Autonomus Cars

>>135499485


1) Check with automobile insurance companies. They are mega corps that stand to lose out massively on insurance premiums.As the volume of claims drops, the customers will demand a lower coverage cost.

The insurance companies don't care and they aren't rapidly diversifying. When autonomous driving is a reality they will shill and lobby hard to mitigate, stall and milk out the last free ride of rip off insurance scam.

2) Everyone else will oppose it too. Police unions come to mind first. As auto driving becomes a thing the cars will no longer break the law. Municipalities that assume a massive revenue stream from traffic citations will protest and shill against auto driving to progress the law enforcement scam. So will every other union from auto repair to taxi drivers.

3) It's far away. It's a killer marketing ploy and very sexy to sell auto driving now because it brings in VC money and pumps stock prices with every elon musk tweet talking about how it will all be ready to roll out next week. Lots of deadlines are missed and we haven't even began to setup a the legalities of it all.


TLDR

Its 20 years away when most new cars sold are autonomous, even when it comes out it will still take 20 more years for that current automobile fleet to dry up. Nobody who bought a standard vehicle in 2030 is going to throw it away because an autonomous version came out in 2031. They will drive it for 200k miles until its dead.

File: __rai_and_villetta_nu_code_geass_and_code_geass_lost_colors__541b28b3d46e5e183410c41d4b7c5148.jpg (1MB, 3259x1882px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3259x1882px

>it snows
>automatic car crashes

>>135499485

Self driving garbage trucks are currently being tested in Sweden, Gothenburg. Doing quite fine even in smaller neighborhoods.

Okay guys but what about the people who lose their jobs to automated cars, in talking taxi drivers, delivery trucks, long distance road truckers. What happens to them? What will replace the jobs lost?

>>135500919

With the automation that will inevitably happen countries will have to implement basic income to everyone. Countries will have to become socialistic in order to keep a growing or even stable population while also automating everything.

>>135500491
>Blizzard, can't see shit
>Autonomous car crashes
>After 3 million miles driven and 1 billion miles driven in a simulation, the car can handle snow with ease
>LIDAR, Radar, 3D Maps and Cameras make the car safer than any human behind the wheel
>The crash was caused by a drunk 17yo who couldn't drive for shit
>Thanks to the autonomous car, you survived but the car is totalled

Fuck autonomous cars, amirite? Humans are perfect drivers, these fucking robots can't even deal with snow.

File: 79349073297983503725079235.jpg (66KB, 475x350px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 475x350px

>>135499485
>some autist figures out how to hack and control
self driving cars remotely

>>135500672
Amazing.

Really hope our government isn't the last one to start with this.

>>135499485
I used to drive 797 and 777 for a living..you kind of need to actually be in them..I don't see how this works

>>135499485
1 word : liability

who's to blame when your self-driving car runs over a group of girlscouts?
No car manufacturer will risk billion dollar lawsuits for that

>>135505781

Safety systems and programming. They are programmed to never run anything over. If they do the battery and backup battery or sensors are not working ergo it's the owners fault for not servicing them.

>>135505350
I am never flying without a human pilot

>>135499485
Those dump trucks drive slow and they also have a bunch of room for error since they are driving around a quarry not tiny streets.

>>135505781
they'll make you agree to a ToS before you can start the car that'll say you assume any and all liability

>>135507113
Technical defects do happen.

If it's the owners responsibility to take over steering when needed, the owner may as well drive for himself.

>>135508327

If the car is defect to begin with ofc it's not the owners fault, but it is the owners responibility to keep the car road legal and road safe just like with a normal car.

>>135500672
>Self driving garbage trucks are currently being tested in Sweden, Gothenburg
Were the drivers too scared to properly serve their customers in the '''''diverse'''''' neighborhoods?

>>135508495

Nope, I'm picking up garbage in a few of those neighborhoods. Also they are self driving, they are not picking up the garbage themselves, for now. There is a guy walking beside the truck and filling it with the garbage.

>>135499485
>Where will they go for work?
I honestly couldn't care less, the less I deal with humans the better.

Truckers are going to basically get a bad assed cruise control within the next ten years. Due to the potentially disastrous consequences of these heavy vehicles operating amongst civilians, a driver will be required in the seat on standby. Likely this will reduce pay at first but keep them employed.

>>135508484
I'm talking about defects while driving. A tire may pop or the software may bug out or google maps may be out of date server side. Nothing the owner can influence beforehand.

>>135508739
Some larger corporations such as Walmart or Amazon could potentially have their own automated fleet whuch only runs specific routes to carefully chosen shipping locations. This is s likely first step in the logistics industry. The overall main problem is safely mixing unpredictable, rule breaking humans with computer driven vehicles that strictly follow a set of rules.

>>135508792

I don't see how this is anything different from now? They'll be charged with involuntary manslaughter or something similar. I know that in Sweden if they find that it was a complete accident, nothing the "killer" could do to avoid the death of the other person themselves they are pardoned of any crime or sentence.

>>135508896
>safely mixing unpredictable, rule breaking humans
Which is why they will work as hard as possible on making it almost impossible or outright impossible for normal people to own and register normal cars after a certain point (that's getting closer and closer).

>>135508792
>>135509067

Also if there is a bug in some system like google maps or anything they'll be fined, nothing out of the ordinary. If the bugs are not fixed they'll probably be banned of use

>>135508792
Some semi trucks have advanced pretrip systems in place that monitor everything from fluid levels, tire pressures, and lights. I had this in a 2012 volvo so the prototypes should be vastly superior.
You are correct in the unpredictability however, current technology cannot cope with the complexity of these machines without a huge increase in cost. Airless tires and much higher quality parts will be required. Many aspects of these vehicles are built too be replaced.

>>135509067
My point is: If the driver has to be ready to drive at any moment, why isn't he driving himself?

Consumer use, of course. There may be some viable industrial uses for self driving cars in controlled environments or on strictly defined routes.

>>135509099
I expect this to first happen in larger metro areas first. The usa has a huge amount of rural areas containing varying road construction styles. European or Asian countries like Japan might be able to fully implement these technologies first.

>>135499485
>"NO DRIVER!"
>still has a cab and controls
Yeah, no.
heavy machinery is ALWAYS operated manually. That pic is doctored or just angled so that the operator can't be seen.

>>135509293

The thing is, the driver shouldn't have to be ready to drive himself at any moment. There are several safety mechanisms in those vehicles, the chance that every one of them is broken is abysmally low.

Also I rather trust in a collective network of self driving cars than actual human beings. I'm out on the streets every day and the shit I see is horrifying.

>>135509746
Eh, I doubt the viability of self driving cars in Europe especially. Our cities and villages grew organically since the Middle Ages.

American cities seem more grid like in comparison. Which is easier for an AI to handle.

>>135509099
Why? An autonomous vehicle will be able to handle every situation to the optimal outcome. Human drivers are just another variable.

>>135509952
>Why?
Because the future is a fusion between capitalism and communism, which will have the words of both, and every freedom and common that you still have, will be taken away from you and repackaged into a collectivized, controlled, datamined, shared package, that you will have to pay to opt into.

>>135509936
You're definitely right on our cities being grid like. Our smaller townships are more like you describe. Bottom line is that full implementation is a lot farther off than the technology makes it seem. Maybe some advanced ai but really every car communicating with each other and a standardized smart road will be needed a of now.
There could be dedicated lanes similar to car pooling in the near future.

>>135509909
If the driver is not meant to be able to take over steering by law at any point, then the responsibility for possible accidents lies with the manufacturer.

Accidents will happen. People will die in those cars.

>>135509952
The optimal outcome in a situation may require breaking rules that are hard coded into the car.

I.E. to not run over a person a car may need to drive over the sidewalk for a bit.

Programing is excellent with binary yes/no choices, but it's horrible at judgement calls. So much so that any ambiguity in programing needs to be eliminated.

>>135510120
>words
*worst

>ride in my automated car
>niggers blast past me in their old fashion cadillac
>say "fucking niggers" out loud
>the Noseberg 3000 computer system controlling the car suddenly decides to gun it and run the car through the cliff barriers up ahead
>the black box found in the wreckage says I'm the grand wizard of the kkk
no thanks

>>135510348

It all depends on the actual situation. If the car is in good condition, serviced and everything is fine on the owners part, it's the manufacturers responsibility. If the car is in not so good condition it's most likely the owners fault.

Also people die all the time in regular cars. I highly doubt that more people will die of self driving cars.

>>135508117
>>135508327

yeah but what if there's no one in the car?

Elon Musk has a plan to make the teslas fully autonomous so that when you're at work you can have your car be an uber for example, and that's how you would pay the car off

so someone requests a ride, your car goes to pick them up, something happens and your car runs over a baby

what happens then?

Also, the only way automated traffic can work perfectly is if all the vehicles are connected

so your car knows what every other car in like a one kilometer radius is doing, where it's going, how fast, where it's going to be... so every car can predict what will happen and crashes will be pretty much impossible

and if you include peoples cell phones in the grid, the vehicles will know where the pedestrians are and what they're doing so they can avoid them at all times

>>135511082
And now you get it.

>>135511207

yeah... but still, there are always pros and cons

>>135509852
Nah they have big harvesters that you just program the route and they harvest a whole field. Buddy of mine does this. He sits in the cabin with a Cabellas magazine and a tin of dip and never touches the controls. Says he could just get out and do something else but it's too relaxing.

>>135499485
I imagine commercial trucking will be one of the first industries to become largely automated. Some of the routes these trucks take could easily be automated with the tech that exists today think Long Beach harbor CA to Phoenix AZ. I see this happening very soon before 2020. There are some routes however that will take much longer. There are 3.5 million commercial truck drivers in the US alone so if 100% automation did come about quickly in just this one field you could bet it would be a shit storm for the unemployment rate. Where will truck drivers go? They will go work other jobs that will soon also be automated, factory jobs, warehouse jobs, other driving jobs and perhaps some trade skill jobs that will last a little longer.

>>135507113
Listen Sven, I know nobody in your country drives, but here in the states, so many niggers, spics, and white trash drive cars on the road every day that aren't properly serviced. A fully linked network of autonomous cars will never work because Jamal, pedro, and Stacey all ignore the sound of their brake pads growling and squealing when they deplete all the friction material. So there are going to be plenty of accidents.

Meanwhile, I'm gonna go full Red Barchetta.

>>135511593
If you ask me, commercial trucking should be cut heavily. You're trying to automate a whole industry to drive perfect and safe in their lane...

Why not just invest in railroads? Except for high mountain passes and short runs from a railhead to the final destination, I see no point in investing so heavily in moving cargo in such an inefficient way.

>>135512279
>>Why not just invest in railroads?
Because that won't kill one of the last freedoms a common man has.

>>135512388
Hey, I'm all for allowing a man to drive, as I said here: >>135511950

But if the common man wants to be a truck driver, away from his white family and fighting idiot drivers, traffic jams, breakdowns, etc. He's got to reframe his priorities.

There are tons of sections of track that are only laid singly. Lots of people could be employed in building new roadbeds, as well as bringing neglected lines back up to a safe and efficient standard.

>>135501689
They already have welfare you moron, basic income just gives money to people who already have money more money.

>>135514915

You're just retarded if you think it'll work like that, just slamming more money on your income.

>check flag
>flag checks out

>>135512388
>Because that won't kill one of the last freedoms a common man has.

Being a truck driver sure as fuck isn't freedom.

>>135499485
Hack automated trucks, tell them to drive to remote location, rob them and give the goods to the poor like robin hood.

>>135514915
>>135501689
>>135508739

It's not only Truck and Uber Drivers. Why going grocery shopping if you can get everything brought to you automatically and for 30% less.
Why pay your Power or Garbage companies. If you can ship batteries cheaper. Or get your garbage collected automatically from someone else. And who will pay for Basic Income if the middle class is thinning out. The Elite will just move away before they get taxed.

>>135499485
Kiss the insurance industry goodbye. Im not paying for the insurance to protect google from their nigger programers.

>>135515174
That's literally how it works you cum slurping pastey faggot.

>>135517857

That comes back to one of my earlier comment that the countries will have to become socialistic for the automation to progress.

File: fagget.jpg (85KB, 433x417px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 433x417px

>>135518100

>>135517873
Oh silly little anon, you're not going to have a chance in the matter.

If you own an automated car, you're going to have to have insurance. They're going to keep that law.

Hell, odds are your car will probably rat on you if your insurance isn't up to date, or just refuse to run if you don't have insurance.

>get in car
>new update starts downloading automatically
>have to wait for it to finish before you can go
>then you have to purchase the new update for it to install
>finally go
>car drives you into a wall to avoid squirrel
>cost of repairs automatically billed to your account

>>135517873
When your car comes with a ToS agreement you will be on the hook for anything if you as much as fart in the car.