Uber is great for cities where I travel but paying $25 each way from Johnston to downtown seems kind of excessive.
Self Driving Cars
- Thread starter boone7247
- Start date
Uber is great for cities where I travel but paying $25 each way from Johnston to downtown seems kind of excessive.
I think the whole issue of hacking will go away fairly quickly now that's it's viewed as a legitimate threat. Just like Google is hiring people from Detroit to develop driver-less cars, the Big Three will hire people from Silicon Valley to develop secure data communications.
If that's true, it seems to me that insurance companies would be all over that. "Look at how low your rates will be when you travel in a self driving car!"
I fail to share your confidence. Hacking has been a legitimate threat in all corners of our society and yet we continue to see hacking at every level, even governments. Hackers often see the challenge and fail to see the consequences - or don't care.
I know, so am I. Yes, there will be an adjustment period as the technology is adopted but I don't think it will be that big of a deal.
The "safest" acceleration is 0. I'd bet their aiming for something in the range of "typical driving" without exceeding the limits of comfort for a passenger.
So it takes 60 seconds to pass a semi. Big deal. And I don't know what the logic will be in these specific situations, but I don't know why they wouldn't allow it to speed up a bit to get back into the right lane. Somehow the car is going to have to deal with people that don't use cruise control, and I don't think it's going to involve continuous lane changing.
What makes you think the designers would tell the car to come to a complete stop when there is room to maneuver around the box? Plus, the car will know what else is around it to determine the best route without having to turns its head or check its mirrors.
I agree that this is the best solution - have each car talk to every other car within a certain radius (and maybe limited to cars trying to go the same direction on the same road) so that we can efficiently pack the roads and get people places faster but at a lower, continuous speed.
I guarantee they won't let that happen. It would cause a major reduction in fine money and force cuts in police forces.
Anything that enables people to have more fun, even if it is safer, will be fought tooth and nail in this country. You can bet your bottom dollar on that.
I read a posting on LinkedIn recently, by Elon Musk, that talked about our future with self-driven cars. He seemed to think that the cars would be able to cruise in the 90s, or even faster, when that day arrives.
I think for most normal situations, this idea will be fine. However, when I think of all of the scenarios I've encountered driving, I'm still skeptical of a computer being able to react correctly. Bad weather/road conditions/objects in the road/objects falling off another vehicle. We'll never eliminate all accidents, but I trust my reactions and foresight when driving for now.
Additionally, there's going to be a very long overlap of driver-less and manually-operated vehicles. I'm apprehensive, but could see myself eventually converting. There are going to be thousands of Big Brother conspiracy nuts absolutely refusing to give up control. To have ultimate success, this seems like a full-scale implementation would be necessary. As long as there is a human element, accidents will happen.
Woof. I'd hate to have to defend all of the frivolous and legitimate lawsuits that will eventually occur once these hit the road.
Additionally, there's going to be a very long overlap of driver-less and manually-operated vehicles. I'm apprehensive, but could see myself eventually converting. There are going to be thousands of Big Brother conspiracy nuts absolutely refusing to give up control. To have ultimate success, this seems like a full-scale implementation would be necessary. As long as there is a human element, accidents will happen.
Woof. I'd hate to have to defend all of the frivolous and legitimate lawsuits that will eventually occur once these hit the road.
I think it depends how the idea of driver-less cars evolve. When they first roll out I would assume that you'd still need to maintain some sort of driver awareness and current DUI rules would still apply. But the people working on the technology seem to think it will eventually function more like really flexible public transportation where people co-own vehicles so that there are less vehicles, but they are in more constant use. When we get to that point, I think you'd have to be a real hardcore anti-authority pessimist to think there would be some sort of change in DUI laws.
I'm somewhere in the middle. I think that the DUI in a totally auto-driven car will go away, however I can see the Ames PD pulling a car over at 0230 because they don't know if the car is driving itself or being driven, pull the occupant out of the car and then slap him with a Public Intox charge.
Yea, automation won't be perfect, you'll never completely eliminate accidents. But the odds appear pretty good that it will still be miles better than what we have now.
While I'm thinking about it, here are two recent episodes of the 99% Invisible podcast that talked about a lot of these issues and advantages. Interesting stuff.
http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/children-of-the-magenta-automation-paradox-pt-1/
http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/johnnycab-automation-paradox-pt-2/
I would certainly love it for those long distance drives. Take a nap or watch a few movies while driving across Nebraska? Count me in.
Shouldn't have said forced. The officer will repeatedly request the person to exit the car. When they do so on their own accord they get the PI. I'm not saying it is currently legal, I could just see it going somewhere in that direction.
While I was at ISU there was a huge uptick in the number of PI's the Ames PD were handing out to people who were minding their own business just trying to get home safely from the bars. Right or wrong, this made a lot of people decide they might be better off taking their chances driving home even if they might be over the limit since they would be exposed for a much shorter amount of time.
Another example where the technology has a ways to go.
I was coming home from Cedar Falls and I decided to use the laser cruise control. I never use it on the interstate because I find it annoying but it seems to work good on rural 2 lone roads. I had the cruise set at 69mph on a 55 mph road. There was a car in front of me so the laser cruise was smart enough to adjust it's speed to the car in front of me and left a nice long distance between us. The driver in front of me was going about 60 and I wasn't in a hurry to pass. A few miles later I pulled into a gas station in Albion (I think that's what it's called). About 20 seconds later a police officer pulls in beside me. He got out and while I was walking in I noticed he took a quick glance into my car. I figured he was looking at my Valentine One in the mirror but I knew no one had clocked me and I wasn't going very fast. As I walked out he was still standing by my car and said "I don't think I've ever seen this model" and I said "Yeah they don't sell real well". He then said "I don't know if you realize it but your break pedal must be really touchy. I was following you for a few miles and they we're constantly going off". I just told him that I had laser cruise and every time it adjusted the distance to the car in front it puts on the break lights. We then both agreed that it was annoying and I went on my way.
In this situation the laser cruise did exactly what it's supposed to do but if I had been driving without it I would have just coasted most of the times where the laser put on the brakes. I also think I would get a lot better gas mileage without it on because it's seems like the system is always making decisions so it's gas/brake/gas/brake/gas/brake and very little coasting.
This is probably just an adjustment they will need to make to the sensitivity but it will be tough to decide between too much distance and being over sensitive.
It kind of reminded me of a thermostat. If I set my thermostat to 72.0 I don't think it kicks in until 73.0 and then it takes it down to 71.0. This cruise is like setting your thermostat to 72 and it kicks in at 71.8 and turns off at 72.2.
I was coming home from Cedar Falls and I decided to use the laser cruise control. I never use it on the interstate because I find it annoying but it seems to work good on rural 2 lone roads. I had the cruise set at 69mph on a 55 mph road. There was a car in front of me so the laser cruise was smart enough to adjust it's speed to the car in front of me and left a nice long distance between us. The driver in front of me was going about 60 and I wasn't in a hurry to pass. A few miles later I pulled into a gas station in Albion (I think that's what it's called). About 20 seconds later a police officer pulls in beside me. He got out and while I was walking in I noticed he took a quick glance into my car. I figured he was looking at my Valentine One in the mirror but I knew no one had clocked me and I wasn't going very fast. As I walked out he was still standing by my car and said "I don't think I've ever seen this model" and I said "Yeah they don't sell real well". He then said "I don't know if you realize it but your break pedal must be really touchy. I was following you for a few miles and they we're constantly going off". I just told him that I had laser cruise and every time it adjusted the distance to the car in front it puts on the break lights. We then both agreed that it was annoying and I went on my way.
In this situation the laser cruise did exactly what it's supposed to do but if I had been driving without it I would have just coasted most of the times where the laser put on the brakes. I also think I would get a lot better gas mileage without it on because it's seems like the system is always making decisions so it's gas/brake/gas/brake/gas/brake and very little coasting.
This is probably just an adjustment they will need to make to the sensitivity but it will be tough to decide between too much distance and being over sensitive.
It kind of reminded me of a thermostat. If I set my thermostat to 72.0 I don't think it kicks in until 73.0 and then it takes it down to 71.0. This cruise is like setting your thermostat to 72 and it kicks in at 71.8 and turns off at 72.2.
Last edited:
I can confirm that insurance companies are looking at this technology for the reason you mention. Realizing you are taking the human risk out of the equation should certainly reduce insurance rates.
The fact that Google has logged millions of miles w/o incident is impressive and promising. Will be interesting to see where this goes.
Let's also keep in mind that they have new, impeccably maintained vehicles as well. "Fly-by-wire" seemed a promising idea to transfer from aircraft to heavy construction equipment until it was discovered that the dust, mud, water, etc. from a construction site reek havoc on a "fly-by-wire" system and you occasionally have 10+ ton bulldozers that won't stop or turn when they are supposed to.
Don't get me wrong, I think they will reduce accidents, but not anything like what they are showing in their tests.
If the car is self-driving safely and not breaking any laws, can the PD even pull it over?
