|
Rage wrote: the answer to your "why" is that it is run by human beings with emotions.
How very true.
|
|
|
|
|
In the US, such an effort (unless run by the Government) might run up against anti-trust law.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I wasn't suggesting someone should own a monopoly on the technology...rather, it should be a collaborative effort among all car manufacturers. And if that was managed, in turn, by the government, then there's no chance of anyone running afoul of any anti-trust law...
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: by the government, then there's no chance of anyone running afoul of any anti-trust law... getting anything done.
FTFY
>64
There is never enough time to do it right, but there is enough time to do it over.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I did think of that when I wrote it. 
|
|
|
|
|
Aren't all auto mobiles self driving?
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like this passed way over everybody's head. Good one, though 
|
|
|
|
|
The very thought that in the coming two generations, people are likely be unaware of ...
(a) manual transmission, (b) actual "driving while sitting in the driver's seat", (c) there's something called driving licence ...
is somewhat unsettling.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure that an engineer of 60 years ago, told that (a) mental arithmetic, and (b) use of slide rules would disappear would feel the same way.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
They won't.
But self-driving cars only make sense in a closed system where all of the cars talk to each other and nothing squishable gets on the roadway.
As long as they don't interoperate with each other -- between makes as well -- and as long as there are non-affiliated (human-driven) cars on the road and people and animals can cross the roadway -- the system just can't work.
The current research is fine for ironing out the bugs in preparation for making an eventual future city with a closed road system.
I need to watch Logan's Run again.
|
|
|
|
|
A closed system, like a warehouse or construction yard, is not comparable to a city.
Consider what happens if there is an accident in a warehouse.
- Immediate stoppage of most everything.
- Immediate response to the injury
- Any claims of monetary damage, at least in the US, usually are limited to actual provable damages and might even be covered solely by workers compensation.
Additionally, especially in a warehouse, the unexpected is very low. No cows or bears. No high speed chases (cars or foot). No broken water mains.
In a city none of that is true.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: In a city none of that is true.
Current cities, no. But in an idealized city of the future... maybe. Maybe not.
|
|
|
|
|
Greetings and Kind Regards
I assume Science / Technology march on ever forward. Sooner or later self-driving cars will be more or less perfect. I am rather surprised their legality occurred so quickly. I have always wondered why that was so as I assume a self-driving car would not know what to do in response to this not unusual situation Dancing policeman: America's most entertaining traffic cop - YouTube[^] .
Then of course is the matter of software attacks which I find frightening.
|
|
|
|
|
BernardIE5317 wrote: I assume Science / Technology march on ever forward. Sooner or later self-driving cars will be more or less perfect
That is a fantasy.
The real world is limited not only by physics but by other things as well such as economics and popular perception.
So for example faster than light travel is never going to happen because it is just not possible. Hypotheticals that attempt to circumvent that are even more fantasy and even more so driven by those other factors.
It is not possible to recycle any with a 100% efficiency. It is not possible to create any process that even close to being 100%.
It is not possible to have no one that is poor. Physically not everyone can have a plane. There just is not enough airspace not to mention how to pilot it. And if you avoid the physical limitations then people would still find a way to differentiate themselves. So for example those who can create poetry would be rich and those that can't would be poor.
Nuclear power can not only provide significant power but also significantly reduce pollution. But that requires that you be able to convince the population to let you build them. Especially in the numbers needed.
|
|
|
|
|
Greetings and Kind Regards
I am not certain the relevance of your observations re/ self-driving cars but please permit a few comments of my own.
re/ faster than light travel : In 1000y we will learn how to bend space and time to our will. Just as the visiting Space Aliens are doing. If they can so can we.
re/ recycle : No doubt you are correct if for no other reason the general public is unconcerned and uncooperative. Exempli gratia I learned only today coal can be converted to animal feed. Amazing. "Science Marches On"
re/ poverty : This is not obvious to myself. I imagine a time in future in which robotic economy transforms the world to a lazy man's paradise where all needs are met.
re/ airplanes : No doubt you are correct. I for one do not wish to own one.
re/ poetry : No doubt you are correct. Exempli gratia "Roses are Red Violets are Blue I do not Know How to Fly Please Where is the AirCrew?" I have proven your kind self correct.
re/ Nuclear Power : I am rather optimistic in particular re/ so called "micro-reactors". Otherwise you are of course correct. Things always depend on something. Somehow the Pyramids got built.
A few parting thoughts from Arthur C. Clarke :
"The one fact about the future of which we can be certain is that it will be utterly fantastic."
“The only way to discover the limits of the possible is to go beyond them into the impossible.”
“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
|
|
|
|
|
BernardIE5317 wrote: In 1000y we will learn how to bend space and time to our will. Just as the visiting Space Aliens are doing. If they can so can we
There are no aliens here because they can't exceed the limit either.
If they could then they would have populated the planet long before we existed.
BernardIE5317 wrote: coal can be converted to animal feed. Amazing. "Science Marches On"
The sources for those claims are suspect.
BernardIE5317 wrote: I imagine a time in future in which robotic economy transforms the world to a lazy man's paradise where all needs are met.
You can also imagine a world where fairies are enslaved and they use magic to produce everything.
But I already addressed that.
First there are some commodities which cannot physically be allowed for all that want it. Like private planes. Not enough airspace. Not enough runways.
Second in such a society as I said humans will seek to differentiate themselves in other ways. And thus, as an example, creative talents such as poetry might be used to meet that need. And some will not have the talent. So they will be poor.
BernardIE5317 wrote: I am rather optimistic in particular re/ so called "micro-reactors".
They are in fact micro. And they still must be built somewhere.
BernardIE5317 wrote: A few parting thoughts from Arthur C. Clarke :
Few things about quotes is that they are nothing but quotes. They don't change reality.
Technology does not increase forever because reality does not increase forever. As an example the increasing speed of computers which once was described with a quote has now reached a very real physical limit.
|
|
|
|
|
re/ speed limit : Traveling through bent space / time does not exceed c.
re/ aliens : Have you met with them? Is that how you know so much about them?
re/ magical fairies : In 100y robots will be so. They will only require natural resources for manufacture.
re/ micro reactors : Everything needs to be built somewhere. Just like the pyramids and coal burning power plants.
re/ computer speed : I recall reading something about Quantum Computers recently also Photonic computers. "Science Marches On"
Where you Charles H. Duell in a previous life?
btw Why all the blank spaces? Never mind. It seems to be related to quotes something I never do as I consider it rude. Though I do not see why they are inevitable. Here is an experiment.Quote: Here is a quote.
No needless space.
modified 10-Jan-24 2:02am.
|
|
|
|
|
Even if what you're suggesting was possible, mankind will see to it to put an end to himself long before any of that has a chance of ever coming true.
[/story].
|
|
|
|
|
BernardIE5317 wrote: Traveling through bent space / time does not exceed c.
Suggestions about that is completely hypothetical. Not to the extent that it is just waiting to be developed but rather that if something was built then it might allow that.
Suggestions about that often (always?) involve materials that either cannot be created with engineering or are so expensive that the amount needed could never be created.
BernardIE5317 wrote: Have you met with them? Is that how you know so much about them?
Invalid statement. It does not prove anything. Nor lead to proof.
BernardIE5317 wrote: In 100y robots will be so
Actual history suggests otherwise.
Development of robots has been ongoing for at least 70 years.
Compare that to the 70 years after the introduction of the internal combustion engine.
Compare that to the 40 years between the introduction of satellite phones and now.
Technology in not built on 'break throughs'. It is built on incremental improvements on existing technology.
BernardIE5317 wrote: I recall reading something about Quantum Computers recently also Photonic computers
Quantum computers were introduced in the 1980s.
Quantum computers are NOT a replacement for current computers. The problems they solve are different.
IBM, just last year, announced (hoped) that they will deliver a quantum chip in 2033. So 10 years from now.
So not even close to the speed rate that was anticipated both for current computers and even quantum computers.
|
|
|
|
|
Science Marches On. Sometimes w/ breakthroughs sometimes w/ increments. Huge corporations are betting Billions you may perhaps be wrong. As for myself I adhere to he maxim "If it can be imagined Science sooner or later will achieve it."
- Cheerios
|
|
|
|
|
You are both right and wrong -> The timescale plays an important role here.
There will be a very long phase where the cars will be at AD level 2.5 to 3, e.g. only on some specific roads and the driver must be able to take over within seconds. AD will be a standard on highways in the coming 10 years, but that's it. The step to level 4 needs an established level 3, where almost all vehicles are connected AD vehicles. Then, level 4 can be rolled out, and only after we will jump to level 5.
AD in all situation is extremely complex and requires lots of SW (there are already about 100 millions of LOC in SW of an average recent vehicle, this is 10 times what is required to fly a plane, and this is WITHOUT AD).
During this time, people will accept that AD will not solve all crashes, and that they are using a machine that can fail. You sign term and conditions when you drive with the AD function, it is your decision and therefore will remain your responsibility, and it will clearly be put in disclaimers. If AD dies, it would only be because no driver would want to endorse responsibility of the system, but not because people will claim against OEM - at least, not more than today.
|
|
|
|
|
Rage wrote: and the driver must be able to take over within second
That is not 'self driving' then.
Someone who is typing on a computer, while balancing a super sized soda in the crook of their arm, is not going to be doing anything "within seconds".
Look to one of the other posts that suggests the driver can sleep in the car.
What you are referring to is enhanced safety controls on the car.
Rage wrote: You sign term and conditions when you drive with the AD function, it is your decision and therefore will remain your responsibility,
That is not how it works in the US.
|
|
|
|
|
EV's are a given. The fact they're all electronic and "connected" means that over time, the driver will be dumbed down to the point we do have "self driving", and you can sleep in your car (the actual goal).
At some point, you won't be able to go above a certain speed. No crossing double lines. The trafic system will slow you down before the light changes. If you go "off the grid", without a permit, your car won't. Etc.
We're talking years; but it will come.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
Speed limiters have been a legal requirement in all new cars sold in Europe since July 2022 - and it's only a matter of time before it is illegal to disable them (they default to on when the car is started, but can be disabled by the driver). I don't doubt that they will become a part of annual compulsory vehicle testing (MOT in the UK) once the first such vehicles become old enough to need testing.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Speed limiters have been a legal requirement in all new cars sold in Europe since July 2022
No it isn't.
In July 2022 they signed the 2019/2144 regulation that goes into effect July this year.
And there is no limiter (well not yet anyway). There will be a requirement for all new cars to warn you if you're speeding though.
And the warning/notification should be designed to be easily dismissed or ignored. According to the law, the audible and haptic warnings must be "as short as possible in duration to avoid potential annoyance of the driver."
I read some preparatory work for the regulation a few years ago and a limiter was considered to be out of the question.
Reason being: Assume you're overtaking a slower vehicle and that vehicle suddenly accelerates to the speed limit while you're overtaking, you would end up driving side by side with you being in the wrong lane.
In short, speed limiters would be quite dangerous used wrongly, which they would be.
Well, let's see how long they have that opinion, speed limiters are already in effect for lorries since many years...
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
