• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Driver less cars

I am a little drunk so dont try go being clever with me cos u will make me angrier and i will have to go out and kill some cats or something, i dont want to go out it is raining.
 
If only you had a driverless car, you could get it to ferry your well oiled self to some (indoor) Cats Protection League centre.
 
Can't see the point of them unless they are just for commercial use, then more people can be thrown on the scrapheap, drinks all round for the shareholders
 
So long as it could talk to you through your watch.

Knight-Rider-First-Apple-Watch.jpg
 
there's another thread about this somewhere, the only statistic here is that 1.3 million people die in car accidents each year, this would dwindle to maybe a thousand if there were driverless cars, the legality, insurance, people's job issues are all secondary to this point.
 
Mr_B said:
there's another thread about this somewhere, the only statistic here is that 1.3 million people die in car accidents each year, this would dwindle to maybe a thousand if there were driverless cars, the legality, insurance, people's job issues are all secondary to this point.
Click to expand...

This + the financial aspects...

Though for sure a worry what will happen in terms of jobs and wages. Though I'm afraid @scaramanga will call me a communist and throw me off the forum if I elaborate ;)
 
braineclipse said:
This + the financial aspects...

Though for sure a worry what will happen in terms of jobs and wages. Though I'm afraid @scaramanga will call me a communist and throw me off the forum if I elaborate ;)
Click to expand...

On the contrary, there's an argument to be made that the route to communism would be made easier if there was no need for work and machines did everything for us.

We'd be equal, obese and live a very happy 40 years before our bodies give out due to doing fudge all exercise.
 
K.D.D.D.D.Soc said:
Not being in control
Click to expand...

How's that different to being a passenger? It's almost universally accepted that driverless cars are safer than human drivers. After 1.7 million miles, Googles cars have been involved in 14 minor accidents, only one of which was the fault of the driverless car. They still have a way to go but I expect them to be common place in the next 20 years, if not for personal ownership then perhaps as rentals for long journeys as an alternative to flights or trains.

My hope is that they are at least ready by the time I'm 80, they would certainly help older people gain independence if they become unable to drive themselves.
 
Craig_J said:
On the contrary, there's an argument to be made that the route to communism would be made easier if there was no need for work and machines did everything for us.

We'd be equal, obese and live a very happy 40 years before our bodies give out due to doing fudge all exercise.
Click to expand...

Communist theory has as somewhat dodgy track record when it comes to practical application... Not sure I trust it ;)

I hope you're right though and that the value of automation and progress is shared among people instead of gathered up by the few.

Richie said:
How's that different to being a passenger? It's almost universally accepted that driverless cars are safer than human drivers. After 1.7 million miles, Googles cars have been involved in 14 minor accidents, only one of which was the fault of the driverless car. They still have a way to go but I expect them to be common place in the next 20 years, if not for personal ownership then perhaps as rentals for long journeys as an alternative to flights or trains.

My hope is that they are at least ready by the time I'm 80, they would certainly help older people gain independence if they become unable to drive themselves.
Click to expand...

Change is bad. Mhmmkay. Who would even get into one of these motorized ve-hi-cles anyway... The horse is where it's at.
 
Richie said:
How's that different to being a passenger? It's almost universally accepted that driverless cars are safer than human drivers. After 1.7 million miles, Googles cars have been involved in 14 minor accidents, only one of which was the fault of the driverless car. They still have a way to go but I expect them to be common place in the next 20 years, if not for personal ownership then perhaps as rentals for long journeys as an alternative to flights or trains.

My hope is that they are at least ready by the time I'm 80, they would certainly help older people gain independence if they become unable to drive themselves.
Click to expand...

A passenger has no control. Who picks the speed you travel? Who picks the route? They would benefit some, but cars are usually purchased by drivers and it will take a massive change in mind set before the majority of drivers chose that option.
 
K.D.D.D.D.Soc said:
A passenger has no control. Who picks the speed you travel? Who picks the route? They would benefit some, but cars are usually purchased by drivers and it will take a massive change in mind set before the majority of drivers chose that option.
Click to expand...

I agree, I don't think ownership of driverless cars will take off any time soon as people actually enjoy driving for the most part, which is why I think the rental market is the first step as an alternative to public transportation. Lets say I'm going to the south of France, give me a driverless car and let it drive me though the night while I sleep and I'd be ecstatic.
 
I already mentioned in the other thread that the biggest challenge isn't technical, it's moral/philosophical.

There will come a time, in the long lifetime of an automated car, when a child runs out in front. The only way to avoid that child will be to swerve into a tree and probably kill the passenger in the car. How does it choose?

What if one or another car must have a fatal crash and my car has just me in and the other car has 4 people - do I have to accept that my car will kill me?
 
K.D.D.D.D.Soc said:
A passenger has no control. Who picks the speed you travel? Who picks the route? They would benefit some, but cars are usually purchased by drivers and it will take a massive change in mind set before the majority of drivers chose that option.
Click to expand...

Speed within the speed limit you could probably control as long as you're not a hindrance to others. Route I'm sure you could choose.

Insurance will most likely come down big time as accidents get reduced with driverless technology. The decreased insurance cost (and possibly road tax etc) will most likely drive people towards the driverless tech. Car sharing could be another big impact factor. A driverless taxi/uber/whatever service would be a hell of a lot cheaper than the current options. A lot of people might not even need a car any more as driverless solutions are implemented. Not to mention no more drunk driving problems. Get you car to the pub, get tinkles, technology gets you and your back home.

So many factors that will make driverless cars a better alternative for a lot of people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back