I have said this before and I still believe it. A self-driving car will be no match for an eighty year old “blue hair” in her Buick.
Please expand what you mean. Are you saying that self driving cars won't happen because it will not be safe due to "blue hair" scenario and other safety concerns? No argument just want to understand where you are coming from.
Self driving cars will creap in gradually over the next 15-20 years. By 2040, 80% of cars on the road will be self-driven. Yes, that soon. Ironically, it may be because cars with full assist have less accidents (and thus cost less to insure).
A few options :
a) They provide all sort of services impossible now. Sharing car rides will become incredibly easy, car routes could be optimized to pick up several near passengers needing a ride in the viccinity. That would enable the speed of cars with the savings of public transport.
b) Another option, smaller pod cars could go get individuals and then join together to become much faster trains of cars on the freeway. Maybe this "train" would be driven by a powerful, more efficient, lead vehicule, that relay themselves on freeway stretches getting power from central lines. That way you get the efficiency of public transport and the end point comfort of the individual vehicule (that scenario though i NOT in 25 years :-). Doing so, it would even be possible to have different lanes for tje "trains" with different speeds for local traffic versus long distance traffic. Inner traffic of those road trains could go to 120mph.
Also, you could combine direct local public transport (a) with those road trains (b) to create extremely, very high density, high speed transport. Maybe having self-adjusting standing seats in the local public transport so when they join the trains, they can get to a very high speed because of sparser traffic 120-140mph. With something like that, many people that take cars now wouldn't mind spending very little on transport that'S just as fast as their cars. Of course, some would still want to pay more for the individual pods. Everyone could do so if they wish. Options are good.
Apparently you are unaware or indifferent to the fact that some of the safest motorcycle helmets on the planet are not available in the US because of the excessive litigiousness of Americans. It is this factor that I strongly believe is being overlooked by all who seem so certain of the success of self-driven vehicles. I suspect they will creep into the market, much as you say; but then will leave the American market much like the aforementioned motorcycle helmets, not because they caused someone's death; but because of the insane notion that the self driving car should somehow prevent every kind of automotive injury. It was the unreasonable expectation on these superlative helmets that caused these smaller purveyors to leave the American market. I believe that the same unreasonable expectation will be laid on self driving cars. It won't have to be whether the self driving car caused a death. Merely failing to prevent a death or injury will be enough for the rabid litigiousness of Americans to take its toll.
That being said, it's remarkable how many here are assuming that this rumor, if true, pertains to cars. Did everyone forget the late Steve Jobs' enthusiasm for the Segway? Assuming this rumor is valid, the only thing we can be reasonably confident about is that this about an electrically powered device. Said device might even be battery powered, a key competency of Tesla. It's possible this project is even transportation related; but it's an enormous leap to guess it has anything at all to do with a hypothetical Apple car.
Apparently you are unaware or indifferent to the fact that some of the safest motorcycle helmets on the planet are not available in the US because of the excessive litigiousness of Americans. It is this factor that I strongly believe is being overlooked by all who seem so certain of the success of self-driven vehicles. I suspect they will creep into the market, much as you say; but then will leave the American market much like the aforementioned motorcycle helmets, not because they caused someone's death; but because of the insane notion that the self driving car should somehow prevent every kind of automotive injury. It was the unreasonable expectation on these superlative helmets that caused these smaller purveyors to leave the American market. I believe that the same unreasonable expectation will be laid on self driving cars. It won't have to be whether the self driving car caused a death. Merely failing to prevent a death or injury will be enough for the rabid litigiousness of Americans to take its toll.
That being said, it's remarkable how many here are assuming that this rumor, if true, pertains to cars. Did everyone forget the late Steve Jobs' enthusiasm for the Segway? Assuming this rumor is valid, the only thing we can be reasonably confident about is that this about an electrically powered device. Said device might even be battery powered, a key competency of Tesla. It's possible this project is even transportation related; but it's an enormous leap to guess it has anything at all to do with a hypothetical Apple car.
You have valid points I hope you are wrong But it is true that our government and other voiced opposition will make it very difficult. The good thing is the military and very large corporations are behind this...that might make the difference.
Please expand what you mean. Are you saying that self driving cars won't happen because it will not be safe due to "blue hair" scenario and other safety concerns? No argument just want to understand where you are coming from.
I’m saying that humans driving automobiles intermixed with automatons presents so many variables and that the state of artificial intelligence isn’t quite there yet. Part of driving includes anticipating what other drivers will or will not do. The eighty year old and her Buick is one example. I have followed elderly drivers down the road and they can be quite unpredictable. Not picking on the elderly, just presenting an example. As I understand the technology sensors monitor the environment they are in and react to that environment, not proactively. Then there’s the human element of acceptance and trust. While most would find a self-driving car intriguing and cool I wonder what percentage of the driving public would actually trust their lives to the technology. ABS brakes is one thing. Turning loose of the steering wheel is another thing all together.
You cannot use aviation auto-pilots as an example as they operate in a completely different universe. I’m not saying it will never happen. I’m saying its still a long way off
My hunch is that, if there is a Jobs-inspired Apple car in the works, it looks like that ridiculous yacht Jobs had built for himself. People and companies good in one field tend to be disasters in others because the expertise involved is different. Strengths in one area become weaknesses in another. Glass on an iPhone may little pretty. On a ship in stormy seas, it's utter folly.
Boeing, for instance, is marvelous at building airplanes, but its effort to enter the software market back in the 1980s with "Boeing Calc"%u2014I kid you not, it did exist%u2014was a complete flop.
Self-driving cars are another bit of folly, one that resembles the science magazine articles just after WWII about airplanes replacing cars for transportation. Flying is simply too complex and risk to be done for casual, daily trips. Not only is training a car to drive safely on anything but a specialized and isolated track (think special lanes of freeways) very difficult, the very idea is an oxymoron.
Cars can't self-drive because cars don't want to go anywhere. It's people who want to drive places and telling a car all the complexities of what we want to do on any particular day and on any particular trip more trouble than it is worth, especially for a task as easy as driving.
As a good general rule, it's best to dismiss anything the press gets worked up about. If they actually had good sense, they would be doing things not writing about them.
Please expand what you mean. Are you saying that self driving cars won't happen because it will not be safe due to "blue hair" scenario and other safety concerns? No argument just want to understand where you are coming from.
To drive a car takes human level artifical intelligence. Self driving cars are being tested in good conditions on good roads, not on wet early morning wednessdays in Inverness as a few drunks come from the local pub, and unlit insomiac cyclists are about. At the basis this software will depend on the system recognising threats, recognising non-threats, recent road closures, the law and many other obstacles I don't think it will ever work, not outside a freeway system.
To drive a car takes human level artifical intelligence. Self driving cars are being tested in good conditions on good roads, not on wet early morning wednessdays in Inverness as a few drunks come from the local pub, and unlit insomiac cyclists are about. At the basis this software will depend on the system recognising threats, recognising non-threats, recent road closures, the law and many other obstacles I don't think it will ever work, not outside a freeway system.
Familiarize yourself with the accelerating curve of computing power, look up "The Singularity" and get back to me.
People who understand the limitations of technology unlike whatever we have here. Judging by the Swift thread not even hobby developers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Familiarize yourself with the accelerating curve of computing power, look up "The Singularity" and get back to me.
Hey I just read those books and now I am a convert!
Actually no. I have read those books before and they miss the important point. Software. If you were to take the algorithms for Newtons handwriting technology and rework it on the fastest iPad it would, without software tweaks, make the same mistakes as before.
The cars will get faster at making bad decisions if you apply more computing speed to them.
It's not regulation, or lack thereof, that impedes self driving cars. It's liability. Who is responsible when a self driving car kills someone, or, as in the case of safety equipment such as helmets, fails to save someone's life?
If a self-parking car destroys property, hurts or kills someone who is responsible today? Well, the insurance comes into play immediately, and then one can take action against the company that makes the automobile if they feel the vehicle was at fault… just like people have been doing long before you were born. There are definitely obstacles which require changes but these will happen as they always have.
If Apple is entering the electric vehicles game, it must be something they think they can "revolutionise". Just a car wouldn't be Apple enough. To truly be Apple they must try and solve something that doesn't work today. For instance most cars are have place for 4-5 people, but is filled with just one person. Most car commuters fill up the road, creating rush hour traffic. It's not sustainable. I find it unlikely for Apple to support this corroding vision of the future. They must offer something else. Perhaps a comfy commuter's vehicle with space for one? Designed to be connectable for bigger in chains for temporary creating bigger vehicles when needed. Or something amazing..
Let me fix that for you.
If a self-parking car destroys property, hurts or kills someone who is responsible today? Well, the insurance comes into play immediately, and then one can take action against the company that makes the automobile if they feel the vehicle was at fault… just like people have been doing long before you were born. There are definitely obstacles which require changes but these will happen as they always have.
Right now, the owner, developer, and manufacturer are one in the same. It's a whole new matter when such a vehicle is in private hands. Right now, if your dog kills someone, you, as the owner, are liable. Are owners of self driving cars going to accept that liability?
If Apple is entering the electric vehicles game, it must be something they think they can "revolutionise". Just a car wouldn't be Apple enough. To truly be Apple they must try and solve something that doesn't work today.
For instance most cars are have place for 4-5 people, but is filled with just one person. Most car commuters fill up the road, creating rush hour traffic. It's not sustainable. I find it unlikely for Apple to support this corroding vision of the future. They must offer something else. Perhaps a comfy commuter's vehicle with space for one? Designed to be connectable for bigger in chains for temporary creating bigger vehicles when needed. Or something amazing..
I like that a lot. I could see converting the HOV lanes to these special self-driving vehicles, that can assemble in chains and then detach at the correct exit. They could be self driving in these lanes and then cause the driver to take over a few minutes before the exit, do routine safety checks, etc. Much like commercial airlines are today; once at cruising altitude on autopilot there's less to do, for takeoffs and landings there is a lot more human work involved.
Right now, the owner, developer, and manufacturer are one in the same. It's a whole new matter when such a vehicle is in private hands. Right now, if your dog kills someone, you, as the owner, are liable. Are owners of self driving cars going to accept that liability?
And what of the owners of self parking cars, cars with cruise control, cars with traction control, cars with anti-lock breaking systems, cars with automatic transmissions, cars with airbags that are up a computer to set off, etc. Of course, you don't see these as issues because they all exist in society today, which is your problem in this discussion because you can look back to see all the small steps taking place over many years but looking forward you can't conceive the small steps over many years that will be slowly lead to a society that has cars that are capable of doing tasks that they can't currently do now. But you're not along, most of society has trouble seeing anything more than what they saw in a movie, hence [@]rob53[/@]'s comment on the subject, "...instead of trying to copy iRobot." Personally, I think it's weird that anyone would reference evil robots taking over society and enslaving the human race when having a serious discussion about the next step in automation, but there you have it.
Google's LiDAR-equipped driverless vehicles have been safely navigating U.S. roads since 2012.
The company is now in talks with several major companies including Mercedes-Benz, General Motors, Continental Automotive Systems, Nissan, Toyota, Audi, and Volvo.
Yet testing for driverless vehicles is open in just three states: Nevada, Florida, and California.
And while the California DMV may have already released regulations on the testing of autonomous vehicles, it missed a deadline for a second set of regulations required by Jan 1. The DMV cited “safety concerns” for the delay.
Meanwhile, Google's driverless vehicles have driven over 700,000 miles without getting into a single accident not caused by a human driver (one driverless vehicle was rear-ended, and another crashed while under human control).
For perspective, the average U.S. driver has an accident every 165,000 miles, according to data from the Federal Highway Administration, meaning the technology has proven about four times safer than human drivers.
It's pretty difficult to hide under the guise of “safety concerns” with data like that.
Comments
Elon Musk discussing rumours of Apple acquiring Tesla last year:
I like this guy a lot, but damn, is he incapable of speaking in complete sentences?
To the person who said self driving cars are not going to happen...they will and they will revolutionize travel.
I have said this before and I still believe it. A self-driving car will be no match for an eighty year old “blue hair” in her Buick.
I guess he has to recharge his batteries mid-sentence. ????
I have said this before and I still believe it. A self-driving car will be no match for an eighty year old “blue hair” in her Buick.
Please expand what you mean. Are you saying that self driving cars won't happen because it will not be safe due to "blue hair" scenario and other safety concerns? No argument just want to understand where you are coming from.
Apparently you are unaware or indifferent to the fact that some of the safest motorcycle helmets on the planet are not available in the US because of the excessive litigiousness of Americans. It is this factor that I strongly believe is being overlooked by all who seem so certain of the success of self-driven vehicles. I suspect they will creep into the market, much as you say; but then will leave the American market much like the aforementioned motorcycle helmets, not because they caused someone's death; but because of the insane notion that the self driving car should somehow prevent every kind of automotive injury. It was the unreasonable expectation on these superlative helmets that caused these smaller purveyors to leave the American market. I believe that the same unreasonable expectation will be laid on self driving cars. It won't have to be whether the self driving car caused a death. Merely failing to prevent a death or injury will be enough for the rabid litigiousness of Americans to take its toll.
That being said, it's remarkable how many here are assuming that this rumor, if true, pertains to cars. Did everyone forget the late Steve Jobs' enthusiasm for the Segway? Assuming this rumor is valid, the only thing we can be reasonably confident about is that this about an electrically powered device. Said device might even be battery powered, a key competency of Tesla. It's possible this project is even transportation related; but it's an enormous leap to guess it has anything at all to do with a hypothetical Apple car.
Apparently you are unaware or indifferent to the fact that some of the safest motorcycle helmets on the planet are not available in the US because of the excessive litigiousness of Americans. It is this factor that I strongly believe is being overlooked by all who seem so certain of the success of self-driven vehicles. I suspect they will creep into the market, much as you say; but then will leave the American market much like the aforementioned motorcycle helmets, not because they caused someone's death; but because of the insane notion that the self driving car should somehow prevent every kind of automotive injury. It was the unreasonable expectation on these superlative helmets that caused these smaller purveyors to leave the American market. I believe that the same unreasonable expectation will be laid on self driving cars. It won't have to be whether the self driving car caused a death. Merely failing to prevent a death or injury will be enough for the rabid litigiousness of Americans to take its toll.
That being said, it's remarkable how many here are assuming that this rumor, if true, pertains to cars. Did everyone forget the late Steve Jobs' enthusiasm for the Segway? Assuming this rumor is valid, the only thing we can be reasonably confident about is that this about an electrically powered device. Said device might even be battery powered, a key competency of Tesla. It's possible this project is even transportation related; but it's an enormous leap to guess it has anything at all to do with a hypothetical Apple car.
You have valid points I hope you are wrong
Please expand what you mean. Are you saying that self driving cars won't happen because it will not be safe due to "blue hair" scenario and other safety concerns? No argument just want to understand where you are coming from.
I’m saying that humans driving automobiles intermixed with automatons presents so many variables and that the state of artificial intelligence isn’t quite there yet. Part of driving includes anticipating what other drivers will or will not do. The eighty year old and her Buick is one example. I have followed elderly drivers down the road and they can be quite unpredictable. Not picking on the elderly, just presenting an example. As I understand the technology sensors monitor the environment they are in and react to that environment, not proactively. Then there’s the human element of acceptance and trust. While most would find a self-driving car intriguing and cool I wonder what percentage of the driving public would actually trust their lives to the technology. ABS brakes is one thing. Turning loose of the steering wheel is another thing all together.
You cannot use aviation auto-pilots as an example as they operate in a completely different universe. I’m not saying it will never happen. I’m saying its still a long way off
Boeing, for instance, is marvelous at building airplanes, but its effort to enter the software market back in the 1980s with "Boeing Calc"%u2014I kid you not, it did exist%u2014was a complete flop.
Self-driving cars are another bit of folly, one that resembles the science magazine articles just after WWII about airplanes replacing cars for transportation. Flying is simply too complex and risk to be done for casual, daily trips. Not only is training a car to drive safely on anything but a specialized and isolated track (think special lanes of freeways) very difficult, the very idea is an oxymoron.
Cars can't self-drive because cars don't want to go anywhere. It's people who want to drive places and telling a car all the complexities of what we want to do on any particular day and on any particular trip more trouble than it is worth, especially for a task as easy as driving.
As a good general rule, it's best to dismiss anything the press gets worked up about. If they actually had good sense, they would be doing things not writing about them.
Please expand what you mean. Are you saying that self driving cars won't happen because it will not be safe due to "blue hair" scenario and other safety concerns? No argument just want to understand where you are coming from.
To drive a car takes human level artifical intelligence. Self driving cars are being tested in good conditions on good roads, not on wet early morning wednessdays in Inverness as a few drunks come from the local pub, and unlit insomiac cyclists are about. At the basis this software will depend on the system recognising threats, recognising non-threats, recent road closures, the law and many other obstacles I don't think it will ever work, not outside a freeway system.
Familiarize yourself with the accelerating curve of computing power, look up "The Singularity" and get back to me.
Luddites. So many Luddites.
People who understand the limitations of technology unlike whatever we have here. Judging by the Swift thread not even hobby developers.
Familiarize yourself with the accelerating curve of computing power, look up "The Singularity" and get back to me.
Hey I just read those books and now I am a convert!
Actually no. I have read those books before and they miss the important point. Software. If you were to take the algorithms for Newtons handwriting technology and rework it on the fastest iPad it would, without software tweaks, make the same mistakes as before.
The cars will get faster at making bad decisions if you apply more computing speed to them.
Let me fix that for you.
If a self-parking car destroys property, hurts or kills someone who is responsible today? Well, the insurance comes into play immediately, and then one can take action against the company that makes the automobile if they feel the vehicle was at fault… just like people have been doing long before you were born. There are definitely obstacles which require changes but these will happen as they always have.
For instance most cars are have place for 4-5 people, but is filled with just one person. Most car commuters fill up the road, creating rush hour traffic. It's not sustainable. I find it unlikely for Apple to support this corroding vision of the future. They must offer something else. Perhaps a comfy commuter's vehicle with space for one? Designed to be connectable for bigger in chains for temporary creating bigger vehicles when needed. Or something amazing..
Right now, the owner, developer, and manufacturer are one in the same. It's a whole new matter when such a vehicle is in private hands. Right now, if your dog kills someone, you, as the owner, are liable. Are owners of self driving cars going to accept that liability?
If Apple is entering the electric vehicles game, it must be something they think they can "revolutionise". Just a car wouldn't be Apple enough. To truly be Apple they must try and solve something that doesn't work today.
For instance most cars are have place for 4-5 people, but is filled with just one person. Most car commuters fill up the road, creating rush hour traffic. It's not sustainable. I find it unlikely for Apple to support this corroding vision of the future. They must offer something else. Perhaps a comfy commuter's vehicle with space for one? Designed to be connectable for bigger in chains for temporary creating bigger vehicles when needed. Or something amazing..
I like that a lot. I could see converting the HOV lanes to these special self-driving vehicles, that can assemble in chains and then detach at the correct exit. They could be self driving in these lanes and then cause the driver to take over a few minutes before the exit, do routine safety checks, etc. Much like commercial airlines are today; once at cruising altitude on autopilot there's less to do, for takeoffs and landings there is a lot more human work involved.
And what of the owners of self parking cars, cars with cruise control, cars with traction control, cars with anti-lock breaking systems, cars with automatic transmissions, cars with airbags that are up a computer to set off, etc. Of course, you don't see these as issues because they all exist in society today, which is your problem in this discussion because you can look back to see all the small steps taking place over many years but looking forward you can't conceive the small steps over many years that will be slowly lead to a society that has cars that are capable of doing tasks that they can't currently do now. But you're not along, most of society has trouble seeing anything more than what they saw in a movie, hence [@]rob53[/@]'s comment on the subject, "...instead of trying to copy iRobot." Personally, I think it's weird that anyone would reference evil robots taking over society and enslaving the human race when having a serious discussion about the next step in automation, but there you have it.
They here and they work.
Google's LiDAR-equipped driverless vehicles have been safely navigating U.S. roads since 2012.
The company is now in talks with several major companies including Mercedes-Benz, General Motors, Continental Automotive Systems, Nissan, Toyota, Audi, and Volvo.
Yet testing for driverless vehicles is open in just three states: Nevada, Florida, and California.
And while the California DMV may have already released regulations on the testing of autonomous vehicles, it missed a deadline for a second set of regulations required by Jan 1. The DMV cited “safety concerns” for the delay.
Meanwhile, Google's driverless vehicles have driven over 700,000 miles without getting into a single accident not caused by a human driver (one driverless vehicle was rear-ended, and another crashed while under human control).
For perspective, the average U.S. driver has an accident every 165,000 miles, according to data from the Federal Highway Administration, meaning the technology has proven about four times safer than human drivers.
It's pretty difficult to hide under the guise of “safety concerns” with data like that.