Driverless taxi service getting approved in SF - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2022, 11:37:57 pm
content: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jun/03/california-driverless-taxi-cars-san-francisco

author: eti
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2022, 12:51:22 am
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on June 07, 2022, 11:37:57 pmNo driver to pay, so costs can be slashed to 1/3rd I reckon would be fair. Let the dimwits of SF test them out!

author: Stray Electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2022, 02:29:16 am
content: Quote from: eti on June 08, 2022, 12:51:22 amThe drivers don't control the cab companies in SF and I'm sure the drivers are 100% against this for their own reasons. But I can see why the cab companies would be in favor of it. That said, I think that in People's Republic of California it would be political suicide for a politician to vote in favor of a bill like this that would cost tens of thousands of people (the drivers) their jobs and probably cost a lot of pedestrians their lives. Google, Uber, Apple and the other companies that are pushing the adoption of this kind of technology don't own the State of California. Yet!

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2022, 02:33:45 am
content: What's interesting is how the world (and it's not just California, even though a lot of those "new things" are happening there first) has sneakily forgotten about the precautionary principle, and is interpreting it in a "creative" manner:QuoteSo instead of waiting for more thorough testing and analysis before granting approval, regulators now tend to deliver "temporary approvals" to let the services or products be tested in the field, in limited number, using regular people as guinea pigs. Fascinating.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2022, 03:07:13 am
content: A friend of mine predicted years ago that the driverless car thing would be pushed out hastily and then at some point there would be an event or series of events that kills a bunch of people and the whole thing is outlawed, maybe this will play out that way.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2022, 03:15:52 am
content: Quote from: james_s on June 08, 2022, 03:07:13 amMaybe so, but I'm more inclined to think that the actual scenario will be a few accidents that will be seen as nothing more than collateral damage, all the benefits being heavily praised, and that will become part of everyone's daily life. It's even likely that even if there are some catastrophic accidents, people will get bombarded with statistics showing that it has saved way more lives than it has killed.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2022, 06:59:06 am
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on June 08, 2022, 03:15:52 amBut who is responsible for those accidents and how much is a life worth? A few accidents that result in death could sink a company, whereas conventional accidents will be blamed on the individual that caused the accident. Then of course there will also be vandalism and people trolling the things for fun, while the hapless passenger sits helplessly inside.

author: Zeyneb
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2022, 07:49:57 am
content: What gives me confidence in a safe taxi service is that the drivers life is at stake as well. And if the driver owns its taxi even better because then (s)he will be careful not making minor accidents as well.

author: Ed.Kloonk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2022, 08:57:14 am
content: Quote from: Zeyneb on June 08, 2022, 07:49:57 amCome to Sydney. Get a taxi from the airport to your hotel.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2022, 09:02:15 am
content: Quote from: james_s on June 08, 2022, 03:07:13 amBy 2030 somebody in the US will come up with a small suitcase which converts one those into a cruise missile

author: eti
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2022, 01:30:06 am
content: If a human driver kills people, there is accountability. If SOFTWARE does so, it is waved away as "It was an unfortunate accident, <blah blah rehearsed corporate 'apology' (ass-covering)> and we will take extra steps..." blah blah blah fking blah>They want ALL the profit, but none of the accountability, and a robot can't be sent to prison.

author: Ed.Kloonk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2022, 02:11:15 am
content: Quote from: eti on June 09, 2022, 01:30:06 amTrue, but driverless cars are an extension of automated machinery. Was it safe? How come it wasn't safe? Who made it unsafe?....

author: Stray Electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2022, 02:25:14 am
content: Quote from: eti on June 09, 2022, 01:30:06 amThis pretty much sums up the whole issue. Ask yourself, has anyone gone to jail yet over the two Boeing 737Max crashes? And how many people died in those accidents?

author: jonpaul
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2022, 05:24:36 am
content: Besides the crime, filth, homeless, risques of Getting hit by a driverless car or taxi is just another reason to avoid the city altogether.jon

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2022, 07:07:02 am
content: Quote from: james_s on June 08, 2022, 03:07:13 amWhat is hastily? Back in 1995-1998 I was involved in developing a driver-less container transport system called COMBI-ROAD.https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/981940/At some point in time there was a demonstration of this system scheduled to happen at the same time an American company (don't remember the name) came over to do a demo of a driver-less car. There was this new highway, just finished and not in use yet, reserved for this. (Think it was a section of the A50) The cars drove themselves in series but with a "non driver" behind the wheel to intervene in case of a problem. The faith in the system was not very highThe demonstration for the COMBI-ROAD system was conducted at the same time on a company terrain (At the time I think named Traxis) For the time that the truck was on it's own track there was no driver. It did work quite well, but to be honest the obstacle detection had it's weak points. A person on the track was only detected when the infrared beams were interrupted, so there were spots that the truck would happily smush anyone on the trackSo now some 25 years later the self driving car is still not safely thereSure with AI and cameras a lot is possible, but failure is always there. Humans are unpredictable and with emotions in play there are so many scenarios that can go wrong. Let's be honest we, as drivers in general, are not capable of driving without accidents. Only in a perfect setup where there are no other users on the road self driving cars might do well.The point of responsibility is very true. Whom to blame if it goes sour

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2022, 07:23:25 am
content: Quote from: pcprogrammer on June 09, 2022, 07:07:02 amDriving on a closed highway is an entirely different situation than coexisting with human drivers on public roads. This attitude is exactly the sort of thing that leads to hasty deployments, people are overly confident, the did it on a closed circuit so they think it will be easy to scale up to deal with real world driving on public roads. It's not.

author: jonpaul
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2022, 12:25:21 pm
content: Bonjour, a few questions please!What's an acceptable system error rate..1%? 0.01%how much dégradation will occur due to:1. poor or missing internet connection or poor mobile cell coverage2. stale maps eg due to recent roadworks?3. undisclosed or unknown Software and firmware bugs?4. Global position error...faux signal, eg intentionally due to conflict or war?Already just within a few years of limited testing, some deaths and serious accidentsWho exactly is responsible?who has rights and access to the stored data from the vehicles involved?Vehicle manufacturer, driver, owner?Bon courageJon

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2022, 01:37:15 pm
content: Bonjour a vous,All very good questions which are hard to answer.What is safe error response? Just stopping on the middle of the road if for instance the internet connection drops is not safe and certainly a hinder to the rest of the users on the road.About GPS, it does not work when in a tunnel or underpass, so can't rely on it. Radar does not look around corners and can be absorbed so again nothing to rely on. Etc, etc.Way to many problem points with this for me to get into a self driving carCordialement,Peter

author: jonpaul
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2022, 01:50:56 pm
content: Rebonjour Cher Peter,any détection system, radar lidar, sonar has limited capture angle, and update rate.false negatives can be as bad in concequence as false positives...The complexity of the many computers and 100s mega lines of SW make a perfect detection impossible.I would be surprised if the serious incident error rate were better than 0.1% = one failure per 1000 incident."No 9000 computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information....."HAL9000 in Stanley Kubrick's classic 1968 film, "2001, A Space Odyssey"bon courage,jon

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2022, 02:34:52 pm
content: Quote from: jonpaul on June 09, 2022, 01:50:56 pmBonjour Jon,that was before Windows came alongAbout the detection systems, that is why the COMBI-ROAD system I talked about was using infrared beams to transfer information about the road including wetness and temperature and obstacles for the next kilometer ahead to the vehicle. The safety in the system was the vehicle stopping when there was a problem, and all vehicles behind it would too. Can only work on a dedicated and separate road. But it also has limitations, like railroads also have and thus need a way to keep people of the track.The wife is calling supper so till next post,Greetings,Peter

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2022, 03:15:55 pm
content: Quote from: Stray Electron on June 09, 2022, 02:25:14 amYou can only go to jail if you are convicted of a CRIME and that can only occur if there was intent or gross negligence. An accident is just that; an accident. In most cases, there are so many contributing factors that it is impossible to determine negligence and proving intent is even harder.Now, that doesn't mean there won't be civil lawsuits, that's a given. But nobody goes to jail over a civil judgement.There is still plenty of work to do on the AI driving the car. Right now it has a propensity for driving into police cars and getting confused with traffic cones.https://www.autoweek.com/news/green-cars/a37425353/another-tesla-hits-police-car/When you ride in a self-driving car, your life is not only in the hands of a programmer but also a math major. The day won't come when I let a car drive me around. Not happening!It is estimated that it takes 70,000 GPU hours to rebuild the Tesla neural network. I'm still trying to find a definition for GPU-hour since GPU apparently refers to the entire device rather than the highly variable number of CUDA cores in the device. I have one graphics card with a couple of hundred CUDA cores and another with nearly 6000. Both are GPUs (of a sort) but they certainly aren't equivalent.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2022, 06:08:47 pm
content: We had a number of threads about AI and liability, those points are definitely valid and we could already see this is a very polarizing topic.Yes, AI in everything is a great way of abolishing the concept of liability.But what got me even more concerned in this particular case is how authorities are dealing with this.As I said above, it would appear that the "new normal" is to put the precautionary principle aside and approve things that aren't formally proven safe, just because there is now a sense of emergency that would justify it and that we are all supposed to embrace.

author: jonpaul
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2022, 06:18:49 pm
content: consider the situation vs airline flights crashes investigation.Radar, grounds radio altimeter, ILS, control towers, extensive weather and runway conditions..Still every year some failures and crashes.Predicted much worse for autonomie véhicules.Jon

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2022, 07:19:49 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on June 09, 2022, 06:08:47 pmWhat kind of emergency do you refer to in regards to taxi service, or to generic autonomic passenger vehicle for that matter?

author: Bassman59
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2022, 08:10:19 pm
content: Quote from: jonpaul on June 09, 2022, 01:50:56 pmThat statement is correct in the universe of the film.HAL did not make a mistake when it removed the life support from the sleeping astronauts. HAL did not make a mistake when it killed Frank and when it tried to kill David.HAL's primary goal was to ensure the success of the mission to Jupiter. As part of its continuing operation and calculation, it made a determination that the fallibility of the humans put that mission in jeopardy. Thus the only logic action was to eliminate the human element.You might remember that HAL had a twin on Earth, and a test was run, comparing HAL to that twin, and there was no evidence of malfunction. The test they didn't run was to ask the Earth-bound twin to "be in HAL's shoes on the Discovery," and get its response. Would the twin have made the same fatal decision? Obviously yes.Remember that Clarke was clearly aware of Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics. But HAL was not a robot -- specifically, HAL was not sentient. Though maybe Clarke's 4th Law should have been "Any sufficiently-advanced processing power/programming is indistinguishable from sentience" ?

author: jpanhalt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2022, 08:16:12 pm
content: News from Missouri. Will driverless taxis be liable for any STD one might contract while a passenger?https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/geico-std-lawsuit-settlement-carOMG

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2022, 09:30:00 pm
content: Quote from: eti on June 09, 2022, 01:30:06 amNope. Turns out the manufacturer of the car is responsible in such cases by law.

author: jbeng
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2022, 11:55:17 pm
content: [ Specified attachment is not available ]

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2022, 01:17:55 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on June 10, 2022, 09:30:00 pmWhere? I'm sure that's right in many places, it sounds reasonable, but it may not be the law everywhere.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2022, 02:36:58 am
content: Quote from: Bud on June 09, 2022, 07:19:49 pmDon't ask me. I'm not the one who gets to decide. Ask regulators.All I'm saying is that they seem to be acting as though it was urgent to deploy those taxi services, and thus seem to be taking some unusual shortcuts.The underlying reasons, I do not know, although we could think of a few potential causes that would be likely to trigger political action.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2022, 04:34:10 am
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on June 11, 2022, 02:36:58 amMoney

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2022, 04:39:47 am
content: Quote from: jpanhalt on June 10, 2022, 08:16:12 pmWhat is wrong with people. Having consensual sex is your own responsibility. Contracting a disease from it is then a risk you can't blame on an insurance company.

author: sleemanj
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2022, 05:02:15 am
content: Quote from: jpanhalt on June 10, 2022, 08:16:12 pmFor people who didn't want to enable ads, woman has sex in the back of a car with some dude, catches an STD, files a claim with the company that insured the car, they refused the claim, and it went to an arbitration, where the woman was awarded 5.2 million dollars.America isweird.

author: RoGeorge
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2022, 06:03:40 am
content: Quote from: Bassman59 on June 10, 2022, 08:10:19 pmThat's yet another illustration over a much deeper fact, that there is no such thing as a standalone good/evil, or write/wrong. These notions only makes sense in relation to a given goal. If something suits the given goal, then it's good/write otherwise is evil/wrong.Same with the HAL computer. For the stated goal's perspective (of completing the mission) it was good to kill the crew, for the human goal's perspective (of staying alive) it was wrong.Once we realize nothing can be classified as good or evil without firstly stating the goals' context in which we want to judge that, all the ethics debates became meaningless. Ethics seems complicated only because we do not state clear enough what is the goal in the first place.We each drag with us a big bag of goals and tacit assumptions, and we would expect/want everybody else to carry the same set of goals and principles as ours. The set of goals from any two such bags is never the same. They never perfectly overlap. So we point fingers and say that's wrong, or evil, and get upset or angry about that, instead of thinking that's a different bag of goals.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2022, 08:20:09 am
content: Found this older video that near the end made me laughIt is about AI taking over and we all need to behave because otherwise it will kill us all. The planet and nature would benefit from it greatly.

author: Stray Electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2022, 03:03:41 pm
content: Quote from: sleemanj on June 11, 2022, 05:02:15 amThat's only half of the story. The insurance company is the one that forced this to go tobinding arbitration. Then when the arbitrator ruled against them, the insurance company took it to court and tried to get have the arbitrator's ruling overturned. The court rightfully ruled against the insurance company and pointed out that they were the ones that required the binding arbitration and they were the ones that choose the arbitrator.Now, as usual, the idiot news media is completely distorting the facts and is proclaiming that the woman WON in court andimplyingthat she won the original ruling in court. She didn't. She only "won" the appeal that was filed by the insurance company.As ridiculous as this case seems at first glance, I can understand the arbitrator's ruling. Basically the facts are that the woman wasknowinglyinfected with a STD by the insured in his car thus she was "injured" in his car. I'm surprised that the insurance policy didn't include some sort of exclusion for events such as this but it it didn't then the insurance company is liable according to the arbitrator.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2022, 08:29:30 pm
content: Quote from: pcprogrammer on June 11, 2022, 04:39:47 amA reasonable person would think so, however there exist a significant portion of the population for whom everything is someone else's fault, they expect somebody to look out for them and shield them from every conceivable danger. It's the reason there are so many stupid warning labels on everything.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2022, 08:45:34 pm
content: Idiots exist everywhere, but unique to the West are omnipresent greedy lawyers and their ability to win stupid lawsuits on the basis that allegedly everybody is equal and has a right to live despite any empirically evident lack of fitness.

author: rdsi
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2022, 11:21:26 pm
content: The legalities will get worked out and I’m sure the benefits will outway the current situation – people at the wheel. Come’on, computers don’t get distracted, drink, get tired, talk on the phone or text.I’m ready for the technology! Now I can do something constructive instead of driving. Once the technology is fully adopted we probably won’t need traffic signs (stop signs) so we’ll save on energy & get to our destination faster.So the Company starting service in SF isWaymo& they have already been operating in Phoenix & Chandler AZ. Just hail a car on your phone (Waymo One) & a fully autonomous car shows up – no driver.After watching a YouTube I surprised how quick & articulate it was.Can’t wait.

author: sleemanj
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2022, 02:06:07 am
content: Heh, that video is from Dec 2020, but I note the route the vehicle took was...all right-hand turns :-)

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2022, 05:02:39 am
content: Quote from: rdsi on June 11, 2022, 11:21:26 pmThat is a valid point, but with the high frequency's computers run on nowadays glitches causing errors can happen. On the other hand power can run low, and they do talk on the phone sort of speak, because they communicate with other systems. Also needed when traffic signs like speed limits are no longer needed (see below) to inform the car what speed it may use. Can't trust on GPS and map information for this.Quote from: rdsi on June 11, 2022, 11:21:26 pmYeah maybe, but that will take a long long time, before every one on the planet has given up their own non self driving cars, bicycles, etc. And then still what about people on foot, they still need the traffic lights to know they can safely cross the road. And where is the energy savings when all these cars are running computers that use up extra energy. But they could make savings by not using a traditional car any more. There is no need for a steering wheel and driver seat, so there can be a weight reduction.Quote from: sleemanj on June 12, 2022, 02:06:07 amAnd how is that about saving energy. Definitely not the shortest route to get from A to B.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2022, 08:22:26 am
content: Another interesting thing to consider. My wife brought this one to the table. What if a passenger has an medical emergency like a heart attack. Will the computer notice that and take the passenger to hospital.I'm sure a human driver will detect this. If he responds correctly is a whole other ballgameAnother one from the wife, what if there are a lot of these kind of cars on the road and someone hacks them to create a big chaos. Disrupting society

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2022, 08:30:33 am
content: Quote from: pcprogrammer on June 12, 2022, 08:22:26 amIn theory yes, as these vehicles have cabin cameras... but it would require some interesting neural network training to pick up e.g. a seizure vs just excited shouting on a phone, given only video data.

author: RoGeorge
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2022, 08:36:40 am
content: Quote from: pcprogrammer on June 12, 2022, 08:22:26 amWhat if a miniskirt is walking on the sideways, distracting all the male drivers?

author: rdsi
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2022, 11:32:44 am
content: All this flak seems reminiscent when the horseless carriage was introduced. It’s gonna happen and things will change.What you & I think might be the best route is not always true. UPS found that if their drivers never turn left (almost) they save time & fuel. Also, the autonomous vehicle can pick-up traffic reports and adjust their routes accordingly. Lot’s improvements.Anyway, right now there’s nothing better than a good application to push technology. This one is improving AI, computing power, sensor technology and others by orders of magnitudes. Who would of thought that a 77 GHz phased array radar would become a consumer thing on cars… There are even microwave sensors at 60 GHz that can pickup your heartbeat, respiration & determine the number of people in an area!I think this is great for both humans & the economy!

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2022, 01:37:00 pm
content: Yeah, I'm agreed with that. The average car spends ca. 95% of its time parked up. And it costs, what, $25k from new to buy? That's a huge amount of capital to invest in that 5% convenience. If you can offer an Uber-like service at 20 cent per mile, I suspect a lot of people will bite your hand off.Automated cars solve a lot of the issues that driver operated cars have. And you can begin to optimise what a car *is*. If it's just 'you' going to work, then a one or two seater "smart car" could pick you up. You could packetise bus services more efficiently; now it's practical to have a four-seat bus that serves an otherwise unprofitable route. You can go out drinking and have your car drive you back home. No need to own a 7 seat family SUV because once in a blue moon you have to pick up the kids and their friends from school.Whilst they do pose risks, the average car driver has an accident more often than once in a decade, and there were 42,000 fatalities in the US due to car accidents alone. If autonomous vehicles achieve twice the safety record of ordinary drivers, who are distracted by their phone, sometimes drunk and always human, then it will be worth it IMO.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2022, 03:23:10 pm
content: Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the idea, just questioning the technology.Comparing between human drivers and automated drivers, one can question if the computer is capable of anticipating on other road users. How many of us have avoided accidents just by paying special attention to some of the other drivers on the road.Your estimate of 20 cents per mile is rather low I think. Even though there is no driver, the owner of the car still want's return on his investment, but sure for a lot of people it might be a perfect fit. And like you say they can scale the cars and deploy according to demand, which can save on energy consumption. On the other hand if we had to use such a service to do our shopping, the car would have to come to our remote location first, then drive us to the shops and back to our home and then on wards to where ever, it consumes more energy then us having our own car and drive back and forth once a week. (Yes we try to minimize our shopping to only once a week. Good for our wallet and the environment.)

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2022, 03:35:24 pm
content: QuoteThis is why the scale of the service is really important. For a commute, a one-person microvehicle could easily use only 5~8kWh/100km and maybe fit just a 15-20kWh battery on board. (It would, of course, be electric. I don't see any reason these should be powered by fuel.) With downtime every few customers for recharging or battery swaps, that vehicle can be utilised something like 16 hours a day, handling commuters in the morning, business travellers in the afternoon and return trips towards the evening. Even if it costs $50k to buy, if it lasts 10 years and does an average of 20mi/h in its service time, then it only cost 5c per mile, so the rest is just down to how much energy and maintenance it requires.For your shopping example I see it going one of two ways. You would probably only need a one/two person vehicle to go to the shop, and a larger vehicle to go back. A supermarket could convert most of its parking lot into a dropoff/pickup area with vehicles waiting to return customers home. If the service is sized right then there's always a use for that return trip. Alternatively, the delivery vehicle could just take your goods home a few hours after you paid for them. That's much more efficient because the chances are, the route can be arranged to maximise efficiency with other customers served as well. Since a considerable amount of space would be freed not having to accommodate every customer's parking need for the hour they are there, the store could expand to fill the space, or other businesses could be co-located on site.The whole idea is that you don't need the vehicle to be the same size all the time - it would adapt to your specific needs.In this hypothetical world I still think private cars will be a 'thing', but they will be less common. Whether you will be allowed to drive as a human though is another matter which I'm sure will create plenty of debate.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2022, 03:44:02 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on June 12, 2022, 03:35:24 pmYou are right that it will create a lot of debate. Just look at the 7 pages of arguing about mandatory USB-C port and charging adapters enforced by the EU.Might be in the same corner as gun ownership.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2022, 03:50:03 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on June 12, 2022, 03:35:24 pmA better idea is to return it to nature. Plant some trees on it.

author: Bassman59
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2022, 05:09:34 am
content: Quote from: sleemanj on June 12, 2022, 02:06:07 amThe dumb thing didn't even stop to go record shopping at Zia Records.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 21, 2022, 03:56:13 am
content: Quote from: rdsi on June 12, 2022, 11:32:44 amIt's not going to happen in our lifetime. Self driving cars are stupid, they're a solution looking for a problem. I already ride a bus when I go to the office, that's close enough to self driving, you only need one driver for a whole pile of passengers. For a taxi the human driver is not an enormous expense and it gives somebody a job. For personal cars it's just dumb, the whole point of owning a car is I get to drive it. I am never, ever going to give up my manually driven car for as long as I'm physically fit to drive it and I am far from the only person. We should be focusing on alternative energy sources for propulsion, not silly robotic gimmicks. There are always going to be edge cases like floods, snow, black ice, pedestrians, bicycles and situations such as the one I had yesterday where I had to drive across an unmarked grassy field to park in a rural area, how is a self driving car going to manage that? As long as edge cases exist there is going to be a need for at least some manually driven cars with steering wheels and other controls and as long as there are some of those, we need all of the street signs and signals and everything else.

author: Bassman59
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 22, 2022, 09:49:31 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on June 21, 2022, 03:56:13 amThe problem is a matter of perspective. If you are an automobile manufacturer, then one problem is people using mass transit instead of buying new cars. It's no accident that many public transit systems in cities were shut down or neglected. It's no accident that towns and cities are "planned" around the single-person automobile instead of around mass transit. It's no accident that there are few railway easements for passenger trains next to interstate highways.So from the perspective of an automobile manufacturer who needs to sell more product, the self-driving car makes perfect sense. "someone" can buy a fleet of these cars and have them ready and available for use by customers who will, after all is said and done, pay more for the convenience of not owning a car than the cost of actually owning the car (and that includes maintenance). And, really, car manufacturers hate people who buy a car and keep it for 15 years.That's the problem self-driving cars are meant to solve.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 22, 2022, 11:29:23 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on June 21, 2022, 03:56:13 amBut you're assuming our leaders aren't.