Is the self-driving car market comprised mostly of young adults who grew up with minivan dvd players as their babysitter?
>enjoying the world outside
You must be literally the most boring person in the world. Do you not understand the wealth of joy present in the endless other activities you could be doing other than looking at the fucking outdoors.
Yes driving can be fun sometimes but having an option to do either is always better.
If self driving cars prove to cause far less accidents than manual cars (which they will) then you are nothing short of an attempted murderer if you choose to drive manually. Really, no one gives a fuck that you love pushing the pedal, feeling the engine roar or whatever other shit you enjoy. There are more important things, such as preventing the deaths of innocents.
Just like owning a cane means you're guilty of murder, right?
You're not contributing to unnecessary risk of life by owning a cane. You will be contributing to unnecessary risk of life by driving a manual car when self driving cars are standard.
Bruh, have you seen people get attacked with canes? It's happened in Congress before, it was pretty brutal. Canes are dangerous weapons best kept out of our hands lest we unleash the whoop-ass on an unsuspecting innocent civilian.
Which is funny because there is an entire industry focused on watching somebody else go fast in a variety of different vehicles and terrains. This is an objectively falsifiable statement
That's a really retarded argument. I might be an equally good driver as a bot. Why should I have my pleasure to drive taken away from me just because some faggots suck at it or can't keep their eyes on the road.
I've heard this argument before that technology frees you from doing tedious chores when you could use that time to be so much more creative / productive. Truth is some technology just makes you dumber by transfering aptitudes you normally exercise by doing things to machines, and so losing those aptitudes.
It's like losing your spatial orientation ability because you're using Google maps to find every little shit in your town.
I'm pretty sure just about everyone, outside of all manual car enthusiasts, could get behind self driving cars, at least as an optional feature, like auto pilot. I like driving just as much as the next guy, but sometimes it would be nice to take a nap on a long, boring ride.
what does your self driving car do when a deer runs out in front of you, or an armadillo or opossum?
does it go oh shit must swerve and end up flipping your car?
self driving is a good concept when shit is on rails. when dealing with different cars/trucks/weight loads/tires/friction coefficients etc with typical passenger vehicles/trucks it's bound to fuck up.
can't you faggots just appreciate cruise control? i drive 6-800 miles/week and cruise control is the only automated shit i want, and i got by without it for a year when it broke on my old car.
automated driving is not a good idea and if you think it is then you have no idea how shitty automation is in real world use because you're a fucking back seat minivan NEET at heart.
adults drive, kids ride. it's basic leadership and follower-ship.
I'd get behind self-driving cars 100% if only it wasn't going to be another botnet.
Think about it. You really think a Google-powered self-driving car isn't going to phone home a complete record of everywhere you go? You really think Google won't use that data to target ads at you, and cough it up to law enforcement on request? You think insurance companies won't try and get their hands on it so they can jack up your rates?
I'd really like to drive home the point that automation shit fails all the time, and trusting sensors of any sort with your life is absolutely fucking WRONG, INSANE, AND RETARDED.
Everyday I deal with failed sensors of various types in my line of business. When a human being fails, that's one thing. Humans expecting machines to be perfect is a serious problem that needs to be resolved a decade or two ago. Machines and computers fail all the time and you have to remember that they exist to serve us human beings to do what we already do even better, not replace what we do in the first place when it comes to mission critical things like driving around two tons pieces of steel at break neck speeds.
a google powered car is gonna lock your doors and drive you down to the local police station if you're deemed a criminal as well.
remember guys, if you're driving a newer car they can remote shut off the engine via the ECU or whatever other electrical components as well.
>when a deer runs out in front of you, or an armadillo or opossum?
Brake for the deer, because they're big enough to cause serious damage to a car. Something that won't damage the car should be run over. Sorted.
so if there's a tire in the road or a big ass road gator the google car will just run over it and rip off the front bumper, and you'll have to pay for it.
i'd rather have a human brain making the decision.
now consider driving in 4 lanes of traffic with cars merging in and out of lanes. we can't even get our fucking internet to work properly and we're supposed to trust cars to mix and merge during 5 o'clock traffic in the busy cities?
everybody wanting automated cars is absolutely fucking lazy and should be ashamed of being lazy as fuck.
read that again
>Something that *won't damage the car* should be run over.
anyway yes, I'd trust automation to handle heavy traffic better than humans, simply because the self-driving car wouldn't floor it and speed past me at the very end of the entrance ramp to gain one car-length in 5mph traffic. Human drivers are way, way too quick to change lanes, for way too small a benefit, and thats where a lot of crashes come from.
In addition to the fact that the computer doesn't get tired, drunk, or distracted.
also I think you give the internet way too little credit. It has some weak spots but you'll notice that it's a global-scale telecommunications system that has demonstrated some pretty amazing fault tolerance.
and i think you give automation way too much credit. if something goes wrong with a human, you can blame them, punish them, and exalt retribution.
with a machine, the machine doesn't care or even know what it did.
you keep on thinking that humans should live in a world where machines can do as they fucking please without humans being their overlords.
never give a machine freedom, never allow it to work unsupervised, and never program it to override basic safety precautions.
do you even work with machines? because it certainly doesn't sound like you do.
>Many people hate driving
We already have solutions for that, such as pic related.
I'd actually like it if less people clogged up the streets, makes driving that much more fun.
Yeah, I think increasingly efficient public transit is the way to go. Cars are are fucking moronic. Individual autism bubble transportation is for degenerates who are overstimulated by the grim realisation that they are ants.
I want robot driven cars.
Not because I hate driving, but I hate other people who are driving.
If everyone was able to drive a car, we would have less traffic, fewer accidents and people would be willing to drive further and thus reduce unemployment and make the world more connected.
Obviously it will take about 30 years from a fully functional robot driven car is ready for the market until everyone will have one but that only means we have to get it out as fast as possible.
Because your senses are so infallible, right? You've never once been distracted, or made any error or suffered any injury caused by a momentary lack of attention, I'm certain.
Ever fly on a modern airliner? You've already ridden in an automated vehicle. The planes can take off, fly, and land essentially all on their own, and most of the flight is on autopilot, literally.
problem is they're only viable above a certain population density. Though not having to pay a driver would help a fair bit with that.
people go to great lengths to be in their own little bubble, even when transit is available. Maybe you like sitting next to strangers, but a lot of people don't.
>>Really, no one gives a fuck that you love pushing the pedal, feeling the engine roar or whatever other shit you enjoy
You can fill the aptitudes that are exercised in driving by riding a fucking bike. The physical activity would probably do some of you /g/reasebuckets some good.
Although, as someone with friends who are far too reliant on Google Maps, I do recognise the phenomenon. Sometimes I have to take charge when friends' phones die, because everyone else is too spatially regressive to know where the fuck they are and how to get to where they want to be.
It's also pathetic watching millenials read maps.
you're overlooking the part where jets launch and land only on airports and fly over fuck huge expanses of air lanes nowhere near each other compared to a busy highway.
never said my senses are infallible. i just don't want a computer overriding what i tell my car to do. if that's what you want that's fine for you, don't force that shit on me.
you probably think guns would be better with electronics in them.
In short, yes.
I don't get the whole "doing something more productive" argument. You know what people will be doing while the car drives itself? They will be buried in their smartphone, or playing a useless game, or some other equally mindless bullshit. I agree that nobody wants to drive in traffic, but that problem would be more efficiently solved by mass transit. What a fucking concept. Only problem with mass transit is that automakers and tech companies can't make money from it, so they convince everyone that they need at least 2 fucking Googlecars per household.
We can't do anything without staring at a fucking screen anymore. Eventually, if you let everything become autonomous, what do you have left? Sounds like a boring, sterile existence.
Maybe it's Terry Davis.
And fold maps. Dear god.
He was implying there wasn't enough time to brake in front of the deer. In that case, you should do what my driving instructor told me: hit the deer.
Nice Polandball cameo
Then they ought to learn to stop being such self-fellating faggots tee bee queue haych.
You can be in your own bubble and be on public transportation. The more service there is, the more likely that you can ride a train/tram/bus/streetcar/vacuum tube that affords enough space for one not to feel cramped.
Cities are only going to get bigger, and the urban-rural ratio will continue to grow. If we don't address it now, we'll be stuck with sprawling semi-slum suburb shitholes. Effective public transportation with a wide distribution is the pre-emptive solution to an inefficient mess that shouldn't happen.
Car loving retards need to die off.
Self-driving is coming and no amount of whining is going to stop it. Politicians depend on dumb people, and those are over-represented in traffic accidents. Also the fact that most people are retarded when it comes to driving, and the rest can get distracted for that one critical second, and also crash.
Computer sensors can also scan the area around with lasers/infra-red and what have you, it would most certainly see an animal on the road at night before you do.
Remember, self-driving cars only need to be better drivers than the bottom half of the spectrum. And I think it's possible to make a self-driving car that drives better than asian women.
Roads too. Roads are a terrible idea. They're malleable and soft. Great for spreading around, and bearing the loads of vehicles without shattering, but terrible for durability. We waste tremendous amounts of money maintaining these fickle tar streaks. Especially up north, where there's snow and ice and other seasonal extremes.
At least if you put down tracks for mass transit, the lifetimes of the tracks and their overall stability is greater. Big upfront investment, but over 30 or 40 years, you'd easily make a killing.
fuck big cities, country life is american life. i'm sorry if you can't appreciate driving your own car, you're anti american and the fact that you think "car loving retards need to die off" proves it.
you know what i think when i see bus riding faggots? scum of the earth with no freedom and no desire for freedom.
you know what i feel when i get into my car with a trunk full of freedom?
>Only problem with mass transit is that automakers and tech companies can't make money from it,
Nah, mass transit has a lot of other problems. It requires a certain level of density to work, you have to sit next to random people (mentioned above), and it's less convenient - buses and trains don't necessarily run 24/7, and at off hours you might be waiting some time for them even if they do. The poor efficiency in low density exacerbates this - you might have enough riders to justify a train every few minutes in the middle of downtown, but barely enough for a train every hour way out in the suburbs. You also have problems with transit if you want to make a journey that's against the flow of traffic. (eg, either not towards or from downtown, or against the flow of rush hour)
suburbs happened because a large chunk of people prefer to live in that spread-out environment, and don't want to have to live in an apartment and use public transit. Having space to call your own has a very powerful appeal.
i don't know why you fucks live up north when the weather is so cold that you can't even enjoy it half of the year.
the only good thing about so called global warming is maybe the shit holes of the north will become more inhabitable over time.
He said it in a very 'murrica way, but I think the point that you shouldn't force people to live in a way they don't want to just to promote efficiency in transportation is a valid one.
Anyone unironically recommending public transportation has clearly never ridden bus lines in large cities.
You can't be safe in them, all kinds of crazy people ride them. You have to be on the look out through the whole ride and keep a firm hold on your belongings.
Slowly, you start to realize that you would rather pay more money on gas and insurance, but drive your own car in peace, than to deal with the freaks on public transportation.
The only way mass transit would work for everyone is if there were "classes" of transportation, just like in airlines: Economy and First-Class. The druggies and crazies would be too poor to ride first-class.
To be fair, if you have been driving for more than a few months, it becomes very easy to objectively compare different people's driving abilities, and you get quicker at spotting which cars around you would pose the biggest threat of an accident.
haha enjoy your freedom when you're dying of liver failure out in the boonies by your lonesome
When was the last time you went outside you autistic neet? You probably haven't shown your animu body pillow around town yet have you
this guy gets it. however we already have classes:
low class - bus that i pay for out of taxes
mid class - uber etc
higher class - quality van rides, taxi, etc
if you're such a pleb you think that self driving cars is a good idea as a whole you don't really deserve to live anyway, you caged rat.
that's not a real fish you city slicker!
Nah, guys, I love America!
Driving is ok.
>>if you're such a pleb you think that self driving cars is a good idea as a whole you don't really deserve to live anyway, you caged rat.
I don't think they're inherently a good or bad idea. All that matters to me is how they perform. If they perform better than humans then I'll use them. If they don't perform better than humans I won't.
You're the pleb here I'm afraid. Scared of the shadows.
hurr i'm scared of technology
no, i just realize the scope of things. we already have mandatory health care, enjoy your mandatory 2020 or newer vehicle so big brother can spy and control where you go and what you do 24/7.
i'll keep driving a car without a kill switch.
A lot of the problems you mention could be solved by subsidies. I've read before that often times density increases /after/ mass transit systems are introduced. If you push it for a little while through deft publicism and artificially depressed fare prices, you might be able to grow neighbourhoods enough to necessitate the infrastructure.
As of right now, the main issue with most mass transit is that governments (federal or municipal) are pretty half-hearted in their commitments. Even systems with high ridership per capita only have a few %, at best 5%, of people using it day-day to get to work or school or whatever.
In North America there just hasn't been compelling and well organized enough of a mass transit system to capture huge numbers. If you could design such a system, you'd have enough revenue to offer trains at odd hours, or with crazy frequency. Fares would be lower.
As for your apartment gripe, you realize that with rent control, or some sort of limitation on the crazy speculation that brings rental and property values to insane levels, we could probably manage better housing. If we focused on building up, and building well, and not making land arbitrarily crazy expensive, we could manage to reclaim space currently devoted to low density shit, like duplexes, and offer huge apartments at low cost. Apartment as they are can be small and not cozy, but that could be fixed with a couple changes in laws, architectural attitudes, and civic values.
You misunderstand why people live in suburbs these days, too. Frequently it is because of the aforementioned price of property and rentals in urban areas. Poor and middle class suburbs, with upper middle class bullshit hipstercities will be our future if we don't stop it.
That's a different fear. The fear of losing control.
I wouldn't use a self driving car that was networked either.
But the main feature of self driving cars is that the processing is all local. Trust me, self driving cars just won't happen if they rely on networking. The security problems would make it impossible.
You can spoof GPS you know, make a car think it's no longer on the road (according to the GPS) so it corrects itself into the buildings.
It's been done with drones and ships already, and reliance on GPS isn't a part of what makes self driving cars useful.
Any network at all will be abused not by government (Okay they will) but also by criminals. Or rather, bored teenagers who like to cause trouble.
>enjoying the world outside
What am I supposed to be enjoying here exactly?
The daily commute is a soul-sucking slog.
I bet you have a smartphone.
Hate to tell you this but in the battle between privacy and security we already lost all our privacy. We have nothing.
With self driving cars we might acutally get something back.
People think terrorism is scary, but they don't kill tens of thousands in the US every year.
i hear what you're saying.
all that local processing can be hijacked though.
no shit, i have a smart dumb as fuck phone that's nothing more than a laptop replacement running a shit OS that i'd rather it was running windows 7 but that's another topic for another day.
i can chose to leave my phone at home and drive my non-smart car to the gas station or to john doe's house or to the local walmart without being tracked. oh i missed a phone call, well fuck them too.
i'm not sure how you think we might get anything back with smart cars.
as far as not losing lives, i hate to tell you but most of the lives lost in car accidents are dumb females and minorities of the YOLO tier crowd which we don't need any more of.
>Cars are moronic
Hello citykid. Unlike you bay area dwellers, some of us don't have public transportation, or what we do have only comes once every half hour or so. How do you plan to move cargo with public transportation?
>all that local processing can be hijacked though.
Not without physical access to your car. That's the point. If someone has physical access to your car and wishes you harm then there's nothing you can really do about it, computer or not.
>i'm not sure how you think we might get anything back with smart cars.
What has happened over the last decade is that without our consent our privacy was taken away in the name of safety. We didn't get the safety.
At least with self driving cars it's safety.
Anyway it's not the civilian sector that self driving cars are going to make a difference in, it's just bored people on the way to work that this helps with, where self driving cars are going to help is in goods transport.
Self driving trucks. Cargo that transports itself.
but self driving car cant rely solely on gps if they do they would have to be interconnected to other cars to get the position is most likely the solution would be some kind of gps + camera + special roads in which case going off the lane or trying to smash against another car building person whatever would be nigh impossible except a mechanical failure.
>We already have solutions for that, such as pic related.
Not exactly. A self-driving car has the bonus of muh privacy, muh personal space and so on. People will actually pay a small fortune for such a car. A middle ground solution is creating a self driving public transport. You don't own it,, you pay a monthly fee for its use and the vehicle will come around your house to pick you up.
On high density cities there could be a bus-like service but with private cabins. Of course the high monthly fees would keep the plebs out, which is the greatest concern for public transport opposition.
I'm saying that you're acting like a stereotypical bay area loser who thinks that everybody lives in a similar situation, and the latest "high tech" pipedream is an answer to everything.
Only a horsefucking hillbilly thinks America doesn't have the population density. It must be hard living in one of the remaining mud hut villages of the southeast, Cletus.
Half your population lives in built up urban areas. 80% of all Americans live in an urban area, period.
as someone who used to commute an hour to work 5 days a week you bet you ass i want to take a nap, watch a video, play a game or literally anything else while driving for decently annoying/long spans of time.
nice inferior inner ear fag. enjoy waiting 20 years till we get to nerve gear status for VR
I will be illegal to drive manually in 10 years time. it's just too dangerous. road fatalities is an epidemic, and autonomous vehicles can almost eliminate them completely
Not everybody wants to live in a city. I'm happier to live somewhere where the air isn't yellow, it's actually quiet sometimes, everything's cheaper, and I can actually have space to myself.
Technology has nothing to do with it. Most of those bay area retards have the same autistic individualist masturbatory syndrome that rural Americans do. All the things that I've mentioned are feasible with modern technology, and are more about policy and cultural changes. If upper middle class suburban pampered retrogrades and poor rural subhumans don't count as "everybody". Most people live in urban areas, are sensible enough to accept public transit. The key is in keeping fares low and accessibility high.
Anyone who dismisses the merit of self-driving cars has never had to deal with a boring fucking commute. Just being able to read a book or something would make driving for an hour to and from work every day a thousand times more bearable.
If the rail was electric, cars rare, and there was a moratorium on coal power, what would be making the sky yellow, besides your alcoholism-borne cataracts?
I'm not saying you have to live in a city. However the reality is that almost everyone else does, and this will only be more true as time goes on. Being part of that backwards, Amish wannabe demographic must be great, but the rest of us don't want to live like you and don't want your shitty opinions to hold us back.
>look at me I'm so hip and with it
>I speak for the majority!
>Everybody who doesn't want to live in cities is a luddite autist amish alcoholic
>Cars and coal are the only source of pollution
>It's 2016 now, get with the times!
you realise you're not the only one, right?
once you acquire your ranch, you'll have 30 neighboring idiots who don't know how to ranch and you guys can all circlejerk and complain about city slickers while you wither away, painfully, alone
I think I speak for the majority when I say there needs to be better mass transit in urban areas, when the statistics confirm that most people live in cities, and half the population lives in rather dense urban areas.
Cars and coal are significant factors in the production of smog. Pollution won't disappear, but the local extremes would certainly be less visible. Los Angeles' smog was primarily caused by local weather conditions and vehicle traffic. Where the fuck have you been that the skies are yellow? Mumbai is not an American city.
Go to NYC, take the staten island ferry, then look back at the city. People seriously breathe that shit.
Same goes for DC/Baltimore/Philly/etc. The only city I've ever been to where the air quality wasn't complete shit was boston.
yeah there will be more race tracks in towns.
This only works like vaccines work. If only 5% of the cars on the road are autonomous, then the other 95% will still crash into them
>trusting sensors of any sort with your life is absolutely fucking WRONG, INSANE, AND RETARDED.
Happens every day,mate. Hospital, planes, power plants, etc. Kill you even if you are off the grid tinfoil hat. Everything is running with the help of sensors.
Difference is that those are (in theory) monitored and maintained by people who know what they're doing. One of the problems with autonomous cars is that the sensors will get abused and neglected by the owners.
What happens when one sensor in a FBW system gets rain in it.
I've never seen this myself, and I live in a city of 4 million, which is about the same size as Boston's metro area, and bigger than Baltimore, and Philly, but maybe not the whole DC metro area.
Granted it might be you Americucks and your gutted EPA that is the real issue there. If you've got local factories that aren't obligated to filter any of their fumes, or construction, or farming fields with serious erosion, those are separate issues. The latter two can be just as much of a problem in the boonies.
Regardless of that, all those cities probably have a lot of car traffic, which might be a primary culprit.
i like how this poster talks of sensors as some broad, vaguely defined category in the same way grandpa talks about "them computers" or your conspiratard friend talks about "radio signals" that are in your head.
People are just reckless and impatient. Add that to average stupidity and lack of good roads and you get disaster
But i'd say average Balkanfag drives better than Asian or black people
I read this great book once called "The Impossible Country" about a guy who vacationed in Yugoslavia as it fell apart. I seem to remember him describing driving (I think in serbia,) as a constant game of chicken.
The animals you described are roughly the size of a speed bump. Traveling over a speed bump at normal speed is not exactly good for your suspension, so why run over an armadillo?
Also, some animals of a similar size (i.e. cats) may belong to people, and if you intentionally run them over, you can experience lawsuits.
you can like whatever you want, you don't deal with sensors everyday for a living in a production line.
and we don't trust 'them computers' either, because us humans find their shit being wrong time and time again.
college educated young bucks have a hard time understanding that computers can be wrong. it's a hard lesson for them to understand growing up in an age where computers were given too much control and not enough human control.
>I might be an equally good driver as a bot.
You won't be, it doesn't matter how good you are, from what I've seen demoed so far self driving cars can be better. Sure you may be able to maintain complete focus 100% of the time, but even then can you pick out the car in the corner of your vision that's going to blow through a red light and would hit you when it's only visible for fractions of a second before it's obscured by a large truck as you are pulling up to the intersection and all you have to know it's not going to stop is its speed during those fractions of a second when it was visible? That's what finally did it for me, I've noticed kids about to run into the street through tinted windows on other vehicles and the feet of someone about to walk out in front of my forklift though a few inch gap when the rest of their body was obscured, but it's only a matter of time until I miss something and it ends badly.
yes it does :^)
>inb4 faggots justifying living in a country with absolute pleb-tier infrastructure
If public transport weren't so shit and so expensive I'd use it.
Buses here drive every 20 minutes in the morning and the evening, but only ever other hour in between. Plus bus fare is 2,50€, meaning I'd have to spend 5€ each day to and back from work.
With my car I can go where I want, when I want and even with taxes and insurance and cost for petrol I'm spending less money than I would if I took public transportation.
I see nothing wrong with a lawsuit for that. If you ran over my cat, being fully in your capability to hit your breaks and not do so (and since the only area for this to occur would be in a residential area, doing so would cause no damage to you or your car for even a sudden stop), then clearly you are acting out of negligence or malice, and in doing so, have caused me damage. I would say there would be nothing wrong, therefore, in making you lose $10,000 for doing so.
>buses in my area only run from 6-7 M-F and 10-5 on Saturday
>apparently I live near stops for 5 of the 6 routes but rarely ever see a bus when driving
What's it like over there?
>Self driving cars will still require a driver to take control if the software makes a wrong decision
>The only fucks who buy them will not pay attention to the road because they hate driving
Everyone who buys a self driving car should have their driving license revoked
>I might be an equally good driver as a bot.
Sincerely doubt that seeing as you can't see in 360 degrees, and that's just one of many points that would make a self driving car superior to you.
>what's it like over there
like a massive well-oiled machine
however if there are delays, they will pile up to usualy 30min extra travel time.
>Thinking computers can deal with unexpected situations
>Thinking computers can predict human behavior
>Thinking computers can interpret other road user's intentions
Self driving can be used as an autopilot, but it will not replace a human sitting in the driver seat unless Google takes over the road network and bans everyone and everything but Google cars from using it.
>>Thinking computers can predict human behavior
>>Thinking computers can interpret other road user's intentions
>Thinking they can't
There are only so many options for what someone can do when driving.
>using a 360 in a car
>mfw absolute carnage of shredded game discs
"Self-driving cars were involved in 11 accidents since testing of its fleet of 20 driverless cars had begun six years ago. In a post on technology news website Medium Backchannel, the program's director, Chris Urmson, said "not once was the self-driving car the cause of the accident, once the car was hit by another waiting for a light to change." and added that no one was injured in the accidents. 11 accidents happened during 1.7 million miles of driving, working out to 0.6 percent per 100,000 miles (160,000 kilometers)."
>11 incidents during 1.7 MILLION miles
>none of which were the fault of the driveress car
>still claiming that autonomous cars aren't able to predict human behaviour
Well, considering there are more guns than people in the U.S. and only 10k murders are committed with firearms, guns are pretty fucking safe.
>inb4 suicide statistics being added on to that number
>inb4 people implying suicide is somehow not someones choice, and is a risk even though the person comitting it decided to force metal through their skull
>can interpret those things better than a computer?
Yes I fucking do, because some asshole who programs the fucking things will make it so that the car will sacrifice itself instead of killing a group of pedestrians jumping into the street. And I'd rather have blood on my windscreen than be dead.
>There will be legislation to the effect of forcing at least one designated "driver" in the vehicle under such circumstances.
Then what's the fucking point of self-driving vehicles?
>272 instances of Google car handing control back to the driver because it couldn't deal with the situation
>69 cases of drivers taking over the vehicle themselves for safety reasons
Those cars can not drive autonomously. They will inevitably run into situations they can not deal with without human input.
Something about the way you worded this makes me think its not entirely bait. Are you trying to imply that even though driver less cars are much safer than manual drivers its somehow still not safe enough?
No. I'm saying that testing the driverless cars on designated roads in one area doesn't represent the relative safety level of the cars in the wider world.
I'm not even anti-driverless cars, I just think their safety is extremely over-stated currently. That's not to say they won't be safe on a larger scale in the future though.
>During the ‘50s and ‘60s, about half of the suicides in Britain were by coal gas. By the ‘70s, when the transition to natural gas was complete, the number of gas suicides had dropped to zero and the overall suicide rate was down a third. Even the suicidal appreciate convenience. If it's too much trouble, as Dorothy Parker said, "You might as well live."
The convenience of guns for suicide is, I imagine, an equally powerful thing.
Went to Romania to visit a friend, and we spent most of our time driving from place to place so I would see as much of the country as possible (beautiful country, by the way), and holy shit did I see some reckless driving and fucked up traffic crashes.. My friend was completely indifferent to this shit, because that's just how it was.
Thank fuck he got used to how we drive in my country, before we went on the trip.
I'm 22 and I don't even have my learner's permit. I for one, can't wait for self-driving cars. I'd never be able to trust myself actually driving on the highway, and I don't understand how people can just drive and not make a big deal of it.
It takes time. I'm a terrible driver as well but after having my license for over a year by now I start to get more confident.
Oh man I was in Malta this summer and it was just madness on the roads. Those people drive like retards, cutting off people at roundabouts and whatnot. We even had a obvious drunk taxi-driver once, nobody gives a fuck there.
>Less than normal he says
Kek, in my opinion you are completely reckless when you drive, you absolute madmen!
Firstly, you get used to it pretty fast.
Secondly, do you actually think they will let you "drive" a self-driving car without a drivers license? What will you then do if you're required to take control of the vehicle? And how will you be able to judge when a situation becomes dangerous?
I'm not sure how I'll ever be comfortable about controlling a huge structure of metal and fibreglass going down the highway at over 100 km/h with other people around me doing the same.
Looks like I'll have to wait for the technology to become more sophisticated then, even it it means I'm in my 40s or 50s by the time I own my first car.
>If I could watch a movie I would take it in a heart beat
>Scenario where you can do so
>Nooooo, it has to be moving
Also, in Rush our did you try taking scenic route? It usually takes less time than being in a jam.
>Driving 5ft at a time because large amounts of traffic during rush hour, occasionally long straight lines of going 60 in a single lane
>This is somehow training your "spatial awareness" and not your patience at a massively tedious task
It doesn't really sound convenient to me that you has to be ready to take control of the vehicle at any given time.
Plenty of accidents happen because people didn't pay attention for just a second, and if you get the warning while you are concentrating on something else, or sleeping, nasty accidents can and will happen.
As some anon mentioned earlier in the thread, there was plenty of cases where the driver had to take control of car.
I'd like to know what would actually had happened if no one had been there to do so.
>Muslim drivers cranking up the heat in the bus, because they are cold already at 25 degrees
>Have to smell the stench of people who sweat, or was smoking moments before the bus showed up
>The bus will sometimes be late for no appearent reason, and asking the driver just result in a grumpy answer
>Bought my own car the moment I got a better paying job
>Never been caught in traffic other than 10 minutes from work, because I can take a solitude scenic road until then
Comfy as fuck! I'll never be able to go back to public transport.
this i was forced to use public transport for a few months thanks to statefarm fucking up my insurance (was unknowingly driving under a suspended license for 6 months even thought i was still paying insurance)
there were times the fucker just drove right fucking past me forcing me to walk an hour and a half to work, because the next bus wouldnt be by until then
now it takes me 5 minutes to get to work not a hour and a half, i wish i was fucking joking but those are the facts.
It takes public transport an hour and a fucking half to take me to work, which i can drive directly to in 5minutes, it literally takes me as long to walk to work as the bus takes.
fuck that shit i'm sleeping in another hour or 2.
I feel you man.
When I was riding public transport, I never felt like I had the energy or time to do self-improving hobbies, likes working out or do some outdoor activities, because I had to spend so much time on it.
I'm 24 and I take the bus most places. Public transportation where I live is legitimately good.
Yes, and? It's something I've sunk at least $10,000 worth of time and cat food into. So if you run it over, I expect compensation.
Seriously guys? All the replies to this?
I live on the beach in FL and I agree with him, there are things you can do in a car that are worth more than looking out the window.
It's nice to be outside, and enjoy it, but when you're in a car you have to just... sit. It's not the same.
Might as well do something productive while your sitting instead of staring out the window, eyes glazed, like some retarded child.
On a well maintained dry highway yeah a bot car could probably drive better than me already. And in cities with well maintained road markings.
However as soon as you go to a smaller roads and weather gets worse I'm going to claim I'm a safer driver than any bot now or in the near future(20 years). I'd like to see a bot driving even in a mild snow or rainstorm. It won't see shit when all its sensors are full of snow or ice or just refuse to work because it happens to be cold outside. I'd like to see them drive on a winter road with absolutely no road markings and deep tire tracks.
>as far as not losing lives, i hate to tell you but most of the lives lost in car accidents are dumb females and minorities of the YOLO tier crowd which we don't need any more of.
Citation on that? What data I can find doesn't go into race but it does show males outnumbering females in traffic fatalities in every age group from 1996-2005.
>mfw luddites are actually trying to argue against self-driving cars
Are you aware that you are on a TECHNOLOGY board? Fuck off with your baseless safety concerns and outdated politics.
>being this upset that you will have to gain actual job skills
the only people against it are those indoctrinated by the automotive companies, and the automotive companies themselves
there will be less cars sold if self-driving cars come
and the automotive companies are scared shitless, trying to make sure that everyone "appreciates" "real driving"
>Traffic accidents and ubiquitous part of life.
>Interstate trade dependent on doped up truck drivers who stay up for days at a time.
>People wake up in the asscrack of the morning to go on 3+ hour commutes while fighting sleep.
>Drunks and old people who can barely see constantly running people over in ever town in America.
>Why would anyone want self-driving cars?
/g/ has this really annoying subset of autists who whine about people wanting technologies that they're too shortsighted to see the value in. It's weird how the "Technology" board has so many luddites.
tend not to agree with anons who are so liberal with their luddite accusations, so not sure how to take this post.
all for car automation, even if there are potential pitfalls to them.
>lots of adults with hyperthyroidism
>got difficult to concentrate
>its hard and scary to drive
People don't even know about this.
Our food is high on sodium and its fucking killing us and people dont care.
trucking companies are going to be the first to adopt this en masse
long straight highways are obviously the easiest to make a robot drive, and those long distance truckers get paid a lot of fucking money
its pretty common to have anxiety when driving
when youre moving a 3 ton vehicle capable of going 70+ mph. especially on the highway where youre expected to drive that fast and everyone else is going that fast around you.
a wrong jerk can cause a pretty big accident
I'm against this.
The risks are actually higher if bots are driving. You idiots are just too brainwashed with technology to realise a machine can't make moral choices while "driving".
You see everything solvable through technology, fucking brainwashed idiots. Not every life problem has a technological solution. Fucking autistic nerds. It's no wonder you are so happy about the prospect of owning VR tech and bot waifus. Bunch of degenerates.
Only manlets would concede driving to bots. What's next, let bots drive your life too? Make choices for you? Fuck you in the ass?
>tfw people my age dont care about cars or driving anymore
>tfw i drive a car older than me and get 8 miles to the gallon all while making loud noise and ruining tires
self driving cars are a very long way from being mainstream in any form other than advertising and gimmicks.
until they are able to handle adverse weather conditions like rain and snow, they are useless. the people who spout 'you won't be able to drive your car in 5 years' are 100% retarded
Keep your eyes on the road, idiot. You are going to murder someone if you distract yourself with all that while you drive. If you see anything other than cars and pavement then you are a shitty and dangerous driver.
>outlawing them will be harder than regulating guns.
by what possible logic will it be harder?
how are you keeping it from being seen, and actually being able to use it?
it's not like you can hide it in your pocket when you go to the store
>don't need people to use
>dont even need people at all with wireless charging stations
good idea m8
make people redundant
I'm sure this wont backfire at all
It's like a washing machine; it may take longer to wash the dishes than by hand (unless it's a huge load), but you can do something else during that time.
Now, if you could send them out on their own, and certain stores could recognize the cars and put ordered products in them, imagine the potential. Everyone would basically have their own personal UPS man for local delivery.
>you shouldn't force people to live in a way they don't want to just to promote efficiency in transportation is a valid one.
if this liberty involves the harming of the environment and other people's living space (e.g. air pollution, which is proven), then the driver himself is not cleaned off from social responsibility and driving thus must be limited in order for everyone and their descendants to live longer on earth
dish washers are fucking stupid
you have to rinse the plates and shit off and scrape food off anyways, just put a drop of soap on it and finish the job without wasting a shitload of water and time
washing machines for clothes are a must though, I've actually done laundry manually a few times when I was bum mode and it is a fucking bitch and a half, would never want to do that again
Can confirm, doing laundry manually sucks, and I only have to do it for certain articles of clothing that are hand wash only. Worst part is having to worry about air drying said articles of clothing when there is the potential to have friends come over.
>inb4 someone wakes up in a car accident
As an electriction working seattle area, I leave my house at 3:55 and get to work at 5-ish.
I love the empty roads, the enjoyment of the view of the night sky, the silence of the night.
just purchased a brand new manual car. I love the feel of control over 2.5 tons of man made machine.
being able to gun it on long empty stretches of twisting roads, the feel of the opposing force that we push past.
just the engine noise as I hit 6K rpm makes my morning amazing. (and the feel of 4x4 burn out)
I think that people take the shortest path and never get to experience driving. they just deal with the commute to work.
I feel that if people had a chance to take there cars/trucks to the max and feel what they spent so much cash on,
they would understand why driving is an amazing invention.
Don't get me wrong though. I still drive safe around people, I won't be speeding in areas I can't see.
Pretty common among the newly licensed and elderly, maybe. Highway driving requires very little in the way of ability or even awareness.
>one wrong jerk
Do you randomly just whip the wheel to one side for no reason? Do you lack gross motor control? Do you even drive?
Driving is fun as fuck when you drive wrecklessly.
>Get my first car, it's a 1999 Mustang, bet up as fuck
>Repair the hell out of it, take the "ratrod approach"
>Throw a roll cage in it,
>Sand down the car doors as thin as possible, overall do everything to reduce weight
>tweak the engine, tune that bitch as much as possible to get it fast
>Running drugs in between Texas and LA
>Doing like 150 on a dirt road
>It's pouring down rain
>Hydroplane into a ditch
>Flip my car three fucking times, it's totaled
>Call my buddy
>10 minutes later he's got me out of the ditch
>Fucker still runs but all the lights are out
>mfw when speeding home in the dark, in the rain
You two are fucking retarded and missing the point entirely. The vast majority of deaths involving driving are accident, while deaths by firearms and canes aren't.
You won't stop people from killing each other by banning weapons since they have the motivation to do so and will find another way to kill. You can however prevents hundreds of thousands of accidental deaths every years by banning manual driving.
Again, your analogy is completely retarded. A better analogy would have been that we came up with a new thing to replace electricity, something that is completely harmless, that will prevent thousands of electricity-related accidental deaths every year and will power everything that we use electricity for, but a bunch of hillbillies enjoy the feeling of being amateur electrician and won't stand for it >:(
Okay then, how about ladders? People fall off ladders and die all the time. Or stairs, those are lethal to the elderly and the young. Think about the children, Anonymous! You're a heartless bastard if you don't want all stairs banned to protect the children.
Banning something because it is dangerous is stupid, and quite frankly you're a moron for wanting to do just that.
Have we come up with a safer alternative to ladders? Again, it's the third fucking analogy you came up with and you still don't get the fucking point.
If ladders caused 32,719 deaths annually in the united-states and that we came up with a safer alternative that is inexpensive enough to the point it becomes the standards, then yes, I'd say ban the fucking ladders.
Cherry-pickers are the safe alternative to ladders, duh.
If you're so hopped up on numbers and expense why don't we move on to alcohol too? Alcohol causes something like 20,000 deaths each year and the alternative is super inexpensive; it's literally free. So why don't you want to ban alcohol?
>Cherry-pickers are the safe alternative to ladders, duh.
How much do you think that a cheery-picker costs compared to a ladder?
>If you're so hopped up on numbers and expense why don't we move on to alcohol too? Alcohol causes something like 20,000 deaths each year and the alternative is super inexpensive; it's literally free. So why don't you want to ban alcohol?
Banning alcohol is arguable. Yes it's a liver-killing poison, but at the very least you don't kill other people with your alcoholism, while people who die in car accidents aren't necessarily the ones who caused the accidents. They can be the ones who got crashed into by some retard who drove through a red light at 100 mph
I always wondered why people think that automation is so good.
I've never heard a single statement on what's going to happen with those who are replaced and left out.
Are they just supposed to be rotting in the streets? How are they going to pay for their homes, food etc when their jobs are taken away from them? Is the government going to take care of them? And if so, will it be with no strings attached?
> To be fair, if you have been
> driving for more than a few months,
> it becomes very easy to objectively
> compare different people's driving
> abilities, and you get quicker
> at spotting which cars around
> you would pose the biggest threat
> of an accident.
This is one of the core traits which separates the men from the boys when it comes to drivers and driving. The ability to sense at first glance, parallelized on the sensory filtering level, the competence, riskiness and intentions of the driver in every car around you is something that no computer can match. It's like body language; think of it like walking into a crowded banquet hall and reading the room. Sometimes everyone's just the same, but sometimes you'll see the three shifty people scattered throughout the crowd instantly and know to be on guard.
I'm autistic, literally autistic, and I can do this just fine - but I am a very experienced driver with hundreds of thousands of miles and God knows how many hours under my belt in the 13.5 years I've been driving.
But I'm sure several of the techno-urbanist brogrammers who've never driven in a parking lot totally know how to program a car to react to deer or children or drunk drivers or disabled vehicles.
> Most people live in urban areas
You are wrong.
You're surrounded by millions of people in a gigantic city and you conclude everyone must live the way you do, your experience translates to a majority of Americans' lives.
Your parochialism is quaint - it really is - but you really need to get out and see the rest of the world sometime, starting with the rest of your country. You should acquaint yourself with at least a cursory knowledge of American geography, especially throughout the original Thirteen Colonies, where cultural and language differences can be quite profound over distances of less than a hundred miles. The "urban areas" of the inland Eastern seaboard are not clones of your city, their cultures have diverged to a increasingly undeniable extent, and their mass transit systems are pretty much guaranteed to disappoint you.
>and know to be on guard.
You see this is the thing, a self driving car can be on guard for everyone. At the same time.
You're thinking like a human who can only really pay attention to a couple vehicles at once.
A self driving car pays attention to every vehicle, every pedestrian, every single object in its field of view AT ONCE, all with the same vigilance you do with just a single high risk driver.
You do understand that self driving cars have a manual override because you still have to know how to drive and if the self driving part ever acta up you have to be ready to override it and drive it until youre in an area where it doesnt freak out
I can pay attention to all the cars in front of me, all the cars on each side of me and all the cars in back of me. I have eyes, a rear view mirror and two side view mirrors. I have peripheral vision. Thanks to something called "object permanence", I can flick my eyes between each of these for fractions of a second and flick them back and I will see where all the other cars, pedestrians, etc. are in relation to me. I know when I'm being tailgated, I know when I'm being overtaken.
You don't drive, do you?
I always found those to be more trouble than they were worth. Most car rides weren't long enough to watch a movie, or really get into a video game. And on the occasion that we did go somewhere farther, we ended up stopping so often that it still wasn't worth it getting interrupted so often. And never mind the hassle of having to bring a game console and hook it up. A hell of a lot easier to just read a book.
>You idiots are just too brainwashed with technology to realise a machine can't make moral choices while "driving".
Exactly how often are you facing various moral crises while operating your car?