|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
DRIVERLESS ELECTRIC CARS
On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 5:44:00 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
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. Unfortunately that is aimed straight at Frank who makes the most absurd comments. It's like reading a 6th grade primer on "what everyone should do". |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
DRIVERLESS ELECTRIC CARS
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 07:43:57 -0500, AMuzi wrote:
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. I'll take that to mean that you don't like the idea of converting your bicycle into a computerized autonomous vehicle. I recommend a slogan such as "Death before I change anything" for those occasions when you confront progress. I assume you realize that by refusing to have a remote controlled autopilot installed on your bicycle, you are sentencing 30,000 people per year to needless and senseless deaths in automobile accidents? You are also obstructing the technical progress by which literally all the auto manufacturers are furiously developing, presumably because they smell profit. Since a casual poll of my friends and associates have indicated that they would gladly purchase a driverless car for their wives and teenagers, but would never buy one for themselves, it's amazing that all these auto manufacturers would consider the R&D expenditure worthwhile. Maybe they know something that we don't, such as if it can be made to work, the government will buy into the program and shove it down our throats? Even if you refuse to embrace technical progress in cycling, what about your customers? Surely you will have requests for totally safe bicycles suitable for cyclists that are a hazard to themselves and others. What will you say to bicycle commuters, who only want to arrive on time and in one piece? What about the lost sales of wiring, power, sensors, computers, radios, and bolt on accessories that will soon be necessary on the bicycle of the future? What will you say to a paraplegic who wants to experience an improvement in mobility? Can you really look the other way to the local drug dealer who needs a better get-away vehicle? Are you planning to ignore the potential market of adding mobility to the IoT (Internet of Things) which with the addition of some navigation hardware can act as a delivery vehicle on behalf of the owner? Can you really ignore these and many other benefits that only require that you relinquish a few fundamental freedoms, personal preferences, and cycling habits? -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
DRIVERLESS ELECTRIC CARS
On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 8:51:51 AM UTC-7, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 07:43:57 -0500, AMuzi wrote: 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. I'll take that to mean that you don't like the idea of converting your bicycle into a computerized autonomous vehicle. I recommend a slogan such as "Death before I change anything" for those occasions when you confront progress. I assume you realize that by refusing to have a remote controlled autopilot installed on your bicycle, you are sentencing 30,000 people per year to needless and senseless deaths in automobile accidents? You are also obstructing the technical progress by which literally all the auto manufacturers are furiously developing, presumably because they smell profit. Since a casual poll of my friends and associates have indicated that they would gladly purchase a driverless car for their wives and teenagers, but would never buy one for themselves, it's amazing that all these auto manufacturers would consider the R&D expenditure worthwhile. Maybe they know something that we don't, such as if it can be made to work, the government will buy into the program and shove it down our throats? Even if you refuse to embrace technical progress in cycling, what about your customers? Surely you will have requests for totally safe bicycles suitable for cyclists that are a hazard to themselves and others. What will you say to bicycle commuters, who only want to arrive on time and in one piece? What about the lost sales of wiring, power, sensors, computers, radios, and bolt on accessories that will soon be necessary on the bicycle of the future? What will you say to a paraplegic who wants to experience an improvement in mobility? Can you really look the other way to the local drug dealer who needs a better get-away vehicle? Are you planning to ignore the potential market of adding mobility to the IoT (Internet of Things) which with the addition of some navigation hardware can act as a delivery vehicle on behalf of the owner? Can you really ignore these and many other benefits that only require that you relinquish a few fundamental freedoms, personal preferences, and cycling habits? Jeff, remember that this is a sue-happy society and you can be assured that if a self driving car hits another car, cyclist or pedestrian that that company will be done for. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
DRIVERLESS ELECTRIC CARS
On 10/9/2017 10:51 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 07:43:57 -0500, AMuzi wrote: 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. I'll take that to mean that you don't like the idea of converting your bicycle into a computerized autonomous vehicle. I recommend a slogan such as "Death before I change anything" for those occasions when you confront progress. I assume you realize that by refusing to have a remote controlled autopilot installed on your bicycle, you are sentencing 30,000 people per year to needless and senseless deaths in automobile accidents? You are also obstructing the technical progress by which literally all the auto manufacturers are furiously developing, presumably because they smell profit. Since a casual poll of my friends and associates have indicated that they would gladly purchase a driverless car for their wives and teenagers, but would never buy one for themselves, it's amazing that all these auto manufacturers would consider the R&D expenditure worthwhile. Maybe they know something that we don't, such as if it can be made to work, the government will buy into the program and shove it down our throats? Even if you refuse to embrace technical progress in cycling, what about your customers? Surely you will have requests for totally safe bicycles suitable for cyclists that are a hazard to themselves and others. What will you say to bicycle commuters, who only want to arrive on time and in one piece? What about the lost sales of wiring, power, sensors, computers, radios, and bolt on accessories that will soon be necessary on the bicycle of the future? What will you say to a paraplegic who wants to experience an improvement in mobility? Can you really look the other way to the local drug dealer who needs a better get-away vehicle? Are you planning to ignore the potential market of adding mobility to the IoT (Internet of Things) which with the addition of some navigation hardware can act as a delivery vehicle on behalf of the owner? Can you really ignore these and many other benefits that only require that you relinquish a few fundamental freedoms, personal preferences, and cycling habits? At least on one point, you're out of date. Dope dealers used to be very big into flashy race bikes. Oh, do I ever miss those days! Park your expensive car in a not so expensive neighborhood and it sticks out like an 'arrest me' sign. Nobody sees bicycles, even nice ones. And they just go with you, indoors/ upstairs out of sight. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
DRIVERLESS ELECTRIC CARS
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 21:29:58 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote: On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 20:14:20 -0700 (PDT), wrote: I came down a street this morning at about 30 mph dodging pot holes the entire distance. Some 5 miles. No auto-car could do that. At this time, that's probably true. However, they're working on the problem. "Driverless Cars Stay In Their Lane - Even If It Means Hitting Potholes" https://www.newsy.com/stories/autonomous-cars-take-pothole-hits-to-keep-other-drivers-safe/ "5 Things That Give Self-Driving Cars Headaches" https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/06/automobiles/autonomous-cars-problems.html "But potholes are tough. They lie below the road surface, not above it. A dark patch in the road ahead could be a pothole. Or an oil spot. Or a puddle. Or even a filled-in pothole." Incidentally, one of the proposed solutions to the pothole problem is for a self driving vehicle to "mark" the location of any road hazards on the map which all the other cars use. It's essentially a crowd sourced technology that in use today with traffic monitoring software such as Waze and Google Maps. The first vehicle that finds a pothole sends the GPS lat-long position of the pothole to the central computer, which then redistributes the hazard to navigation information to the other self-driving cars. The first car to drive into the pot hole may have a problem, but those that follow can the avoid the pothole. "Google Is Developing a System to Map Potholes Using a Car's GPS" http://time.com/money/4009901/google-patent-gps-potholes-tracking-map/ My explanation of the origin, nature, and characteristics of potholes, a little about their reproductive habits, and their connection to gophers: http://members.cruzio.com/~jeffl/nooze/pothole.txt -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
DRIVERLESS ELECTRIC CARS
Per Jeff Liebermann:
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. Our Industrial Relations 101 prof told us the following (approximate) story: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Lumbering operations are notoriously dangerous. You have hundreds of large, whole, trees piled up and workers have to navigate the mess. One particular hazard is the crane: guys get killed and maimed as trees being moved around by the crane impact workers. One such operation had a conspicuously-good safety record and The Powers That Be wanted to find out how it was accomplished. They brought the crane operator in for questioning. "How do you manage to keep such a good safety record in such a dangerous environment?" "Well, when I hook up a tree and start moving it, I yell 'RUN YOU SONOFABITCHES, RUN!!!!'." ------------------------------------------------------------------------ And that was it. There was no Snopes back then, so I don't know.... -- Pete Cresswell |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
DRIVERLESS ELECTRIC CARS
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 12:58:24 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote: Per Jeff Liebermann: 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. Our Industrial Relations 101 prof told us the following (approximate) story: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Lumbering operations are notoriously dangerous. You have hundreds of large, whole, trees piled up and workers have to navigate the mess. One particular hazard is the crane: guys get killed and maimed as trees being moved around by the crane impact workers. One such operation had a conspicuously-good safety record and The Powers That Be wanted to find out how it was accomplished. They brought the crane operator in for questioning. "How do you manage to keep such a good safety record in such a dangerous environment?" "Well, when I hook up a tree and start moving it, I yell 'RUN YOU SONOFABITCHES, RUN!!!!'." ------------------------------------------------------------------------ And that was it. There was no Snopes back then, so I don't know.... Probably baloney. You can't hear anyone yelling over the noise of a big diesel crane motor. Large logging cranes also have a long reach, making the distance where one can be heard a problem. https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=logging+crane Having someone suddenly run in some random direction is a really bad idea. Without first looking around, chances are good that they'll run into a harazardous situation, rather than away from it. Best to stay put, look around, determine the best exit strategy, and then do whatever is appropriate. Lastly, there's the "sky is falling" effect. If the crane operator really does yell "run" with every load, fairly soon, everyone in the yard is going to ignore him. Unfortunately, my safety story is quite real. I don't have time to tell the story in detail, but basically, the safety guards and interlocks were responsible for more accidents than the unsafe original equipment. Much of this was in the 1970's and 1980's, when OSHA was empowered to demand these safety features, and machinery manufacturers were forced to retrofit existing machinery with dangerous safety guards and awkward interlocks. It's much better today, but the basic principle applies. If people feel that they're safe, they tend to do risky things on the assumption that the safety devices will protect them from injury. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
DRIVERLESS ELECTRIC CARS
On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 11:32:54 PM UTC-4, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
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. Yep. You're describing "risk compensation." It's real. 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'm not willing to relinquish my right to travel by bicycle. - Frank Krygowski |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
DRIVERLESS ELECTRIC CARS
On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 11:51:51 AM UTC-4, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
... it's amazing that all these auto manufacturers would consider the R&D expenditure worthwhile. Maybe they know something that we don't, such as if it can be made to work, the government will buy into the program and shove it down our throats? I really doubt that. Consider: The attempt to force seat belt interlocks down our throats was a failure. People will put up with some things (like explosive safety devices in their cars) if they're pretty much invisible. But people tend to reject interventions that require behavior changes they don't want to make. - Frank Krygowski |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
DRIVERLESS ELECTRIC CARS
ROBOCYCLE ? is but a small rectangle....go to hell n we know your there enforcing cycle laws against children is $$$$$$$$$$$$$ but Mom can sew a transponder to their spec cycle shorts a bicycle isnot a gun or a manifesto. if turning the bike life into a manifesto... kinda anticycling |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Electric cars in the wet | NEMO | UK | 3 | February 16th 15 04:09 PM |
OBIT ELECTRIC CARS | kolldata | Techniques | 2 | October 30th 11 09:49 PM |
Charging points for cars but what about electric bicycles? | Doug[_3_] | UK | 17 | February 27th 10 06:10 PM |
Electric Car Conversion Companies: Alternatives To Gas Powered Cars | n41beyha | Unicycling | 0 | November 27th 07 04:40 PM |
An Electric Car Conversion Kit Will Not Affect Your Cars Speed OrPick-Up | n41beyha | Techniques | 0 | November 27th 07 04:19 PM |