensor. Or worse, cause it to send incorrect data.

They will find a way around it. I suspect they will have self cleaning lenses multiple cameras/sensors - let's face it the average human can still drive through a dirty/fogged windscreen and that's without being able to use radar, ultrasound,infra red spectrum or the ability to use sensor data or information from other cars nearby. Being a classic car fan/motorcyclist I'm not keen on the idea but there is no way to stop the advance of technology.

[Gremlin]

That may well be true but how long will it take for this to happen? One good mud puddle may be enough to disable a visual sensor. Or worse, cause it to send incorrect data.

Driving on the weekend in the storms (I had to work and move computers around) I was gobsmacked at the amount of tailgating going on. Not just bad following distances, we're talking 2m following distance. Seriously, with lots of standing water etc!?

So again... the humans aren't much better

[swbarnett]

They will find a way around it.

One thing you can't find a way around is entropy (at least not in this universe). All it takes is one frayed wire or loose sensor to start sending dodgy data to the car's brain.

My point is that the more complicated these systems become the more scope there is for it to fail.

I'm not keen on the idea but there is no way to stop the advance of technology.

No, you can't. But you can influence the direction of that advance.

Driving on the weekend in the storms (I had to work and move computers around) I was gobsmacked at the amount of tailgating going on. Not just bad following distances, we're talking 2m following distance. Seriously, with lots of standing water etc!?

Pretty normal day in Auckland then?

So again... the humans aren't much better

Forgive me for being skeptical. In spite of appearances I honestly don't believe the average driver to be as bad as they're often made out to be.


One other thing that they will be plagued with is an abundance of firmware bugs. A computer is only as good as the person that programming it.


These self drive cars may crash less often but when they do the potential is there for those crashes to be far more catastrophic. Especially if we're talking about data corruption rather than complete failure. I can see one of these cars ploughing through a crowd of pedestrians (or group of bikers) because the sensor told the computer that the road was clear.

[jonbuoy]

One thing you can't find a way around is entropy (at least not in this universe). All it takes is one frayed wire or loose sensor to start sending dodgy data to the car's brain.

My point is that the more complicated these systems become the more scope there is for it to fail.


No, you can't. But you can influence the direction of that advance.


Pretty normal day in Auckland then?


Forgive me for being skeptical. In spite of appearances I honestly don't believe the average driver to be as bad as they're often made out to be.


One other thing that they will be plagued with is an abundance of firmware bugs. A computer is only as good as the person that programming it.


These self drive cars may crash less often but when they do the potential is there for those crashes to be far more catastrophic. Especially if we're talking about data corruption rather than complete failure. I can see one of these cars ploughing through a crowd of pedestrians (or group of bikers) because the sensor told the computer that the road was clear.

Same argument has been used against drive/fly by wire throttle systems, ABS, Traction Control, active power steering. Redundancy can take care of things in 99% of cases. At the moment around 3,000 people per day are killed in the roads in the US I doubt a well designed driverless car network using both roadside and in car sensors would have that many errors.

[swbarnett]

Same argument has been used against drive/fly by wire throttle systems, ABS, Traction Control, active power steering. Redundancy can take care of things in 99% of cases. At the moment around 3,000 people per day are killed in the roads in the US I doubt a well designed driverless car network using both roadside and in car sensors would have that many errors.

Yeah, it occurred to me this morning that everything I'm saying was said about the first "Horseless Carriage" when it was introduced. As long as I'm not forced to use one then I suppose, as others have said, the situation probably won't be any worse than it is now. Really I just don't want to see a time when you can't buy a car without it or at least the ability to turn it off.

[oldrider]

I really like the idea - as the threat of diminished capability getting ever closer it sounds really handy!

Instead of having to move house to some place I don't want to be because I can no longer drive - just get into the car and program it to take me where I want to go!

They have already got self parking capability now - not much of a step left to go completely programmable - no need to bother other people to drive some place!

IMHO - great - bring on the technology!