DRIVERLESS ELECTRIC CARS
On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 3:03:22 PM UTC-7, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 12:33:07 -0500, AMuzi wrote: On 10/8/2017 11:42 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 12:01:58 +0700, John B. wrote: When the carnage of totally autonomous vehicles is over... Jeff, you are SUCH an optimist. I prefer realist. Few new technologies have ever been introduced without sacrificing a few people in order to learn what doesn't work. Prognostications, predictions, and pontifications: 1. Driverless cars will include optional ejection seats. 2. Someone on Kickstarter will offer a driverless eBike, probably for pickup and deliver errands. 3. Someone in government will suggest that the only safe way to operate a driverless car is to have it centrally managed by yet another inept and expensive state or federal agency. 4. Driving a driverless car will not require a driving license. 5. The Calif Vehicle Code will add a requirement for a MINIMUM speed for vehicles (including bicycles) that use the safe highway of the future. 6. Driverless anything will be required to make engine like noises to warn pedestrians and cyclists of their approach. eBikes are next. 7. There will be a problem with people getting out of their driverless vehicles, and then watching the driverless vehicle drive off into the sunset to who knows where. 8. The first successful driverless vehicle with be a large truck (because replacing the union driver has the highest payback). 9. Delivering a bomb by driverless vehicle will become a problem. 10. The shortest distance through traffic will NOT be where the driverless car wants to go. "Smarter Cycling Series: Watch out for laws that demand cyclists get out of the way of driverless cars" https://ecf.com/news-and-events/news/smarter-cycling-series-watch-out-laws-demand-cyclists-get-out-way-driverless 1. Why? So that they can land into the pathway of another vehicle? 2. Driverless e-bikes will NEVER exist. 3. I'm absolutely sure you're correct. But they will be given the thumbs down. 4. That could be correct but is somewhat questionable. 5. No. 6. Bicycles are already too quiet. I almost bought it today when a man stopped for a car backing out of a slanted parking spot and then as I was passing pulled into that spot without ever signaling. He apologized but what difference would that have made if I was less alert. 7. That is absolutely the LAST worry that would be possible. They are tied to the occupant's phone. 8. No, you have to have driven a truck to understand that. 9. Possibly but unlikely. Too easily thwarted. 10. Err, auto-mapping already finds the quickest route to anywhere. |
DRIVERLESS ELECTRIC CARS
On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 4:22:13 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
All interesting observations. What I meant about optimism was, what makes you think the carnage will slow or stop? As I see it it will remain unchanged and driverless cars will not exist because they will be and remain unsafe as a truck rolling down a hill without a driver or brakes. |
DRIVERLESS ELECTRIC CARS
On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 7:20:16 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/8/2017 3:46 PM, Doc O'Leary wrote: For your reference, records indicate that Jeff Liebermann wrote: It's highly likely that we're going to have driverless cars inflicted upon the American public either the choice of government edict. My guess(tm) is that such driverless cars will need to communicate with each other and with some manner of central traffic authority via some kind of mesh network. It's this network that controls which roadway the vehicles will travel, distributes the traffic to prevent bottlenecks, and hopefully helps prevent accidents. If bicycles are going to continue riding on the same roads, they will need to check into the same mesh network that will be used by cars, buses, trucks, and such in order to be deemed safe. That’s quite a leap. The streets are and will continue to be full of vehicles that *aren’t* going to be part of that sort of network for a long, long time. Agreed. Yesterday, a friend and I attended an event somewhere east of his home and west of mine. He arrived in his 1930 Model A. I arrived on my 1972 motorcycle. Also: We spent today walking and biking around a major city. That meant frequently negotiating with motorists as we walked across streets using crosswalks. As has been pointed out many times, the per-mile fatality rate for pedestrians is triple that of bicyclists. So: Transponders in shoes? I rode past a school and there was a car show on the field consisting of virtually every sports car built before 1960. |
DRIVERLESS ELECTRIC CARS
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 18:22:03 -0500, AMuzi wrote:
What I meant about optimism was, what makes you think the carnage will slow or stop? Oh that. Well, it can go either way. Initially, it will be a balance between early adopters, who are generally competent and reasonably affluent, and customer tested beta quality software, which is certain to be FOB (full of bugs). These early adopters are generally willing to tolerate a few bugs and fatalities in order to win points among their peers for being a technical pioneer or adventurer. Once these are gone, the next wave of buyers will be less competent and less affluent. At the same time, the lessons learned by the fatal accidents of the early adopters will improve the software to keep the second wave of buyers alive long enough to run the driverless car into a commodity. Of course, government will try to help accelerate progress, but more likely will simply hinder progress with bureaucratic impediments. In other words, I don't have any idea if a driverless car will actually save 30,000 lives per year. It might simply kill the same number of drivers in a different manner. My guess(tm) is that the carnage will initially slow down but later increase as the software becomes old, communications protocols change, and the roads become even more clogged with additional driverless "things". Talk to anyone with an older car that has a dashboard GPS mapping display, who has tried to obtain an up to date map. The key to the puzzle is the word "safety". I've dealt with safety equipment in an industrial environment. Once safety interlocks and shields are introduced, the accident rate usually increases rather than decreases. That's because workers genuinely believe that the safety device will protect them from harm, no matter how stupid they act. So, they do risky things and soon learn that safety devices only protect against a limited number of possible actions. Methinks that much the same will be when driverless cars are introduced while chanting the "safety" mantra. Drivers will believe that the driverless car technology will protect them from harm, and proceed to perform new and original stupid stunts, testing the limits of the new technology. If the programmers have anticipated such stunts, then these drivers might live to tell the story at the next party. If not, the drivers become a statistic. I'm not worried because natural selection should be able to eliminate drivers with more faith in the new technology than understanding. Now, back to my question. How much are you willing to relinquish for the privilege of riding your bicycle on the driverless highway of the future? Are you ready for robo-bike? -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
DRIVERLESS ELECTRIC CARS
Average vehicle life is 12 years so 7-9 years from now is electric driverless territory.
Advanced 1 liter car ... There is an assumption in the background that cleanER energy generation is possible The entire scheme is similar to the cat convertor n vinyl/acrylic paint. There are way to many cars n way to few pools n it's gonna get air worse not better |
DRIVERLESS ELECTRIC CARS
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 11:59:19 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
robo cycle ? no, again too expensive and again a .50 transponder suits an 11 year olds cycle. the bottom line with cycle are kids n kids costs. Nothing is too expensive for the safety of our children. There will probably be some minimal IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) type transponder built into the kids smartphone to warn approaching driverless cars that the speeding maniac on a bicycle, going the wrong way on the street, across traffic, wearing clothes invisible on LIDAR, is an 11 year old. "The Suit You Will Need to Avoid Surveillance in the Future" https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/where-the-lasers-cant-see-you/409303/ -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
DRIVERLESS ELECTRIC CARS
|
DRIVERLESS ELECTRIC CARS
On 10/8/2017 10:32 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 18:22:03 -0500, AMuzi wrote: What I meant about optimism was, what makes you think the carnage will slow or stop? Oh that. Well, it can go either way. Initially, it will be a balance between early adopters, who are generally competent and reasonably affluent, and customer tested beta quality software, which is certain to be FOB (full of bugs). These early adopters are generally willing to tolerate a few bugs and fatalities in order to win points among their peers for being a technical pioneer or adventurer. Once these are gone, the next wave of buyers will be less competent and less affluent. At the same time, the lessons learned by the fatal accidents of the early adopters will improve the software to keep the second wave of buyers alive long enough to run the driverless car into a commodity. Of course, government will try to help accelerate progress, but more likely will simply hinder progress with bureaucratic impediments. In other words, I don't have any idea if a driverless car will actually save 30,000 lives per year. It might simply kill the same number of drivers in a different manner. My guess(tm) is that the carnage will initially slow down but later increase as the software becomes old, communications protocols change, and the roads become even more clogged with additional driverless "things". Talk to anyone with an older car that has a dashboard GPS mapping display, who has tried to obtain an up to date map. The key to the puzzle is the word "safety". I've dealt with safety equipment in an industrial environment. Once safety interlocks and shields are introduced, the accident rate usually increases rather than decreases. That's because workers genuinely believe that the safety device will protect them from harm, no matter how stupid they act. So, they do risky things and soon learn that safety devices only protect against a limited number of possible actions. Methinks that much the same will be when driverless cars are introduced while chanting the "safety" mantra. Drivers will believe that the driverless car technology will protect them from harm, and proceed to perform new and original stupid stunts, testing the limits of the new technology. If the programmers have anticipated such stunts, then these drivers might live to tell the story at the next party. If not, the drivers become a statistic. I'm not worried because natural selection should be able to eliminate drivers with more faith in the new technology than understanding. Now, back to my question. How much are you willing to relinquish for the privilege of riding your bicycle on the driverless highway of the future? Are you ready for robo-bike? I'll take my bad attitude and antiauthoritarian streak wherever my bike wants to go, sans tracking device. We're USAians - defiance is among our dearest cultural values. To the phrase, "Everyone ought to...", my reply is a raised middle finger. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
DRIVERLESS ELECTRIC CARS
On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 5:35:39 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/8/2017 10:11 PM, wrote: Not only is it not over but it has hardly begun. If you think for one second that young men are going to turn their cars over to an artificial intelligence you're going to have to think a little harder on that Jeff. Tom, you might spend a little time with teenagers of my grandsons' cohort. They don't think as we did. Their world has always been safe, adventure proscribed, opportunity closed. Cars have little attraction or meaning for most of that generation. I'm uncomfortable with their ethos, but then again it's not my generation. I find it difficult to believe that this is what humans have become. Shaking in their boots that someone in another state used a gun to kill people while ignoring the deaths of thousands of people every year due to vehicular accidents. But perhaps you're correct. Today children are kept inside with very limited access to adventure of any sort. I spent most of my childhood above the age of 6 walking miles and playing in salt marshes collecting snakes and lizards. The other day I was riding up one of the local hills through a canyon and there was a medium sized tarantula walking down the road. I rode around it without a second though and they later reading email from the riding group was fearful complaints that it's the season which tarantulas are out. One time we were riding in a group on the Bay Trail and there was a garter snake slithering across the trail and people started screaming, "Kill it, kill it!". It took them all by surprise that I simply picked it up and put it on the other side of the trail through a fence so none of them could get at it to kill it. Perhaps the horror movies are having this sort of effect on people. I don't go to crap like that and so do not even understand the sort of fears these people have. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:30 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com