Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
5 Reasons Why We Will Never Have Driverless Cars...time To Stop Dreaming?
31 Answers
http://
Only no 1 and maybe 2 are possibly solvable. This is a US based article but the issues are the same everywhere. We would do better to work on safety and training generally.
Only no 1 and maybe 2 are possibly solvable. This is a US based article but the issues are the same everywhere. We would do better to work on safety and training generally.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Never is too long a time. I can accept that things will take a long time to change if they ever will, but in part this is a generational thing and in part it's because the technology isn't ready yet. When it is, then we'll find it harder to resist something that will, in the long run, be many times safer than just better-trained humans can be.
Quite a few car manufacturers are gearing up for driverless cars.
http://
http://
Exactly Jim. This will happen. And a lot sooner than people think. Google's fleet has travelled 140,000 miles without incident:
http://
The main driving force (pun intended) will be economy and safety. Irrespective of the 'will it kill one person to save five' arguments, the number of road deaths will be vastly reduced.
http://
The main driving force (pun intended) will be economy and safety. Irrespective of the 'will it kill one person to save five' arguments, the number of road deaths will be vastly reduced.
"They can be programmed by humans to make the same decisions that humans would make; the difference being that they can make them more quickly." - no they can't, see here for example: http://
machine will never have human judgement the whole thing is down to linear programming.
Howevere the main point hat everyone seems to ignore is that even if the tech problems are overcome to an acceptable level, they will need to integrate into the legal system and also the insurance situation will need to be resolved. Ain't gonna happen.
machine will never have human judgement the whole thing is down to linear programming.
Howevere the main point hat everyone seems to ignore is that even if the tech problems are overcome to an acceptable level, they will need to integrate into the legal system and also the insurance situation will need to be resolved. Ain't gonna happen.
Again, legal issues are not insurmountable. And besides which, if they are genuinely safe as all that, then almost by definition there would be fewer occasions on which any possible legal issues would come up!
Nope -- the naysayers have an important role to play in making sure that this change, when it comes, does so in the safest and most sensible way possible, but those against driverless cars are like Canute ordering back the tide.
Nope -- the naysayers have an important role to play in making sure that this change, when it comes, does so in the safest and most sensible way possible, but those against driverless cars are like Canute ordering back the tide.
IEEE predicts up to 75% of vehicles will be autonomous in 2040
Expert members of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) have determined that driverless vehicles will be the most viable form of intelligent transportation. They estimate that up to 75% of all vehicles will be autonomous by 2040.
(Source: IEEE, 2012-09-05)
Expert members of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) have determined that driverless vehicles will be the most viable form of intelligent transportation. They estimate that up to 75% of all vehicles will be autonomous by 2040.
(Source: IEEE, 2012-09-05)
Even a car in itself is a technological step that was resisted at the time. Imagine the advantages of having an intelligent vehicle capable of making its own judgements about collision risks and adjusting accordingly, independent of the person in nominal charge. A horse, in other words.
It's a wonder cars even got off the ground, given the onus they put on humans to pay attention constantly, which we are evidently incapable of doing.
It's a wonder cars even got off the ground, given the onus they put on humans to pay attention constantly, which we are evidently incapable of doing.
It's a good job there are visionaries in this world. If everyone thought like you TTT we'd still be walking everywhere. If you showed an Elizabethan a Dreamliner and told him what it did he'd probably go instantly insane.
“1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
― Arthur C. Clarke
“1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
― Arthur C. Clarke
not all colisions are aviodable. Tyre burst at 70 for example, car sidways, even computers won't be able to react quick enough. Bang whose fault? who pays the damage? will all the other driverless cars be able to avoid the stricken car and the nearby traffic including the left hook polish truck with dodgy tyres and brakes and the driver half pi55ed? I work in IT and I've seen and done a lot of sophisticated programming but we have yet to achieve "idiot proof" because nature is always making better "idiots".
Many cars have driverless features but full door to door driverless functionality is a long long way off, the legal issues are even longer off.
Many cars have driverless features but full door to door driverless functionality is a long long way off, the legal issues are even longer off.
Indeed -- but there is evidently a difference between "a long way off" and "never". I can't say I'll be holding my breath waiting, but I don't see how anyone can so confidently dismiss it either.
Legal issues? Meh, lawyers can make anything an issue if they put their minds to it.
Technological issues? Surmountable -- especially once a certain critical mass of driverless cars is on the road so that there are fewer unknowns to be worried about.
The only thing standing in the way of driverless cars, really, is whether or not enough people want them.
Legal issues? Meh, lawyers can make anything an issue if they put their minds to it.
Technological issues? Surmountable -- especially once a certain critical mass of driverless cars is on the road so that there are fewer unknowns to be worried about.
The only thing standing in the way of driverless cars, really, is whether or not enough people want them.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.