Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Tessy" only the beginning

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    The automated system didn't cause the crash, the truck pulling into the path of moving vehicles caused the crash, the automated system then failed to prevent it, as did the driver who was ultimately responsible for control of the vehicle, whatever mode he had selected.
    My main worry about it would be the use of optical sensing rather than Radar for frontal collision avoidance, I'd much rather have Radar, a much more mature technology for detecting something you're likely to hit,

    - Nick
    If you benefit from the Dunning-Kruger Effect you may not even know it ;-)

    Comment


    • #47
      Way big difference in flying & driving on auto pilot, with planes you don't fly & pass each others at 3 feet & you're still sitting at the controls monoriting everything. I don't see it working in cars as what's the use if you still have to do the same in the car, not much better than cruise control IMHO.

      Comment


      • #48
        Wait until they start delivering packages with drones................ No only will we have self driving cars getting in accidents we will have drones getting tangled up in power lines and trees and coming down where they can cause other accidents.
        What an exciting age we live in.

        JL.............

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by danlb View Post
          Yeah... Right. Like passing a law ever made 100% of the people do what's right. Last I heard speeding was illegal, as was altering the pollution control on a car, but I recall a post where someone one this thread admitted to both infringements.

          Dan
          I'm suspecting that you missed AK's sarcasm...

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Magicniner View Post
            The automated system didn't cause the crash, the truck pulling into the path of moving vehicles caused the crash, the automated system then failed to prevent it, as did the driver who was ultimately responsible for control of the vehicle, whatever mode he had selected.
            My main worry about it would be the use of optical sensing rather than Radar for frontal collision avoidance, I'd much rather have Radar, a much more mature technology for detecting something you're likely to hit,

            - Nick
            If the automated system is only reliable in good weather, on good roads and in "normal" driving and traffic situations, then it's useless. It couldn't avoid a crash in an all too common situation, another vehicle suddenly turning into its path.

            Comment


            • #51
              Drivers cause lots of accidents, or try to. Its the nature of driving, by computer or by human.

              Most of them are avoided.

              People are STILL making excuses about this. And it is STILL exactly what driver assist is supposed to deal with.....The unexpected that the driver misses.

              NO the truck did not cause the accident. The truck was a normal hazard of everyday driving. It was not noticed, so there was an accident, or better description, a collision. It does not matter if the truck even violated laws. Other drivers deal with that several times per mile. It's no excuse.

              The driver didn't see it, and was depending, foolishly, on the avoidance system to take care of everything. It didn't.

              The smart way to deal with this stuff is NOT to rush to self driving cars, but to put in driver assist to watch out. That alone would probably eliminate a third, perhaps half, of accidents.

              Many more would be eliminated if the sort of crazy driving indulged in by many were prevented. Just enforcing the speed limit by driver assist would do a lot. Weaving through traffic at way over the speed of other traffic.... that too is easily dealt with by driver assist that simply slows down in congested conditions.

              Self driving cars are just NOT the rational first step in this, and for the foreseeable, are not a viable solution, unless you count the 95% reduction in number of cars due to the unaffordable costs.

              What's the crying need? Safety? You will see that change when more are on the road and being used for "arbitrary driving".

              Right now, the driverless car is acclaimed by the "High Tech Solves Everything" crowd. Folks who have seen this before are interested, but not breathlessly "ooohing and ahing" over it. And rightly so.
              CNC machines only go through the motions

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by danlb View Post
                Yeah... Right. Like passing a law ever made 100% of the people do what's right. Last I heard speeding was illegal, as was altering the pollution control on a car, but I recall a post where someone one this thread admitted to both infringements.

                Dan
                i think it could be done -and in fact already is to some degree in certain situations --- it's called a mandatory app. celly just won't work when GPS senses your behind the wheel and the car is moving

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by CarlByrns View Post
                  Like New York did (first in the country!). Cell phone usage while driving dropped (wait for it) about 1%.

                  Making something illegal doesn't make it go away.
                  No but like I just stated in post above - you can fight technology with technology.

                  get right down to it - really about the only logical approach - when things like cell phone usage far surpass things like drunk driving for accidents and fatalities the thing to do is stop the cell phone usage - simple as that.

                  what you don't do is create systems around it that allow someone to step into their car and continue the asinine behavior to a far greater degree, that's just plain stupid flawed logic... we don't do that with drunks and we sure the hell should not do it with people who are not even concentrating on the road ahead --- geeze - least the drunk gets a double view of everything instead of driving with a blindfold on....
                  Last edited by A.K. Boomer; 07-02-2016, 09:06 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    The self driving car is not for us, it is a race for the first company to produce the system that works the best, a testing ground if you will. The first company to have the accepted product that the DOD will buy for their needs. The developed technology will have far reaching uses in every form of transportation. It will eventually put me out of a job.
                    In googles case, if they win the race, they can also control the traffic data that their system will use, in effect, control the worlds traffic. This is all a race to unimaginable wealth and power, we are just the guinea pigs who might be able to afford to help test the various systems. You notice the Tesla phoned home after the crash? These cars are not just self driving, they are data mining constantly, sending back metrics, fine tuning the algorithms that the various companies use. I wouldn't doubt that some of them are using it with self learning technology to help develop their algorithms.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Actually shifting the masses might not even take a law, might just be as simple as insurance companies doing the math and giving out the discount to the people who don't partake - or maybe they are already doing this and things would be far worse if they hadn't ?

                      how many would get an app. or maybe have that plug in deal that they already have for good driving behavior that would then also interfere with calls if your rates were guaranteed to drop by 25% just for using it?

                      only call out that would work is 911 just thinking out loud here and will admit do not know how far they are taking things in this direction already...

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by A.K. Boomer View Post
                        Actually shifting the masses might not even take a law, might just be as simple as insurance companies doing the math and giving out the discount to the people who don't partake - or maybe they are already doing this and things would be far worse if they hadn't ?

                        how many would get an app. or maybe have that plug in deal that they already have for good driving behavior that would then also interfere with calls if your rates were guaranteed to drop by 25% just for using it?

                        only call out that would work is 911 just thinking out loud here and will admit do not know how far they are taking things in this direction already...
                        Why do we need technology to keep drivers off their phone? We have laws and fines, the laws aren't being enforced and the fines aren't large enough or burdensome. Second offense, $500 fine and loss of your license for 30 days would make people think twice about texting, taking or making a call while driving.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          I believe in what two have brought up earlier --- you can create laws but it's hard to enforce something that the majority are doing themselves --- perhaps even why one of them got so defensive about it lol

                          Also hard to get the majority of the vote for extremely tough penalties when said majority is doing said behavior themselves

                          It's an ignorant mindset that's just not looked at the same way an "evil" drunk driver is --- although tales abound of entire families being "mushed" at intersections in the exact same gory details... but it's ok --- cuz "jane" was doing something very innocent and just talking about the color of her new finger nail polish...

                          Edit; to put things in flip-flop perspective --- imagine a society where about 90% of the people drive drunk every single day --- now try not to only get a stiff law passed to enforce against it with incredible fines, also try to enforce it, and then find enough prison space for the repeat offenders...
                          Last edited by A.K. Boomer; 07-02-2016, 10:47 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            The only place self driving cars/trucks/etc I feel belong is on the battlefield. Self driving tanks, trucks, planes, helicopters, drones, etc. Just the aid of a remote pilot in some cases.

                            Just wait till bad people start arming drones, thats gonna be something.

                            Kids are already doing it with paintball guns and roman candles. It is neat to watch!

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vICfKPoCubw
                            Andy

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              No jail time, that would cost the taxpayer. No license, fines, maybe insurance surcharges as well. That would get the insurance companies pushing for legislation through their paid political advocates. Repeat offending would be walking, taking the bus or riding bicycles for the rest of their lives.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by A.K. Boomer View Post
                                ...

                                Edit; to put things in flip-flop perspective --- imagine a society where about 90% of the people drive drunk every single day --- now try not to only get a stiff law passed to enforce against it with incredible fines, also try to enforce it, and then find enough prison space for the repeat offenders...
                                We already have that here. We can argue about the percentage, but the jails won't hold the drivers now. And they continue to be let out with a slap on the wrist.

                                EVERY DRUNK DRIVER WILL KILL SOMEONE. Eventually. Mostly because they keep getting let out to do it again. And again. And again. And again. And again.

                                A friend married the wrong woman. And divorced her for good cause, when she took up with the old boyfriend again. The woman was a drunk. Supposedly recovering, but actually not. She was at one point arrested for drunk driving, and was found to have a blood alcohol level of 0.35. Might have been higher. Enough that most people die from it. She had been arrested many times, been chucked out of the halfway house for being drunk. At least a couple dozen DWIs. Driving with no license, the whole nine yards. I think she finally got 5 years for it, but was out in 2 or 3.

                                When there is a drunk driving fatality, it is common for the drunk to have a couple dozen previous DWIs. Often no license, but they are out there driving

                                What does it take to keep these people off the road?

                                Self driving cars? We need some more NON driving cars..... The drunks can't afford self-driving cars. But good driver assist would help even drunks to stay out of accidents.

                                Between drunk drivers, cell phones, and texting while driving, that's a lot of accidents that could be avoided by making the laws stick, instead of being jokes. And with plain accident avoiding driver assist, of course.
                                CNC machines only go through the motions

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X