Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Autonomous vehicles

Autonomous vehicles (Page 4)
Thread Tools
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: San Diego
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2013, 05:28 PM
 
The irony is that at some point in the future, if this technology could eliminate the possibility of an accident, you won't need insurance.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2013, 07:24 PM
 
You'd probably still want insurance because the manufacturer wouldn't be liable for allot of things but the rates would be allot lower and not age dependent.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: France
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2013, 08:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by iMOTOR View Post
if this technology could eliminate the possibility of an accident


Excellent.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2013, 09:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
"I don't want anything driving for me!
...
I welcome our automated overlords, sign me up!"
Both are knee-jerk overreactions. It's humorous that you uncritically revere the first sentiment while baselessly mocking the second.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2013, 05:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Both are knee-jerk overreactions. It's humorous that you uncritically revere the first sentiment while baselessly mocking the second.
Yep. Going by what I've seen of human behavior my entire life, I believe your afore mentioned optimism is naive.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2013, 08:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Yep. Going by what I've seen of human behavior my entire life, I believe your afore mentioned optimism is naive.
Your skepticism about the general public's rational decision-making skills contradicts your premise that the general public is currently operating their various motor vehicles in a safer manner than self-driving cars would be doing so. If you can't even trust people to choose driving vs not driving, then how on earth can you be comfortable encouraging, nay insisting, that those same people be denied the option to stop making all the daily life-or-death decisions inherent to actually performing said driving?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2013, 09:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Your skepticism about the general public's rational decision-making skills contradicts your premise that the general public is currently operating their various motor vehicles in a safer manner than self-driving cars would be doing so. If you can't even trust people to choose driving vs not driving, then how on earth can you be comfortable encouraging, nay insisting, that those same people be denied the option to stop making all the daily life-or-death decisions inherent to actually performing said driving?
I can't find where I posted that the general public is "operating their various motor vehicles in a safer manner than self-driving cars would", if you'll point out where I said that it would go a long way towards validating your position. As a driver, *I* am, whether by sheer luck or superior perception, accident-free. My point is, it's hilarious that people will give up what they believe to be a "God-given right", what's been touted as a long revered symbol of individual freedom, to save some money on their car insurance.

Of course autonomous cars would be statistically safer, I already said that earlier in the thread, but we still do a lot of things in the name of personal enjoyment that aren't perfectly efficient or without risk (sex, parasailing, skydiving, spelunking, etc), some that even potentially place the lives of others in danger (piloting personal aircraft, consuming alcohol, hunting wild game), but we still do them, and with vigor. For that reason, there's always going to be some who will choose to drive themselves and don't care if they have to pay more for insurance, though that number will likely be rather small, and as long as we haven't entirely become a totalitarian state, they'll keep doing it. I'm going to be driving my old cars until I'm no longer physically able, that's just the way it is.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Oakland, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 21, 2013, 01:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I can't find where I posted that the general public is "operating their various motor vehicles in a safer manner than self-driving cars would", if you'll point out where I said that it would go a long way towards validating your position. As a driver, *I* am, whether by sheer luck or superior perception, accident-free. My point is, it's hilarious that people will give up what they believe to be a "God-given right", what's been touted as a long revered symbol of individual freedom, to save some money on their car insurance.

Of course autonomous cars would be statistically safer, I already said that earlier in the thread, but we still do a lot of things in the name of personal enjoyment that aren't perfectly efficient or without risk (sex, parasailing, skydiving, spelunking, etc), some that even potentially place the lives of others in danger (piloting personal aircraft, consuming alcohol, hunting wild game), but we still do them, and with vigor. For that reason, there's always going to be some who will choose to drive themselves and don't care if they have to pay more for insurance, though that number will likely be rather small, and as long as we haven't entirely become a totalitarian state, they'll keep doing it. I'm going to be driving my old cars until I'm no longer physically able, that's just the way it is.
100% agree
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 21, 2013, 11:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I can't find where I posted that the general public is "operating their various motor vehicles in a safer manner than self-driving cars would", if you'll point out where I said that it would go a long way towards validating your position. As a driver, *I* am, whether by sheer luck or superior perception, accident-free.
I have another proposal explaining your unblemished record: you don't commute by car. There's a reason insurance companies are very interested in a customer's commute distance, and it's because commuting is a "driver" for a person's risk profile.

My point is, it's hilarious that people will give up what they believe to be a "God-given right", what's been touted as a long revered symbol of individual freedom, to save some money on their car insurance.
It's not operating the vehicle that gives a person the "god-given right" of personal freedom, it's being in command of where it goes and when. Just because the only way to accomplish one has been the other, until now, doesn't mean they are the same thing. Most people would give up absolutely nothing by upgrading to a self-driving car, including freedom and favorable risk of liability. They would actually gain in both, because they would gain the freedom of movement while impaired, distracted, or overbooked, and they would gain a lower risk of liability due in no small part to being free from having to drive while impaired, distracted, or overbooked.

Of course autonomous cars would be statistically safer
Hang on a second. You've been asked this repeatedly, and stubbornly refuse to give any explanation: then why is litigation even on the radar? That the sum total of litigation would be reduced, but not to zero, we should care about litigation... why? You've been mysteriously insistent that this is a factor we should pay attention to. But until you finally answer this question, you're doing a classic troll move (take a position with a clear implication, then deny the implication while remaining silent on your real motive, and wait for the attention to come rolling in).

Of course autonomous cars would be statistically safer, I already said that earlier in the thread, but we still do a lot of things in the name of personal enjoyment that aren't perfectly efficient or without risk (sex, parasailing, skydiving, spelunking, etc), some that even potentially place the lives of others in danger (piloting personal aircraft, consuming alcohol, hunting wild game), but we still do them, and with vigor.
Those are all 100% recreation activities. Driving isn't. Very few people do more "play" driving than "chore" driving (and even these folks can switch off the self-driving feature at will if desired). That makes the analogy inappropriate.


For that reason, there's always going to be some who will choose to drive themselves and don't care if they have to pay more for insurance, though that number will likely be rather small, and as long as we haven't entirely become a totalitarian state, they'll keep doing it. I'm going to be driving my old cars until I'm no longer physically able, that's just the way it is.
So will motorcyclists; there will be no self-driving motorcycle I wager. But so what? Has there been any hint by anyone in this thread, that self-driving cars will eliminate manually driven options? The self-driving car's wildest dreams of success would be to get anywhere near the adoption rate of automatic transmission's, yet even today there are countless manual transmission options available, and successful in the marketplace. There is simply no basis to argue against the strawman that "play" driving will be affected in any way.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 21, 2013, 04:49 PM
 
Litigation will be reduced because instead of suing the driver you're suing the manufacturer. One has lawyers on retainer the other doesn't.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 21, 2013, 04:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I have another proposal explaining your unblemished record: you don't commute by car. There's a reason insurance companies are very interested in a customer's commute distance, and it's because commuting is a "driver" for a person's risk profile.
I've clocked ~500,000 miles by public road, while not as much as a long-haul truck driver, that's not a small amount. While going to college I commuted 200 miles every day.

It's not operating the vehicle that gives a person the "god-given right" of personal freedom, it's being in command of where it goes and when. Just because the only way to accomplish one has been the other, until now, doesn't mean they are the same thing. Most people would give up absolutely nothing by upgrading to a self-driving car, including freedom and favorable risk of liability. They would actually gain in both, because they would gain the freedom of movement while impaired, distracted, or overbooked, and they would gain a lower risk of liability due in no small part to being free from having to drive while impaired, distracted, or overbooked.
That comes down to how much will external forces, such as law enforcement or government agencies, be allowed to force your vehicle to go where they want. "Mr. Brown, we are re-routing your commute, according to Municipal Car-Pooling Code #64321, to allow for this vehicle to take on an additional passenger. Since you are traveling during a congestion period, non-compliance is not an option. Have a good day, citizen. *pause* If you would like to appeal this automated request you may speak with a traffic operator, your approximate hold time is *pause* 22 minutes."

Hang on a second. You've been asked this repeatedly, and stubbornly refuse to give any explanation: then why is litigation even on the radar? That the sum total of litigation would be reduced, but not to zero, we should care about litigation... why? You've been mysteriously insistent that this is a factor we should pay attention to. But until you finally answer this question, you're doing a classic troll move (take a position with a clear implication, then deny the implication while remaining silent on your real motive, and wait for the attention to come rolling in).
Repeatedly? Really? Let's not get carried away with the hyperbole, there. I did give an explanation, and it's because no system is perfect, or can be perfect. Although likely rare, it wouldn't surprise me if an autonomous vehicle has a catastrophic failure and a pedestrian or cyclist gets killed, within the first week of mass distribution to the public, or even after 10 years. Sure, it'll still be more safe, statistically, I won't deny that, but as long as there's a chance that life or limb could be lost, there will be some ambulance chaser looking to cash in.

Those are all 100% recreation activities. Driving isn't. Very few people do more "play" driving than "chore" driving (and even these folks can switch off the self-driving feature at will if desired). That makes the analogy inappropriate.
Is for me, I don't need to drive, but I do. I don't need to be a pilot, but I am. There are folks who live in cities who have cars simply for enjoyment on the weekends and use mass transit during the week. You can even join sports car clubs where you can choose from dozens of different cars, all for fun. Business is booming for them, I even considered starting a similar establishment in the Charlotte NC area.

My bet is that self-driving cars are likely going to be so awful to operate in "manual mode", from an enthusiast's perspective, that they'd rather not. Today most people-movers are wretched driving machines, completely lacking in feel and involvement, so it's not surprising that most see operating them as a chore. I don't dislike more modern SUVs because they're gas hogs, or even because they're a threat to smaller cars, but because they're as much fun to use as a microwave oven.

So will motorcyclists; there will be no self-driving motorcycle I wager. But so what? Has there been any hint by anyone in this thread, that self-driving cars will eliminate manually driven options? The self-driving car's wildest dreams of success would be to get anywhere near the adoption rate of automatic transmission's, yet even today there are countless manual transmission options available, and successful in the marketplace. There is simply no basis to argue against the strawman that "play" driving will be affected in any way.
I'm predicting that many jurisdictions will ban motorcycles on public roads within the next 20 years, "for the public good", and people won't be allowed to self-drive their cars on interstates and freeways, to "improve traffic flow and safety". In fact, there could even be places where you can't override the autopilot, except to give it a new destination. Because actually taking the controls will seem as antiquated as working a clutch and stick are today (I still prefer 3 pedals in most situations and couldn't care less that DCGs with paddles are faster). In the garage earlier we were joking about the theft rates for Vipers and GT86s being so low, and attributed it to young thieves not knowing how to drive a manual, but it's a fact. If you don't want your car to get stolen, particularly in a big city, buy one with a stick.

You can't sit there and say that some strictly recreational activities haven't been curtailed in the name of public safety; skateboarding, rollerblading, surfing at certain beaches, and diving at public pools. All of those can be reasonably safe as long as people maintain awareness of their surroundings, but it's simply been easier to outlaw those practices altogether, playing down to the least common denominator, instead of working out a more equitable solution. As a culture we're notorious for leveling the playing field by simply bulldozing whatever can be seen as a potential threat, and there's no reason to believe that the operation of motorized vehicles will be any different.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 21, 2013, 11:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
That comes down to how much will external forces, such as law enforcement or government agencies, be allowed to force your vehicle to go where they want. "Mr. Brown, we are re-routing your commute, according to Municipal Car-Pooling Code #64321, to allow for this vehicle to take on an additional passenger. Since you are traveling during a congestion period, non-compliance is not an option. Have a good day, citizen. *pause* If you would like to appeal this automated request you may speak with a traffic operator, your approximate hold time is *pause* 22 minutes."
What's stopping them from forcing your path and your passenger ratio already today? Let's... not get carried away with hyperbole(?)


Repeatedly? Really? Let's not get carried away with the hyperbole, there. I did give an explanation, and it's because no system is perfect, or can be perfect.
Setting the goalpost at "perfection" isn't hyperbole?


Is for me, I don't need to drive, but I do. I don't need to be a pilot, but I am. There are folks who live in cities who have cars simply for enjoyment on the weekends and use mass transit during the week. You can even join sports car clubs where you can choose from dozens of different cars, all for fun. Business is booming for them, I even considered starting a similar establishment in the Charlotte NC area.
A statistically insignificant percentage of the population, who will most certainly be unaffected either way. I'm struggling to understand what relevance this has. Isn't this like someone proclaiming proudly "I don't even own a TV"? Bully for you, and so what?


My bet is that self-driving cars are likely going to be so awful to operate in "manual mode", from an enthusiast's perspective, that they'd rather not. Today most people-movers are wretched driving machines, completely lacking in feel and involvement, so it's not surprising that most see operating them as a chore. I don't dislike more modern SUVs because they're gas hogs, or even because they're a threat to smaller cars, but because they're as much fun to use as a microwave oven.
And has the success of SUVs or hybrids interfered with your ability to live and let live drive and let drive?


I'm predicting that many jurisdictions will ban motorcycles on public roads within the next 20 years, "for the public good", and people won't be allowed to self-drive their cars on interstates and freeways, to "improve traffic flow and safety". In fact, there could even be places where you can't override the autopilot, except to give it a new destination. Because actually taking the controls will seem as antiquated as working a clutch and stick are today
How has your ability to acquire and use a manual transmission been curtailed by the popularity of automatics?

I agree 100% that manual driving will be the next generation's manual transmission (read: archaic). I just don't see how that's a bad thing, and looking to history doesn't shed any light; there has been absolutely no downside to the availability of automatic transmission, only upside.


there's no reason to believe that the operation of motorized vehicles will be any different.
Let's not get carried away with hyperbole here. There are dozens of reasons to believe that the operation of motorized vehicles will be any different.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 22, 2013, 12:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
What's stopping them from forcing your path and your passenger ratio already today? Let's... not get carried away with hyperbole(?)
By saying no? They can't have patrolmen running around making everyone comply, but with an automated system they could potentially make you go where they want.

Setting the goalpost at "perfection" isn't hyperbole?
I'm not setting the goal post anywhere. Since no system can ever be perfect, and we live in a ridiculously litigious society, there will be lawsuits. As long as there's potential for error, there will be a need for insurance.

A statistically insignificant percentage of the population, who will most certainly be unaffected either way. I'm struggling to understand what relevance this has. Isn't this like someone proclaiming proudly "I don't even own a TV"? Bully for you, and so what?
A statistically insignificant % of the population goes skydiving, but just try getting insurance for it. I'm struggling to understand why you're arguing at all.

And has the success of SUVs or hybrids interfered with your ability to live and let live drive and let drive?
No idea what you're on about. I was explaining one reason why people hate driving, because most cars being made today are a snooze fest to operate.

How has your ability to acquire and use a manual transmission been curtailed by the popularity of automatics?

I agree 100% that manual driving will be the next generation's manual transmission (read: archaic). I just don't see how that's a bad thing, and looking to history doesn't shed any light; there has been absolutely no downside to the availability of automatic transmission, only upside.
Because manufacturers, like the government, play to the lowest common denominator. With the number of stick drivers dwindling, it's less economically feasible to include manuals as an option. On the upper end of the car market it's nearly impossible to find models that aren't automatics of some type. Unfortunately, that kills part of the joy of driving, the involvement. Also, the more involved you are with the driving process, the more alert you are to traffic and road conditions, meaning you're less likely to have a wreck.

Let's not get carried away with hyperbole here. There are dozens of reasons to believe that the operation of motorized vehicles will be any different.
Heh. Right.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 22, 2013, 02:15 AM
 
Shaddim, if you were to have an autonomous vehicle you could talk to me on MacNN while being transported. You could also make love.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 22, 2013, 10:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Also, the more involved you are with the driving process, the more alert you are to traffic and road conditions, meaning you're less likely to have a wreck.
Without any proof, it's just as easy to say that the more involved you are with the driving process, the less attention you have to spend on being aware of what's going on around you, and the more likely you are to have a wreck.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: France
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 22, 2013, 12:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Without any proof, it's just as easy to say that the more involved you are with the driving process, the less attention you have to spend on being aware of what's going on around you, and the more likely you are to have a wreck.
Remove all airbags. Have a very sharp spike in place of the airbag in the steering wheel.

Watch how slow people will drive.

EDIT : Jeremy Clarkson was the first person that I saw to recommend this solution.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 22, 2013, 03:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by mattyb View Post
Remove all airbags. Have a very sharp spike in place of the airbag in the steering wheel.

Watch how slow people will drive.

EDIT : Jeremy Clarkson was the first person that I saw to recommend this solution.
And how did that exact solution (more or less) work re: accident rates and fatalities up until the introduction of mandatory seat belts and airbags and other safety devices?

Great, right? It probably worked great. Hey, on that note, I think you are totally onto something. I have heard that motorcycle fatalities are very high: I suggest we also ban the wearing of helmets. Hah! Just watch how slow those suckers will have to drive now!

EDIT: Jeremy Clarkson is a lot of things. A professional idiot being one of those things. I hope you at least got paid to reiterate something that stupid?
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 22, 2013, 05:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Shaddim, if you were to have an autonomous vehicle you could talk to me on MacNN while being transported. You could also make love.
Sex in a moving car is a teenager's sport, nowadays I prefer having a lot more room to "work". Since I don't talk with you now, why would I be talking with you then?

Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Without any proof, it's just as easy to say that the more involved you are with the driving process, the less attention you have to spend on being aware of what's going on around you, and the more likely you are to have a wreck.
True, but I've seen too many people texting, applying make-up, and eating a full meal, while driving an automatic, to write off my instincts on this. If a person were in a manual those activities would be much less likely, if not impossible.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 22, 2013, 05:04 PM
 
When I'm bangin on tha dashboard!
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 22, 2013, 05:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
And how did that exact solution (more or less) work re: accident rates and fatalities up until the introduction of mandatory seat belts and airbags and other safety devices?

Great, right? It probably worked great. Hey, on that note, I think you are totally onto something. I have heard that motorcycle fatalities are very high: I suggest we also ban the wearing of helmets. Hah! Just watch how slow those suckers will have to drive now!

EDIT: Jeremy Clarkson is a lot of things. A professional idiot being one of those things. I hope you at least got paid to reiterate something that stupid?
Bah, Jeremy is a shock jock, he's well paid to be as bombastic as possible.

After seeing the loonies who drive helmetless in Texas and Kentucky, I'd say it has the opposite effect. I still think it should be a matter of choice though, if they want to remove themselves from the gene pool, MPtT.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 22, 2013, 05:14 PM
 
Loonies... like, Canadians?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 22, 2013, 10:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
True, but I've seen too many people texting, applying make-up, and eating a full meal, while driving an automatic, to write off my instincts on this. If a person were in a manual those activities would be much less likely, if not impossible.
I don't apply makeup, but the other two aren't necessarily rare occurrences for me.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 23, 2013, 10:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Since no system can ever be perfect, and we live in a ridiculously litigious society, there will be lawsuits.
Right, fewer lawsuits than ever before. Fewer crashes make for fewer lawsuits. An advantage of self-driving cars, even for those who merely share the roadways with them instead of buying them.

A statistically insignificant % of the population goes skydiving, but just try getting insurance for it.
I don't get it... what are we supposed to see instead?


No idea what you're on about. I was explaining one reason why people hate driving, because most cars being made today are a snooze fest to operate.
If every car was fun to drive, it still wouldn't make driving fun, because most of it would still be waiting in line. Self-driving cars solves both these problems. You wouldn't be waiting for your turn to go, and you wouldn't be frustrated with the mushy controls, because you would be neither waiting nor controlling in the first place. You would be being productive instead.


Because manufacturers, like the government, play to the lowest common denominator. With the number of stick drivers dwindling, it's less economically feasible to include manuals as an option. On the upper end of the car market it's nearly impossible to find models that aren't automatics of some type.
You're upset because a better product has replaced a worse one? Isn't that the entire goal of the free market?


Also, the more involved you are with the driving process, the more alert you are to traffic and road conditions, meaning you're less likely to have a wreck.
Alertness is another point in favor of self-driving cars, which don't have their vision limited to a single vantage point, limited to a single line of sight at any one time, limited to the visible part of the spectrum, and limited to a single method of depth perception.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 24, 2013, 03:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
I don't apply makeup, but the other two aren't necessarily rare occurrences for me.
Texting really surprises me.

Maybe it's just me, but I almost got into an accident enough times texting to realize one must resist the temptation with iron will.

Full meal I'll do, but it has to be something with enough grout to keep it together. McDonalds cheeseburger is close to ideal. Taco Bell anything is the worst.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 24, 2013, 04:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Right, fewer lawsuits than ever before. Fewer crashes make for fewer lawsuits. An advantage of self-driving cars, even for those who merely share the roadways with them instead of buying them.
I didn't say there wouldn't be fewer.

I don't get it... what are we supposed to see instead?
I'll get back to this, I believe I see the issue...

If every car was fun to drive, it still wouldn't make driving fun, because most of it would still be waiting in line. Self-driving cars solves both these problems. You wouldn't be waiting for your turn to go, and you wouldn't be frustrated with the mushy controls, because you would be neither waiting nor controlling in the first place. You would be being productive instead.
I get it, you dislike driving, but you aren't speaking for everyone. Not everyone is stuck in rush hour traffic every day, and if they are, on average it isn't more than 20 minutes. Studies show that 69% of people enjoy driving, but since I gather that you see it as a waste of time, then it's you who are in the minority.

Also, despite modern opinion to the contrary, enhancing productivity isn't the meaning of life.

You're upset because a better product has replaced a worse one? Isn't that the entire goal of the free market?
It isn't a "better" product, just a simpler one. Crayons aren't better than paint and a brush, though they essentially do the same job, applying color to a surface. I believe we're already oversimplifying too many aspects of life as it is, which is likely what's leading to society's growing impatience and lack of self-control. Living is becoming faster, easier, and less interesting every single day. Back to the study, the love of driving has actually declined, and interestingly enough, it's dropped at a similar pace with cars becoming simpler, more safety-focused, and less exciting to drive.

For instance, a new TOTL Mercedes S-class is a sensory cocoon; so comfortable, quiet, and with suspension so advanced that you hardly feel the car moving at all. After you get over all the luxury though, it's boring as hell to use. In contrast, hop into a 60s Austin Mini; it's cramped, ergonomically poor, far less powerful, noisy, and you feel every pebble in the road. However, it corners (turns) like a go-cart, communicates information like a stethoscope in a doctor's hands, and when you work the controls with skill it gives the driver a sense of satisfaction that the Mercedes can only dream about. It all comes down to engagement, if an activity doesn't do that then you aren't going to be able to enjoy it on a higher level, meaning you'll never be able to feel more than simple appreciation.

My advice? Drop down your pants and slide on the ice. Sell that automatic box of boring and go get something that demands more from you, buy something that's somewhat impractical and even infuriates you sometimes. Get something that does more than make you want to take a nap.

Alertness is another point in favor of self-driving cars, which don't have their vision limited to a single vantage point, limited to a single line of sight at any one time, limited to the visible part of the spectrum, and limited to a single method of depth perception.
How alert can you be when you're reading a book and sipping coffee? How long will it take to get your shit together and take over the controls in the event of a failure of the automated system?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 24, 2013, 05:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Texting really surprises me.

Maybe it's just me, but I almost got into an accident enough times texting to realize one must resist the temptation with iron will.
Usually it's just a "Here!" as I pull up outside wife's office. The fact that my car can read my texts to me as they come in has actually helped me leave my phone in my pocket. If I don't pull it out to read the text, I'm less likely to pull it out to reply. Worst case scenario, I press a button on the steering wheel and call whoever just texted me.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 24, 2013, 06:31 PM
 
Soon there'll be HUDs that show social media information and updates in some new cars, very bad idea.

In a similar vein, I love the Model S, awesome car, but that 17" display is really tempting to mess around with while you're driving.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 24, 2013, 07:12 PM
 
I've heard more than one person flat-out refuse to buy a Tesla because of the screen.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 24, 2013, 07:59 PM
 
It's the most awesome part of the interior, and a major distraction. While I'm driving that car I turn it off most of the time, but when I'm a passenger I tinker with it constantly.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 24, 2013, 08:07 PM
 
I'm almost thinking it should be on a vertical pivot, like an air vent.

Let the passenger point it towards them and away from the driver. There should be a separate, GPS-only screen for the driver.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 24, 2013, 09:13 PM
 
Did I say it already in this thread? I think HUDs are unnecessary in a car. There's no information so vital you need all the time, and if it's popping in and out that's a distraction.

Makes sense on a jet fighter. Things like speed, altitude, and orientation with regards to the ground are things you need to know at all times.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 24, 2013, 09:44 PM
 
Maybe in a race car a HUD would be useful. On the street though there's plenty of time to check your mirrors and instruments. It's very easy to keep track of the cars around you. That is if you aren't reading a book at 75mph.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 24, 2013, 10:10 PM
 
Race car makes perfect sense.

I'm not a HUD designer or anything, but the "best practices" seem pretty intuitive.

Anything on a HUD is in your way, therefore, it must only contain information more important than seeing what's around you.

Secondarily, it needs to be constantly on, otherwise it's much harder to ignore it when you need to. There are lots of useful bits of information a HUD could show you, but ultimately they aren't practical because having them on the whole time is clutter.

GPS is a perfect example. If my next turn is in 15 miles, a GPS HUD is in the way for the next 20 minutes. It could just "pop in" when it thinks it's a good time, but what if that's when I need to be paying attention to something else? A similar phenomenon is what makes talking on a cellphone more dangerous than talking to a passenger. The passenger has some awareness of needing to zip-it if difficult situations occur out of nowhere.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: France
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2013, 06:54 AM
 
I looked at some Peugeots which had a HUD. IIRC it was speed and something for the blind spots that was displayed. I like the idea of a HUD, but wonder about reliability (as with all electrical gimmicks).
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2013, 08:10 AM
 
As with all things, you can get reliabile electronics. See voyager for an extreme example. You just have to be willing to pay for it.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: France
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2013, 08:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
As with all things, you can get reliabile electronics. See voyager for an extreme example. You just have to be willing to pay for it.
Very true. But then cars aren't really in the same league as space probes.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2013, 09:17 AM
 
Do you don't need a 100% driving system. You just need to do maintence regular enough that you fix it before it breaks. The industry isn't really set up that way at the moment but it wouldn't be terrible difficult.

Also there's plenty of redundancy in the system. Your car doesn't have to deal with the problem entirely, it can send out a ' death scream' and all the cars around can react.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2013, 11:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I didn't say there wouldn't be fewer.
Ok, and nobody said there would be none either Can you at least go on record as to whether this whole lawsuit angle is supposed to be a point in favor or against self-driving cars? Logic would suggest that it's unequivocally a point in favor of them, but your tone has implied very strongly that you paradoxically interpret it as a point against them.


I'll get back to this, I believe I see the issue...
I must have missed it. What part got back to this?


Studies show that 69% of people enjoy driving, but since I gather that you see it as a waste of time, then it's you who are in the minority.
And of those who enjoy driving in that study, 85% of them is for reasons that would be further enhanced by self-driving cars: quiet time alone, scenery, freedom/independence (independence while too impaired to drive would be even better), way to get around, spontaneity, get out of the house, music, and comfort. Only 9% of them are for reasons involved in actually operating the controls: just like to drive, and specifics about the car.

I am in the majority after all


Also, despite modern opinion to the contrary, enhancing productivity isn't the meaning of life.
Being productive in this context includes producing leisure content, like emails, texts, facerace, etc.



It isn't a "better" product, just a simpler one.
Simple is a component of Better. We use the free market as our algorithm to best approximate the appropriate weighting of each component.


I believe we're already oversimplifying too many aspects of life as it is, which is likely what's leading to society's growing impatience and lack of self-control. Living is becoming faster, easier, and less interesting every single day.
Your condemnation of technology is arbitrary and capricious. You frequently discuss owning and enjoying many high-tech toys and hobbies. If you were living an Amish lifestyle and still used horses instead of horsepower, you might have a logical point, but then again you wouldn't care about the decline of the stick shift either if you did.



It all comes down to engagement, if an activity doesn't do that then you aren't going to be able to enjoy it on a higher level, meaning you'll never be able to feel more than simple appreciation.
It's more accurate to say it all comes down to personal preference (eg a slide-rule provides more engagement than a calculator; simplicity and convenience do hold more value than "engagement" in many cases, and the distinction between one and another is purely subjective). You're just frustrated that your personal preference wasn't the one that "won" in the free-market algorithm.



How alert can you be when you're reading a book and sipping coffee? How long will it take to get your shit together and take over the controls in the event of a failure of the automated system?
There are two possible categories of failure scenarios, either catastrophe is faster than a controlled stop or vice versa (the premise of fail-safe is assumed over fail-unsafe). In the latter case (controlled stop can take place in time to avert catastrophe), it doesn't matter if the human takes 1/10th of a second or 10 minutes to "get ready" to take over, because the car will execute a controlled stop and be waiting patiently for the human however long it takes. In the case of the former, even a perfectly alert and attentive human will be useless, because what can a human actually do in the same time limit as it takes to execute a controlled stop? Nothing, that's why we have so many crashes under the status quo.

I submit that there is nothing an attentive human can do to take over for a failed self-driving mechanism, that an inattentive human couldn't do just as effectively after a few minutes of harmless confusion.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2013, 04:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Ok, and nobody said there would be none either Can you at least go on record as to whether this whole lawsuit angle is supposed to be a point in favor or against self-driving cars? Logic would suggest that it's unequivocally a point in favor of them, but your tone has implied very strongly that you paradoxically interpret it as a point against them.
Indeed, I don't know what you're arguing about there. There will be fewer lawsuits, but they'll still exist, I already said that.

I must have missed it. What part got back to this?
The part that followed.

And of those who enjoy driving in that study, 85% of them is for reasons that would be further enhanced by self-driving cars: quiet time alone, scenery, freedom/independence (independence while too impaired to drive would be even better), way to get around, spontaneity, get out of the house, music, and comfort. Only 9% of them are for reasons involved in actually operating the controls: just like to drive, and specifics about the car.

I am in the majority after all
Which I explained, new cars aren't enjoyable to operate, they're boring. You saw the part where I explained driving enjoyment dropped as cars became easier to operate?

Being productive in this context includes producing leisure content, like emails, texts, facerace, etc.
That doesn't mean those things need to be done at any time, this is part of the issue with humans having short attention spans. They don't set aside times to do anything, they expect to be able to do what they want, when they want, like petulant children. This race is becoming consumers and users in every sense of those words. It's sad to see.

Simple is a component of Better. We use the free market as our algorithm to best approximate the appropriate weighting of each component.
"The people have spoken! The people have spoken!" Yeah, but the problem is, "the people" are idiots. Humans will gravitate to easy, because we gravitate towards being lazy. The #1 leisure activity in the USA is walking around (or sitting) with our eyes glued to a 4-6" screen, exercising their thumbs. Obesity, depression, diabetes, all on the rise. We're more connected than ever, but we're increasingly more alone.

Your condemnation of technology is arbitrary and capricious. You frequently discuss owning and enjoying many high-tech toys and hobbies. If you were living an Amish lifestyle and still used horses instead of horsepower, you might have a logical point, but then again you wouldn't care about the decline of the stick shift either if you did.
and your strawman is old and weathered. I partition my time accordingly, I don't spend all day screwing around with phones, tablets, etc.. People can't consume in "reasonable" amounts, they gorge on all they can, then wait for adverse symptoms to occur. Driving a stick is fun, once you learn the nuances involved, and it takes skill to master, however most people today (mostly young people) lack the patience to learn such a skill. It doesn't come easy, and if it isn't easy it's considered "old and complicated".

It's more accurate to say it all comes down to personal preference (eg a slide-rule provides more engagement than a calculator; simplicity and convenience do hold more value than "engagement" in many cases, and the distinction between one and another is purely subjective). You're just frustrated that your personal preference wasn't the one that "won" in the free-market algorithm.
Again, back to people being lazy primates who gravitate to easy, to the detriment of all else. I care because it's yet another activity that doesn't involve only thumbs (like texting and video games) that's being swept away in the name of "progress". I'm sorry, what humanity is becoming isn't progress, it's social, mental, and physical regression.

There are two possible categories of failure scenarios, either catastrophe is faster than a controlled stop or vice versa (the premise of fail-safe is assumed over fail-unsafe). In the latter case (controlled stop can take place in time to avert catastrophe), it doesn't matter if the human takes 1/10th of a second or 10 minutes to "get ready" to take over, because the car will execute a controlled stop and be waiting patiently for the human however long it takes. In the case of the former, even a perfectly alert and attentive human will be useless, because what can a human actually do in the same time limit as it takes to execute a controlled stop? Nothing, that's why we have so many crashes under the status quo.

I submit that there is nothing an attentive human can do to take over for a failed self-driving mechanism, that an inattentive human couldn't do just as effectively after a few minutes of harmless confusion.
I see now, and I expected that answer from you. Like the growing population with the same proclivity, you're exchanging control and a greater possibility of freedom for simplicity and comfort. As long as your mind is being numbed to things outside your "bubble" you can assume they don't exist. Seems you want to be back in the womb, without a risk of pain or disappointment, but that's not actually living. I smashed my thumb the other day rebuilding an engine, I don't need to do that, but the reward when it was complete and running made the pain evaporate. That's real, physical accomplishment, I can now take that car all over the countryside, and the whole time I know that I personally made that happen with my own hands.

I don't want to be chauffeured around (though I can now), but I believe that's what certain people feel is the "high life" and they want a piece of it. Well, let me tell you, it ain't what it's cracked up to be. Pay attention to the world outside, not just "cyberspace"; take the wheel, turn off GPS, and go other places on a whim, interact with physical life, metaphorically that's what living is about.

Choose to pay attention, choose to steer your own life.
( Last edited by Shaddim; Nov 25, 2013 at 04:21 PM. )
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2013, 04:18 PM
 
Some of us have to commute to work every day. Some for non trivial amounts of time. There's very little entertaining driving down the same stretch of interstate for the 1000th time, even with the top down in a roadster. It's a boring required task that most of us would gladly get rid of.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2013, 04:19 PM
 
Doesn't Uncle Skeleton drive a motorcycle? Seems the opposite of "bubble".
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2013, 04:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Doesn't Uncle Skeleton drive a motorcycle? Seems the opposite of "bubble".
Well, those can't self-drive.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2013, 04:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
Some of us have to commute to work every day. Some for non trivial amounts of time. There's very little entertaining driving down the same stretch of interstate for the 1000th time, even with the top down in a roadster. It's a boring required task that most of us would gladly get rid of.
Like I said before, that's often a situation you've placed yourself in, little metal boxes inching down the freeway. I would think a train or a bus would be better in that situation, if it's available. The route between my home and office is 7.2 miles long and I've driven it... Jesus... >5,000 times? I still see new things every day, and I often divert to keep an eye on changes in that area, to check out what's going on. Most times, chores are chores when you make them out to be.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2013, 07:32 PM
 
Some of us realize we aren't cut out to / have the connections to make crazy amounts of money. We have a job we don't have allot of choices in the matter. At me previous job it was 1 mile and the current one is 20. Sure i could shorten it by moving and doubling my debt. I'm just lucky that software delvelopment hasn't been effected too badly by the current robitic-ization of manufacturing.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2013, 07:46 PM
 
Is traffic really that bad in NH? It's not the money you make, it's the choices. Decision making that improves quality of life is fast becoming a lost talent. If you're unhappy with the course of your life, change it, because the longer you wait the harder it becomes, as you settle into a comfort zone. I know this will piss some people off, but life on autopilot isn't living.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2013, 08:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Did I say it already in this thread? I think HUDs are unnecessary in a car. There's no information so vital you need all the time, and if it's popping in and out that's a distraction.
My sister's old Grand Prix had one of those that displayed the current speed at the bottom of the windshield. Since getting a new car in the last year or two, she still finds that she misses it.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2013, 09:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Is traffic really that bad in NH?
The job's in MA It's only a 30-45 minute commute. It is a consideration when looking for jobs though. Some people don't understand that 2 miles can actually turn into 20-30 minutes.

So we live are boring middle class lives, drive sedans or minivans*, and work out jobs. Because we're not beautiful, lucky, connected, or rich. Our days are full the things we need to get done and forcing hyperimiling priai out of the fast lane is time better spent elsewhere.


*i'm still single
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2013, 10:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
The job's in MA It's only a 30-45 minute commute. It is a consideration when looking for jobs though. Some people don't understand that 2 miles can actually turn into 20-30 minutes.

So we live are boring middle class lives, drive sedans or minivans*, and work out jobs. Because we're not beautiful, lucky, connected, or rich. Our days are full the things we need to get done and forcing hyperimiling priai out of the fast lane is time better spent elsewhere.


*i'm still single
As I said before, that's not the issue. You're still choosing to be there, doing that. My mechanic moved here from eastern Europe, arrived with several hundred dollars and an idea of what he wanted to do. There's little reward without risk, and people pining over the things they aren't (or what they present themselves to be) doesn't solve anything.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2013, 10:38 PM
 
I hope his long-term aspirations don't include "proofreader."
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2013, 11:23 PM
 
So has this become some kind of lecture on life choices or something? I barely commute, I love my job (and I'm damn good at it), and I would get a self-driving car in a goddamn heartbeat. The less control these twats around me have of their vehicle, the better for all mankind.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:31 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2014 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2