I've been seeing so much hype around these self-driving

>>15988185
(cont)
Self-driving cars will remove our freedom. Self-driving cars are not at all "autonomous." Self-driving cars are completely dependent on the data-assisted, "intelligent" traffic systems without which the users of self-driving cars cannot drive as much as a single meter. In such a scenario people will quickly lose their ability to drive manually, and that in itself will become an argument to forbid them to drive manually. People will become passive passengers totally dependent on the automatic systems. The automatic systems will decide how fast and how they are allowed to drive, and if the authorities deem that the vehicle or the movements are "unsafe" such a car will be instructed to stop or drive to a control post or wherever the authorities instruct it to go. Do you have to drive from or to something at all cost, and exceed the speed limits because there are other overriding concerns? Forget it, the self-driving car decides for you what you can do and what you are not allowed to do. Is there a robber, a bully or just a humorous person who steps out in the road before the self-driving car, intending to stop you for whatever reason or purpose? The system will have to be programmed to react from the premise of maximum "safety" in average situations - and the choice will be taken away from you and me. Yes, a self-driving car will remove our room for individual and personal judgment and choice. It is as true as always: If we strive for maximum safety, there will be minimum freedom. Nor is the completely controlled society a safe one. He who is ready to sacrifice freedom for a little more safety, will in the end lose both. Control will be taken from the vehicle's user/owner - all in the name of "safety." Do we want such a scenario? Are we going to obediently accept to be told to let automation take away our abilities to drive freely?

>>15988185
>>15988191
Sorry for the text wall but this is about as short as I could make it.

every normie on the planet wishes their car would drive them around while they can
>drink
>text
>snapchat
>facebook
>sleep
>watch youtube
>instagram
>tinder
etc etc etc
basically anyone who wants an econobox for the econobox nature of it would probably be fine with the econobox doing the driving for them.

and to put this in perspective wewent from
>multi million dollar prototype test machines with LIDAR and radar and ultrasonics and top of the line servers in the back, rolling around the desert at 10 miles an hour and getting stuck on rocks
to
>google's test cars which are probably like 100k in parts doing 100% autonomous driving for hours and hours and hundreds of thousands of miles over a few years combined

in ten years

suffice to say, shit is going to get really good really quick

>>15988185
>boring
>too expensive
>unreliable
>can't handle weather conditions or dear/animals/pedestrians on road.
i can't imagine why

>>15988185
>>15988191
It should be clear by now that a lot of people have stopped valuing their freedom.
Freedom has less value than comfort and safety these days, and the people who know it best are Google.

>>15988191
>He who is ready to sacrifice freedom for a little more safety, will in the end lose both. Control will be taken from the vehicle's user/owner - all in the name of "safety." Do we want such a scenario? Are we going to obediently accept to be told to let automation take away our abilities to drive freely?
Talk about some pathetically cringey shit. I know you take immense pride in your ability to push pedals and turn a wheel and that if it's ever taken away from you you'll be left with nothing, but really your little car hobby apocalypse rant isn't going to do shit to halt progress. Deal with it. I'm sure you'll still be able to play with your outdated toy somewhere private like horse riding fags do these days.

>>15988743
Polls show that the average person doesn't want a self-driving car.
>>15988840
>implying that they will inevitably take over
We have some primitive tech now, but it isn't certain how good this will get, the "politics" in play, and if they'll even be accepted by the public (which seems slim as of now according to polls)

>>15988185
A lot of the hype around self-driving cars in the recent year has been driven by anti-transit activists, trying to sell people on the flawed idea that they are a suitable replacement for buses and trains.

>>15988934
they don't want a self-driving car as they are now
they want the self driving car of the future which is safe as fuck

>>15989019
>which is safe as fuck
Self driving cars are only so much safer in the presence of OTHER self driving cars. And even then there's the unique implications of a fully self driving car that cannot be controlled whatsoever.

>>15988185
>facebook will take your car away in your lifetime
Feelsbadman

>>15989029
err, no, they're capable of removing any cause of accident caused by human error or inattention, which is like 92% of all accidents

>>15989127
No, you're missing the point. They only eliminate accidents that don't involve other drivers - and most accidents do involve more than 1 person. And since they're an extreme minority and since most people don't want them (future perception is complete guesswork), they will probably stay that way. Machines also can't judge, make decisions, and evaluate consequences like humans.

>>15989145
except with their reaction times being way shorter than a human's and their general perception being far higher, they're much more capable to avoid other drivers doing dumb shit than normal people would

>Machines also can't judge, make decisions, and evaluate consequences like humans.
true, but they can do all those things in the context of driving alone, which is all they'll need to do

>>15989154
>true, but they can do all those things in the context of driving alone, which is all they'll need to do
The act of driving is a bit more than just being able to keep a car in between some white lines, you know.

>>15989160
oh i'm well aware, it's tough, but in terms of computational problems it isn't that difficult.

and it's a bad idea to give arbitrary caps on what computers can do, see >>15988743

and also realize google's fleet of autonomous RX350s have been toodling around san-fran for several years now and got in like two fender benders while a person was driving instead of the computer

I'm all for self-driving cars, but I'm firmly against mandatory self-driving cars.

>>15988191
>Do we want such a scenario? Are we going to obediently accept to be told to let automation take away our abilities to drive freely?

Doesn't really matter whether we want it or not because it's going to happen eventually.

>>15989145
There are some collisions that are unavoidable due to the staggering incompetence of someone else, but an autonomous car can react faster than a human can and avoid many of those situations.

For now self driving vehicles have to drive like chicken shits, but that's due to current tech limitations. Imagine a 4 lane road intersecting a 4 lane road. A proper p2p driver-less car system would let all vehicles proceed through the intersection with very minimal drops in speed, and no signal changes. That tech is a ways off, but it is coming.

>Machines also can't judge, make decisions, and evaluate consequences like humans.
Actually, they are better at most tasks than we are. That's why computers are everywhere.


Realistically speaking, the delay on self driving cars will be a legislative one, rather than a tech one.

>>15989400
People like the thought of futuristic technology. Since we have had a taste with it with Tesla and such, people think it's closer than it is. Self driving cars will never be more than something used in the biggest cities and by city governments. Manual driving will be dominant for many more decades

>>15989439
Certainly a few decades, but we will see the decline of it within 20-30 years. Particularly on highways and other large simplistic roads.

>tfw gonna be one of those weirdos driving a manual car in an auto driving world 50 years from now

I'll probably get a self-driving car when I can find one really cheap and they prove themselves. I just also would want something I could use for weekend driving too. It would be pretty cool being able to sleep while the car drives on solo road trips. I would hate to see them become mandatory, but I don't even think they will necessarily. I think insurance will be so expensive for a "manual" car that it wouldn't make sense for a daily driver. Not to mention cars would probably have a weird hybrid thing for a while.

> that faggot ass car
> not having three people on motorbikes, one behind and one on each side
> not having the ones on the side weave from side to side, forcing the jewgle car to avoid
> person in the back prevents car from stopping
> car tips because it can't handle it