Driverless Audi RS 7 at racing speeds at Hockenheim

[Exorcet]

What's wrong with hunting?

It is significantly more difficult and time consuming than a pizza delivery.

 

[Slash]

It is significantly more difficult and time consuming than a pizza delivery.

So what?

This is why America is fat.

 

[Parker]

So what?

This is why America is fat.

No, it isn't.

 

[Slash]

No, it isn't.

Everyone wants everything handed to them. No one wants to work for anything anymore. Hungry? Order a pizza and have it delivered so you can sit on your ass and play video games all night and then go work a desk job at the office in the morning. No one wants to hunt anymore for food, no one wants to turn a pipe wrench to get paid or wire up a house. Everyone wants to be doctors and lawyers and that's fine and great but the other positions need filling to and that's why they make more money these days. My prime source of food is deer meat. It's something I enjoy doing. And sure the convenience factor is there in a pinch, and I love take out, but really?

I commend those who have worked for everything they have.

This country is flat out lazy. Autonomous cars are for lazy people, short and to the point. I stand by what I said here and I'm not going to change it. I have no hope for the future generations who want to sit around because they can't be bothered to get off their ass and steering a car. I'm sorry, but I do not support this kind of stuff at all. You can say what you will about making reference to the past, but I'm one of those guys from back then just in the modern day who doesn't like it. All I see this is promoting laziness.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

What's wrong with hunting?

Exactly as much as there is wrong with horseriding.

 

[Slash]

Exactly as much as there is wrong with horseriding.

Which is nothing.

 

[Furinkazen]

Autonomous cars are for lazy people, short and to the point.

Bet you wouldn't be saying same thing if it was a Mustang V8. Appreciate new technology. Tomorrow you are not going to wake up in a world of millions of fully autonomous cars.

 

[Slash]

Bet you wouldn't be saying same thing if it was a Mustang V8. Appreciate new technology. Tomorrow you are not going to wake up in a world of millions of fully autonomous cars.

I would, because I don't like that technology. I would be FURIOUS if V8 Mustangs had it.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Which is nothing.

Exactly, and it is still a major draw to a small percentage of the population, those that'd consider themselves enthusiasts. Exorcet's point about it being significantly more difficult than ordering food stands; unless you want to tell me that you devote a couple hours every day to hunting, you already subscribe to the convenience the modern day provides you, with food. Considering he mentioned hunting in combination with a low life expectancy and a half-day's work, I'm assuming he's talking about man's early days and how we've progressed since; we no longer have to hunt, but we can if we so choose.

With autonomous cars, we wouldn't have to drive (to work everyday, mired in traffic). But we could still choose to drive (for fun, elsewhere).

 

[Parker]

Everyone wants everything handed to them. No one wants to work for anything anymore. Hungry? Order a pizza and have it delivered so you can sit on your ass and play video games all night and then go work a desk job at the office in the morning. No one wants to hunt anymore for food, no one wants to turn a pipe wrench to get paid or wire up a house. Everyone wants to be doctors and lawyers and that's fine and great but the other positions need filling to and that's why they make more money these days. My prime source of food is deer meat. It's something I enjoy doing. And sure the convenience factor is there in a pinch, and I love take out, but really?

I commend those who have worked for everything they have.

This country is flat out lazy. Autonomous cars are for lazy people, short and to the point. I stand by what I said here and I'm not going to change it. I have no hope for the future generations who want to sit around because they can't be bothered to get off their ass and steering a car. I'm sorry, but I do not support this kind of stuff at all. You can say what you will about making reference to the past, but I'm one of those guys from back then just in the modern day who doesn't like it. All I see this is promoting laziness.

Slash, you drive an automatic minivan. If you hate technology so much why do you drive period? No one wants to hunt anymore? I know plenty of people who hunt, some purely for joy and some because they rely on it as their source of food. But honestly, how feasible is it to work your 40 hour (or more) a week job and then go out in the woods and supply your family with meat? For most people that isn't an option, it doesn't make them lazy, it means they have other priorities and they will take advantage of something like a grocery store.

I am 23 years old, I have a house, a '91 Cummins, '02 Subaru Impreza, a wife and a 4 year old son. That means I had a child when I was 18 years old, barely out of high school Hell my girlfriend (wife, now) was still in high school when she had our son. I worked my ass off for years to have what we have now. I lived in my truck because I didn't have time to drive home and go to sleep, I worked 3 or 4 jobs at a time and rarely saw my son for many, many months. Finally when I was 21 I applied for the career I currently have, went to the academy where they busted our ass for months, PT everyday, Defensive tactics every day, I would come home sore and bruised but I did it because not only do I love working in Law Enforcement, but I needed to provide for my family.

Why that long story? Because what I bolded in your quote is absolute nonsense. I am far from a lazy person and I would absolutely love an autonomous car. I drive 35 mile to work everyday and I would love to be able to have the car drive itself there and allow me to take a nap, call my wife or whatever else. I also love driving cars and my truck too, don't get me wrong. But there is a very big difference between being stuck in traffic going 20mph in a straight line on the interstate and having the windows rolled down, cruising along a nice scenic road and actually enjoying the drive. Not to mention, as many others have said, this will only make the roads a safer place for those of us who love driving, I'm not sure why you ignore that.

 

[Zenith]

Everyone wants everything handed to them. No one wants to work for anything anymore. Hungry? Order a pizza and have it delivered so you can sit on your ass and play video games all night and then go work a desk job at the office in the morning. No one wants to hunt anymore for food, no one wants to turn a pipe wrench to get paid or wire up a house. Everyone wants to be doctors and lawyers and that's fine and great but the other positions need filling to and that's why they make more money these days. My prime source of food is deer meat. It's something I enjoy doing. And sure the convenience factor is there in a pinch, and I love take out, but really?

Nobody wants to hunt for food because it is a colossal time and monetary investment. We live in civilization, there are economies of scale. It would be hilariously wasteful for everyone to go out and hunt for their own meat.

Why don't you make your own clothes?
Why don't you purify your own water?
Why don't you pave your own roads?
Why don't you provide your own medical care?

Because it's not worth your time. Imagine if some bum dressed in poorly constructed rags came to you calling you lazy for taking your drinking and shower water from taps instead of walking yourself down to a stream then purifying it yourself.

That's how you look. You went full White & Nerdy.

If you take some strange pride in not being lazy by doing mundane tasks, go ahead and sign up to be a garbage man or a bus driver. Be warned, that those educated people you think are so lazy are working to make machines that will replace you. Why? Because those "not lazy" jobs are so easy that some nuts and bolts with a computer could do them.

This country is flat out lazy. Autonomous cars are for lazy people, short and to the point. I stand by what I said here and I'm not going to change it. I have no hope for the future generations who want to sit around because they can't be bothered to get off their ass and steering a car. I'm sorry, but I do not support this kind of stuff at all. You can say what you will about making reference to the past, but I'm one of those guys from back then just in the modern day who doesn't like it. All I see this is promoting laziness.

What an incredible amount of BS to be coming from a teenager who has yet to fully join the workforce.

Driving to and from work is boring. It occupies just enough of my attention to keep me from doing anything else productive or interesting. I would love the free time.

Everybody here likes driving. It's a car forum. I would recommend against calling people who look forward to self-driving cars lazy, because chances are they've commuted to and from a 9-5 week after week. No matter how much somebody may enjoy the act of driving, that gets old.

 

[Joel]

Everyone wants everything handed to them. No one wants to work for anything anymore. Hungry? Order a pizza and have it delivered so you can sit on your ass and play video games all night and then go work a desk job at the office in the morning.

Did you build the computer you typed this manifesto of lunacy on?

 

[Wolfe]

While I don't agree with what Slash said, and I welcome with open arms the end of incompetent drivers clogging up the streets, I'm still not buying the anti-luddite argument here.

Acceptance of technology need not be a linear scale, with autonomous cars on one side and horses on the other. When you drive an "analog" car, you're operating a machine. When you ride in an autonomous car, you're placing your trust in that machine. Machines are technology and technology is progress, but there's a hard distinction here. Not every luxury of the modern automobile requires you to submit authority to a computer. Some conveniences are merely convenient. The "horse" counterargument is horse----.

The systems that underpin the ability for a car to drive itself -- from stability control to active collision prevention -- have already intruded upon or severed the autonomy we otherwise possess, whether it regards our intended course of travel or the manner in which we want/require it to be done. Even if you drive one of these new cars "manually", your inputs are merely requests that are sent through a computer for approval or modification. Personally, I'm not comfortable with that.

Enthusiasm for driving aside, I know I'm not ready to trust an autonomous car because I don't even trust ABS or traction control. I'm the operator of the machine I'm in, and whenever I get behind the wheel, I accept full responsibility for any actions made by that machine. I want full responsibility. I'm in control. I'm sure that frequently enough, a computer could do things better than I could, but if there's even one instance where my judgment would have been the better course of action, I'm willing to accept my fallibility and limits in order to utilize that better judgment.

In deference to someone who has experience with the latest efforts on this front, the current issue of Road & Track happens to have a column about autonomous systems:

...I once had a Mercedes-Benz respond to tractor-trailers on the highway, each trundling along in its own lane, with full panic braking; a Volvo tried to punt me through the windshield by braking for a plastic bag in the street. Worse, an Acura recently beeped and flashed "STOP!" on the dash when approaching a stationary car, but instead of braking, the computer went for the gas. Ford, Infiniti, BMW, Porsche, Toyota, Mazda -- I've seen each manufacturer's systems false. [Cammisa earlier defined the made-up verb "false" as when these systems respond to false positives]

To be fair, the subject of the column was a redeeming moment Cammisa had with an E-class, which avoided a collision with a distracted driver in his blind spot. Nonetheless, for the purpose of my point, the evidence is clear. From the moment these systems were introduced, I expected all of these things. I also expect they'll improve, though only by so much as long as they rely on particularly trouble-prone devices like optical cameras.

Absolute perfection is probably unlikely. And absolute perfection is the only way I could be comfortable giving up my autonomy over driving.

 

[RC45]

Slash, you drive an automatic minivan. If you hate technology so much why do you drive period? No one wants to hunt anymore? I know plenty of people who hunt, some purely for joy and some because they rely on it as their source of food. But honestly, how feasible is it to work your 40 hour (or more) a week job and then go out in the woods and supply your family with meat? For most people that isn't an option, it doesn't make them lazy, it means they have other priorities and they will take advantage of something like a grocery store.

I am 23 years old, I have a house, a '91 Cummins, '02 Subaru Impreza, a wife and a 4 year old son. That means I had a child when I was 19 years old, barely out of high school Hell my girlfriend (wife, now) was still in high school when she had our son. I worked my ass off for years to have what we have now. I lived in my truck because I didn't have time to drive home and go to sleep, I worked 3 or 4 jobs at a time and rarely saw my son for many, many months. Finally when I was 21 I applied for the career I currently have, went to the academy where they busted our ass for months, PT everyday, Defensive tactics every day, I would come home sore and bruised but I did it because not only do I love working in Law Enforcement, but I needed to provide for my family.

Why that long story? Because what I bolded in your quote is absolute nonsense. I am far from a lazy person and I would absolutely love an autonomous car. I drive 35 mile to work everyday and I would love to be able to have the car drive itself there and allow me to take a nap, call my wife or whatever else. I also love driving cars and my truck too, don't get me wrong. But there is a very big difference between being stuck in traffic going 20mph in a straight line on the interstate and having the windows rolled down, cruising along a nice scenic road and actually enjoying the drive. Not to mention, as many others have said, this will only make the roads a safer place for those of us who love driving, I'm not sure why you ignore that.

Then take a bus or train.

Why should I have to pay increased prices for the required technology (every vehicle will be required to play with the new system), redundant systems, bureaucratic government overhead needed to manage and approve the systems (think FAA/FCC etc.), insurances that will be mandated, taxes required to pay for all the extra overhead to make your dream of a pointless automated PRIVATE traffic system a reality?

What you want is public transportation, but just as public transportation is not the answer in rural Kentucky - automated PRIVATE commuter cars is not the answer outside of closed high density urban environments.

Then again you are a LEO so you enjoy big government bureaucracy - you would not have a job without it

**snip**
Absolute perfection is probably unlikely. And absolute perfection is the only way I could be comfortable giving up my autonomy over driving.

What he said.

 

[Exorcet]

Enthusiasm for driving aside, I know I'm not ready to trust an autonomous car because I don't even trust ABS or traction control. I'm the operator of the machine I'm in, and whenever I get behind the wheel, I accept full responsibility for any actions made by that machine. I want full responsibility. I'm in control. I'm sure that frequently enough, a computer could do things better than I could, but if there's even one instance where my judgment would have been the better course of action, I'm willing to accept my fallibility and limits in order to utilize that better judgment.

This isn't Slash's argument. People disagree with him because he doesn't seem to want automated cars period. He considers them bad for society/everyone.

I'm not looking to buy a self driving car either, but I don't look down on people who do.

Then take a bus or train.

Not quite the same. Those two also don't leave you with a car that you can drive yourself. An autonomous vehicle doesn't have to be autonomous all the time.

Why should I have to pay increased prices for the required technology (every vehicle will be required to play with the new system), redundant systems, bureaucratic government overhead needed to manage and approve the systems (think FAA/FCC etc.), insurances that will be mandated, taxes required to pay for all the extra overhead to make your dream of a pointless automated PRIVATE traffic system a reality?

Nothing is required of you. If people want self driving cars, they'll be made. That's as free market as it gets.

What you want is public transportation, but just as public transportation is not the answer in rural Kentucky - automated PRIVATE commuter cars is not the answer outside of closed high density urban environments.

The answer is what the consumer wants.

 

[Joel]

What you want is public transportation, but just as public transportation is not the answer in rural Kentucky - automated PRIVATE commuter cars is not the answer outside of closed high density urban environments.

This shows how little you understand about how these cars work. It's actually the opposite, it's almost trivial to get them to work on the highway, and the biggest issue with them now is developing ways for them to respond to city traffic and obstructions, in particular things like police giving a hand signal to get a car to stop, and cyclists using hand signals. Computers can drive on the highway many times better than you, me, or anyone else can.

It's not cost effective yet but the technology is already there to have a car that takes over for you once you're on the highway. You're using the word "pipe dream" and saying it's "not the answer" when this stuff is already functional. You're right, public transport isn't viable in rural Kentucky. That's why people in rural Kentucky own cars. Some day a lot of them will drive themselves.

 

[Zenith]

Then again you are a LEO so you enjoy big government bureaucracy - you would not have a job without it

Holy tin foil hats...

Then take a bus or train.

Impractical. I want to arrive at my destination, not near it. I want to leave from my home, not near it.

Why should I have to pay increased prices for the required technology (every vehicle will be required to play with the new system), redundant systems, bureaucratic government overhead needed to manage and approve the systems (think FAA/FCC etc.), insurances that will be mandated, taxes required to pay for all the extra overhead to make your dream of a pointless automated PRIVATE traffic system a reality?

What you want is public transportation, but just as public transportation is not the answer in rural Kentucky - automated PRIVATE commuter cars is not the answer outside of closed high density urban environments.

You just pulled this entire fantasy out of thin air.

Who said that we were going to create a whole new highway system and outlaw "analog" cars? Are you nuts?

Self driving cars coexist fine with standard driven cars. You wouldn't notice a difference in your fellow motorist except his hands aren't on the wheel.

Don't want to pay for self driving tech? Then don't, have fun wasting your time sitting in traffic while I read a book about paranoia.

 

[RC45]

Not quite the same. Those two also don't leave you with a car that you can drive yourself. An autonomous vehicle doesn't have to be autonomous all the time.

Actually it will have to be - since if they leave the system with a human override option, the flawed human may override the system just before an accident occurs - or worse yet, the human may override the system in order to cause an accident/run someone over.

Nothing is required of you. If people want self driving cars, they'll be made. That's as free market as it gets.

My taxes will go to fund the bureaucracy needed to manage all this. Not a thing is free market about that.

The answer is what the consumer wants.

And the required government bureaucracy to keep it safe and form the mandates - you know, for the sake of children. Except where the safety features kill the children - like airbags....
The utopia you imagine automated transportation to be will not be what you think it will be - it will be what government shapes it to be, regardless of the what the consumer wants.

This shows how little you understand about how these cars work. It's actually the opposite, it's almost trivial to get them to work on the highway, and the biggest issue with them now is developing ways for them to respond to city traffic and obstructions, in particular things like police giving a hand signal to get a car to stop, and cyclists using hand signals. Computers can drive on the highway many times better than you, me, or anyone else can.

It's not cost effective yet but the technology is already there to have a car that takes over for you once you're on the highway. You're using the word "pipe dream" and saying it's "not the answer" when this stuff is already functional. You're right, public transport isn't viable in rural Kentucky. That's why people in rural Kentucky own cars. Some day a lot of them will drive themselves.

I actually understand exactly how all this works - I am a technologist. I love technology. Surround myself with technology, I earn a living implementing technology - which is why I know that what you think it is and what it will be are 2 different things.

Technology is very fallible and error prone and worst of all - car manufacturers
are know to cut corners to cut costs and only provide the bare minimum government mandated content. IOW, cheap automated mass produced consumer cars are not what I as a technologist will be trusting myself and my family to.

There is a big difference between automated aviation and automated civilian vehicles - the important ones being budget, maintenance and redundancy. And even then, the use of the automated features is closely managed and limited.

You ever seen what a modern car does when a sensor fails? It shuts down, goes into limp mode, disables that feature - these are not options in the air, so they have redundancy, required maintenance, finite limited lifecycles of the systems - and in the event of a failure there is a highly trained crew to cover for the inevitable failure of the systems.

Simply put - the only way ground based civilian automated transportation will become a reality is if all vehicles are automated, all pedestrian traffic is banned and the transportation network becomes a closed circuit managed by the government.

Automated civilian transportation is just as pie in the sky as 'renewable energy for all' - it is a great engineering challenge and interesting topic to ponder and spend millions of grant dollars on, but not really practical in terms of implementation.

Hell I am still waiting for my personal flying car... LOL

Holy tin foil hats...

Well - the job created for the modern LEO is one of a bureaucrat. So by definition cannot exist without its bureaucracy.

Impractical. I want to arrive at my destination, not near it. I want to leave from my home, not near it.

You mean like a taxi or limo service?

You just pulled this entire fantasy out of thin air.
Who said that we were going to create a whole new highway system and outlaw "analog" cars? Are you nuts?

NHTSA might, among other bureaucracies.

They will define the standards, feature sets, technology and capabilities - just as they do now for everything else.

Do you think the size, shape, layout and features of your current roads are accidental, random and uncontrolled by government?

Automated vehicles will bring an entire slew of new requirements to the already crowded list of requirements that the existing traffic network is burdened with.

To think otherwise is to not understand the fundamentals behind mass implementation of anything in the modern civilized world.

Unless you think automated vehicles will be just as much at home on the freeways of Boston as they will be in urban Bangladesh without any consideration given to the transportation network.

Self driving cars coexist fine with standard driven cars. You wouldn't notice a difference in your fellow motorist except his hands aren't on the wheel.
Don't want to pay for self driving tech? Then don't, have fun wasting your time sitting in traffic while I read a book about paranoia.

Except you will be right there next to me - going nowhere. So explain again how an automated car stuck in traffic is any better than a regular car stuck in traffic or any better than a passenger in a taxi stuck in traffic?

 

[Exorcet]

Actually it will have to be - since if they leave the system with a human override option, the flawed human may override the system just before an accident occurs - or worse yet, the human may override the system in order to cause an accident/run someone over.

Why does that matter? That would not make a human override impossible to implement. The override doesn't make the whole system redundant either as when the system is on the chance of an accident could be reduced by a large amount. As for people trying to use their vehicle as a weapon, that's pretty easy at the moment with cars that rely on human control. I don't see how an autodriver would make things worse.

My taxes will go to fund the bureaucracy needed to manage all this. Not a thing is free market about that.

That sounds like an issue with the bureaucracy and not the product.

And the required government bureaucracy to keep it safe and form the mandates - you know, for the sake of children. Except where the safety features kill the children - like airbags....
The utopia you imagine automated transportation to be will not be what you think it will be - it will be what government shapes it to be, regardless of the what the consumer wants.

What utopia? Again you're pointing out problems that belong to something completely separate.

 

[RC45]

Why does that matter? That would not make a human override impossible to implement. The override doesn't make the whole system redundant either as when the system is on the chance of an accident could be reduced by a large amount. As for people trying to use their vehicle as a weapon, that's pretty easy at the moment with cars that rely on human control. I don't see how an autodriver would make things worse.

I never said automated cars would make things worse, I simply stated they will have no value unless human override is not enabled and all humans are removed from the transportation equation.

See, what is the point of an automated car if it is not fully automated?

Safety? But an automated car with human override is no more safe than a regular car. The human could choose to override at the worst possible moment.

So why have it as an option to begin with?

That sounds like an issue with the bureaucracy and not the product.

In the modern civilized world, one cannot exist without the other.

What utopia? Again you're pointing out problems that belong to something completely separate.

No, the problems are inherent to the implementation. One cannot exist without the other.

Automated cars are an interesting engineering exercise, like Google Glass - but eventually you need to find a use for the technology, otherwise it is just an interesting novelty.

 

[Exorcet]

I never said automated cars would make things worse, I simply stated they will have no value unless human override is not enabled and all humans are removed from the transportation equation.

See, what is the point of an automated car if it is not fully automated?

Safety? But an automated car with human override is no more safe than a regular car. The human could choose to override at the worst possible moment.

So why have it as an option to begin with?

How is it no more safe? The car with the automatic option can be set to automatic. If the autodriver is better than a human, that car is the safer. For it to be no more safe, there would need to be a human disabling it in 100% of cases where it would intervene for the better.

In the modern civilized world, one cannot exist without the other.

Then why bring it up at all? Whether or not cars are automated you're paying for bureaucracy. Whether is more road repair and ambulances because people are crash cars or because you're paying for an automated road system.

No, the problems are inherent to the implementation. One cannot exist without the other.

Automated cars can easily exist without government intervention, whether they would in the here and now is a different question. Whether that answer will change with time is another question.

Automated cars are an interesting engineering exercise, like Google Glass - but eventually you need to find a use for the technology, otherwise it is just an interesting novelty.

The use has predated the technology by over a century.

 

[Dan]

Interesting technology. I personally dislike the looks of the RS 7 (Especially the rear ), but I think this is incredible. Great job, Audi.

Also, they didn't program it to perform donuts? Oh wait. Quattro. Forgot.

 

[OriginalCheezIt]

Good God...

I am not willing to try arguing with some of these fallatical (mix of fallacy and fanatical) commentors, but I am willing to say this:

Humans are better at philosophical thought, discovery, and creativity. We have emotions that give us those abilities.

Computers are better at practically anything that doesn't require emotions.

So maybe the question is, are emotions necessary when driving?

My opinion is no, emotions do more harm than good when trying to do such a precise task.

And also, @Slash, seeing as you are so anti-lazy, how about you walk places instead of driving? After all, cars are indeed technology.

 

[Slash]

And also, @Slash, seeing as you are so anti-lazy, how about you walk places instead of driving?

This is my primary method of travel actually, unless someone else is driving or I have errands to run for someone else in a timely manner.

 

[Joey D]

I think too many of you are assuming that we will either have fully autonomous cars or fully human controlled cars. The truth is, most vehicles will probably end up with a hybrid system where the computers can take over when the drive isn't paying attention or can't react quick enough. I know I'd feel safer if for some reason I had a brain cramp and the car took over before I either hit someone or something. No one is perfect behind the wheel, having some extra help to decrease the likelihood of an accident isn't a bad thing.

It's not being fat, lazy, dependent on technology, or even having the desire to take away driving from enthusiasts, it's about being safe on the road and decreasing fatalities and insurance claims.

 

[Zenith]

Well - the job created for the modern LEO is one of a bureaucrat. So by definition cannot exist without its bureaucracy.

Wrong. Police officers are created by a need to enforce laws. Individual agencies are not relevant.

You mean like a taxi or limo service?

Yeah. Except not driven by an unreliable, unsafe, paid by the hour human.

Instead it's driven by a computer that I pay for once and own the entire car.

Cheaper, faster, safer, more efficient. Neat.

NHTSA might, among other bureaucracies.

They will define the standards, feature sets, technology and capabilities - just as they do now for everything else.

Do you think the size, shape, layout and features of your current roads are accidental, random and uncontrolled by government?
Automated vehicles will bring an entire slew of new requirements to the already crowded list of requirements that the existing traffic network is burdened with.

To think otherwise is to not understand the fundamentals behind mass implementation of anything in the modern civilized world.

Except we're not arguing about that. You're whining about self driving cars by refusing to acknowledge the obvious utility to the technology. Solution without a problem? Please. Thousands of traffic collision victims and people stuck in traffic would beg to differ.

Whether the government uses the cars as an opportunity to violate rights is another story.

This is, of course, ignoring the ways infrastructure will be made more efficient by self driving cars.

The great thing is that the market ignores you and other Luddites. You can complain all you'd like. You pose no obstacle.

Unless you think automated vehicles will be just as much at home on the freeways of Boston as they will be in urban Bangladesh without any consideration given to the transportation network.

I don't drive in Bangladesh. They only need to work where I commute for me to buy one.

Besides, manual override for cities and other tricky bits is always possible.

Except you will be right there next to me - going nowhere. So explain again how an automated car stuck in traffic is any better than a regular car stuck in traffic or any better than a passenger in a taxi stuck in traffic?

Because unlike you, I can kick back and browse the web, have a snack, or read a book. You have to gas and brake like a trained monkey.

I've already covered why self driving cars are better than taxis.

 

[Azuremen]

@Slash - If you think modern things are making us lazy, why are you posting words via a keyboard and digital interface rather than creating ornate hand written words and mailing them? Or why are you using a digital camera rather than crafting film from silver nitrate and then printing your own images to share your truck? Why aren't you protesting automation in food production, such as large harvesters and such? Or goods delivered to a grocer rather than picking them up from the source yourself?

Man, some laziness going on right there

As for concerns on accident avoidance, the real neat bit about having self-driving cars with wireless interlinking is swarm movements. Adjacent vehicles can be informed of an emergency maneuver and adjust their course/speed to accommodate. Which certainly beats human control in your busy intersection problem, @RC45 along with addressing traffic flow and numerous other issues that result from poor communication between drivers. Not to mention solving the issue of A-B drivers that zone out the moment they start the car.

 

[RC45]

@Slash - If you think modern things are making us lazy, why are you posting words via a keyboard and digital interface rather than creating ornate hand written words and mailing them? Or why are you using a digital camera rather than crafting film from silver nitrate and then printing your own images to share your truck? Why aren't you protesting automation in food production, such as large harvesters and such? Or goods delivered to a grocer rather than picking them up from the source yourself?

Man, some laziness going on right there

As for concerns on accident avoidance, the real neat bit about having self-driving cars with wireless interlinking is swarm movements. Adjacent vehicles can be informed of an emergency maneuver and adjust their course/speed to accommodate. Which certainly beats human control in your busy intersection problem, @RC45 along with addressing traffic flow and numerous other issues that result from poor communication between drivers. Not to mention solving the issue of A-B drivers that zone out the moment they start the car.

So I will put you in the 'automated vehicles are only plausible if all human control is eliminated' column.

All the automated technology in the world is for naught if the very human element some people are trying to engineer out of the equation is still in the equation.

And there is no obvious use for automated civilian single driver cars - it is a solution that has yet to find a problem. Swarms of single use civilian cars that autopilot to work and fill parking garages is about as far from practical and intelligent use of any automated technology as 1 can get. Especially if these automated cars are stuck in traffic jams. What a technological fuster cluck that would be LOL.

This is the domain of public transportation.

Wrong. Police officers are created by a need to enforce laws. Individual agencies are not relevant.

And these laws are promulgated how, by whom and in accordance with what actions??
Organized police forces are a bureaucracy. Police officers are bureaucrats by definition.

 

[McLaren]

And there is no obvious use for automated civilian single driver cars - it is a solution that has yet to find a problem.

No obvious use? How about allowing a person not legally allowed to drive through a handicap to go somewhere.

Swarms of single use civilian cars that autopilot to work and fill parking garages is about as far from practical and intelligent use of any automated technology as 1 can get. Especially if these automated cars are stuck in traffic jams. What a technological fuster cluck that would be LOL.

You show such little knowledge of technology. If the entire road was filled with automated cars, they would continuously process & recognize each other to get into a flow.

Besides, even if it were a cluster, like this is any better of a situation. People full of emotions allowing for potential, unnecessary situations where as computers show no emotion & don't get upset if someone needs to cut in front.

 

[Zenith]

And these laws are promulgated how, by whom and in accordance with what actions??
Organized police forces are a bureaucracy. Police officers are bureaucrats by definition.

I'll be happy to debate the definitions of police officers with you in a relevant thread. Let's focus on your assertion that self-driving cars are a "solution looking for a problem" because you're honestly the very first person I have seen who believes this.