Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: Self driving cars coming in 5 years
  • Subject: Self driving cars coming in 5 years
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3
Subject: Self driving cars coming in 5 years

"Moooooooo"
-Ghost cow


Posted by: RC5908

Posted by: Jump Into Hell

Posted by: Godless Heathen
does this mean i can get drunk and "drive" home now?

sa-weet!


It actually defeats the point of it being a 'car' now lol.

Might as well strip the steering wheels and stuff and make it a capsule like vehicle you just step in and it drives you to your destination.
And that's probably what it will come to someday. How is this a bad thing?


Didn't say it's a bad thing. In fact this will be really good for the future of cars. I imagine that after our generation of humans who are familiar with driving cars die off, later generations will be entirely used to self-driving cars as a safe and fuel-efficient form of transport. Very exciting. I can see why people would oppose it though, some people enjoy driving.

  • 01.04.2013 9:25 AM PDT

Gaming Rig Specs:
Coolermaster HAF X // XFX Pro 850W XXX PSU // Corsair 16GB Vengeance RAM (1600MHz) //
Corsair 120GB Force GT SSD // Western Digital Caviar Green 2TB HDD // Intel i7 3770k CPU //
MSI Z77A-GD65 Mainboard // MSI GTX 680 Twin Frozr III OC Edition Graphics Card -- Runs BF3 on ultra at anywhere from 60FPS to 130+FPS.

|| Average Joe ||

Posted by: coolmike699
Posted by: Prototype117
Why would you want a self driving car? Takes all the fun from driving.
Driving isn't about fun, it's about getting from one place to another.

The fun is a small price to pay for fewer accidents, less fuel used, and reduced traffic issues.
I wouldn't drive anywhere if I didn't enjoy driving.

  • 01.04.2013 9:25 AM PDT

Check out The Game Lounge

Never mind

[Edited on 01.04.2013 9:27 AM PST]

  • 01.04.2013 9:26 AM PDT


Posted by: Ulquiorra Cifer
It's going to have to be many many years for that to happen. There are so many cars out there the reason it's hard to fin a car from the 1920's is because not as many were made. There are millions of cars out there all different years that one could buy. Plus there are going to be people like me who will never give up our cars. You're not going to get everyone in a automated car for many years.
That doesn't change the fact that they are safer on the road, even with other cars being human driven. Also, like I said, there could be laws moving it along faster.

  • 01.04.2013 9:26 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: RC5908

Posted by: Ulquiorra Cifer
How?
Because they would all become antiques. Eventually, when autonomous cars are almost exclusively made, the old used cars would become collector's items. Think about how hard it is now to find a 1920's car. The government might even eventually require a special license to drive normal cars, which would deter even more people from doing it.
Also good luck repairing it when parts are no longer available.

  • 01.04.2013 9:26 AM PDT


Posted by: A Lemur Monkey
Ahem, legal in Nevada and California
And Florida.

  • 01.04.2013 9:27 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Dropship dude
Posted by: coolmike699
Posted by: Prototype117
Why would you want a self driving car? Takes all the fun from driving.
Driving isn't about fun, it's about getting from one place to another.

The fun is a small price to pay for fewer accidents, less fuel used, and reduced traffic issues.
I wouldn't drive anywhere if I didn't enjoy driving.
People drive because they need to more than they enjoy it.

  • 01.04.2013 9:27 AM PDT

I'd don't see how people would prefer these cars over manually driving. What if I'ma bit late for something and I have to drive a little more aggressively to get there on time. I doubt that a computer car would be able to do that.

  • 01.04.2013 9:28 AM PDT


Posted by: LJ 248
I'd don't see how people would prefer these cars over manually driving. What if I'ma bit late for something and I have to drive a little more aggressively to get there on time. I doubt that a computer car would be able to do that.
That greatly increases the chances of an accident, so no, it wouldn't.

  • 01.04.2013 9:29 AM PDT

Doc: "i'm a pacifist"
Caboose: "your a thing that babies suck on?"
Tucker: "no dude, that's a pedephile"
Church: "tucker, i think he means a pacifier"


Posted by: RC5908
It is much more dangerous for the human driver to fail which is much more probable than a system failing.

How do you figure? A failure in any sense of the word (in this context) is dangerous regardless of who was at fault. My only issue with self driving cars is that the system needs to be proven to be infallible before widespread adoption. If that can happen, then I don't see a problem with it.

  • 01.04.2013 9:32 AM PDT

Posted by: ElementalRunner

Posted by: Commander Stroll
Still using a pump-action shotgun over 500 years in the future I see.

omg not realistic stop game production plz

As long as it doesn't become mandatory to drive them, cool.

  • 01.04.2013 9:32 AM PDT

"Moooooooo"
-Ghost cow


Posted by: SweetTRIX

Posted by: RC5908
It is much more dangerous for the human driver to fail which is much more probable than a system failing.

How do you figure? A failure in any sense of the word (in this context) is dangerous regardless of who was at fault. My only issue with self driving cars is that the system needs to be proven to be infallible before widespread adoption. If that can happen, then I don't see a problem with it.


Google driverless cars have driven 300,000 miles autonomously with no accidents.

  • 01.04.2013 9:34 AM PDT


Posted by: RC5908

Posted by: LJ 248
I'd don't see how people would prefer these cars over manually driving. What if I'ma bit late for something and I have to drive a little more aggressively to get there on time. I doubt that a computer car would be able to do that.
That greatly increases the chances of an accident, so no, it wouldn't.

It's not like I'm saying go 30mph over the speed limit. You can't tell me you've never had to go an extra 5-10mph to get where you're going on time. Or maybe weave a little bit through traffic on the freeway. I'm not saying recklessly, but I'm sure there are times when you've had to do this.

  • 01.04.2013 9:34 AM PDT


Posted by: SweetTRIX

Posted by: RC5908
It is much more dangerous for the human driver to fail which is much more probable than a system failing.

How do you figure? A failure in any sense of the word (in this context) is dangerous regardless of who was at fault. My only issue with self driving cars is that the system needs to be proven to be infallible before widespread adoption. If that can happen, then I don't see a problem with it.
It doesn't need to be infallible, just better than what we have currently. And it already has been. Look up the Google driverless car.

  • 01.04.2013 9:35 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: LJ 248
I'd don't see how people would prefer these cars over manually driving. What if I'ma bit late for something and I have to drive a little more aggressively to get there on time. I doubt that a computer car would be able to do that.
Considering how these cars remove thinking distance as a factor when it comes to braking, they could drive faster than a person safely could.

  • 01.04.2013 9:35 AM PDT

Doc: "i'm a pacifist"
Caboose: "your a thing that babies suck on?"
Tucker: "no dude, that's a pedephile"
Church: "tucker, i think he means a pacifier"


Posted by: RC5908

Posted by: SweetTRIX

Posted by: RC5908
It is much more dangerous for the human driver to fail which is much more probable than a system failing.

How do you figure? A failure in any sense of the word (in this context) is dangerous regardless of who was at fault. My only issue with self driving cars is that the system needs to be proven to be infallible before widespread adoption. If that can happen, then I don't see a problem with it.
It doesn't need to be infallible, just better than what we have currently. And it already has been. Look up the Google driverless car.

I do believe I said "my issue", and if they try to make someone like this a norm you will most likely find that there are a considerable amount of people that agree with me. I get where you coming from, but the "as long as it's better" arguement wouldn't hold up well when compared against cost for massive scale roll-out of things like this, not to mention everyones favorite issue which is liability.

I don't want to come off as someone who is "anti-progress", but for something like this to have large-scale national traction it needs to present something more that "it's just better".

  • 01.04.2013 9:40 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

Posted by: Ric_Adbur
Posted by: Baph117
Canadian Na­zism is a polite ideology, ok?
"Into the boxcar now... there you go. Oh, watch your head. Here, let me help you... Yep, showers are right through there. No problem at all."

Screw that. The whole point about being able to drive is to be able to go where you want.

  • 01.04.2013 9:45 AM PDT

Don't worry, you're still your mom's favorite Bnet member.

Remember when they said that 30 years ago?

  • 01.04.2013 9:45 AM PDT

Doc: "i'm a pacifist"
Caboose: "your a thing that babies suck on?"
Tucker: "no dude, that's a pedephile"
Church: "tucker, i think he means a pacifier"


Posted by: ImOnTheDole

Posted by: LJ 248
I'd don't see how people would prefer these cars over manually driving. What if I'ma bit late for something and I have to drive a little more aggressively to get there on time. I doubt that a computer car would be able to do that.
Considering how these cars remove thinking distance as a factor when it comes to braking, they could drive faster than a person safely could.

How is that exactly? Distance when breaking isn't only an issue of reaction time of the driver, there are actual physics involved. People often hit the brakes at the first sight of tail lights when moving at speed, the differnce in time would be fractional on such cases. Do self driving cars have some magic level of traction?

[Edited on 01.04.2013 9:47 AM PST]

  • 01.04.2013 9:46 AM PDT

Keep those dammned things as far away as possible from me, I like to be in control of the vehicle I'm driving, not having some AI be in control.

  • 01.04.2013 9:50 AM PDT


Posted by: MegaMuffin16
Remember when they said that 30 years ago?
They didn't have working models already on the road 30 years ago.

  • 01.04.2013 9:50 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Deva Path


Posted by: DecepticonCobra

We are all going to get banned aren't we?


Posted by: MyNameIsCharlie

Posted by: Ulquiorra Cifer

Posted by: RC5908
I'm excited about these cars. So many benefits, with no drawbacks. Anyone who says "OMG no i like to drive and continue to risk the lives of those around me for no reason" need to get over themselves.
There are drawbacks.
like what?


Like "god forbid if the car short circuited and starting acting crazy".


I don't understand why people foolishly think that anything is perfect with no flaws.

[Edited on 01.04.2013 9:59 AM PST]

  • 01.04.2013 9:58 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: SweetTRIX

Posted by: ImOnTheDole

Posted by: LJ 248
I'd don't see how people would prefer these cars over manually driving. What if I'ma bit late for something and I have to drive a little more aggressively to get there on time. I doubt that a computer car would be able to do that.
Considering how these cars remove thinking distance as a factor when it comes to braking, they could drive faster than a person safely could.

How is that exactly? Distance when breaking isn't only an issue of reaction time of the driver, there are actual physics involved. People often hit the brakes at the first sight of tail lights when moving at speed, the differnce in time would be fractional on such cases. Do self driving cars have some magic level of traction?
They talk to each other so they can all slow down at the same time, its been proven.

You sound like my dad who doesn't believe this technology will ever have a use and never be brought to the public for use.

  • 01.04.2013 10:02 AM PDT

Making the lazy, lazier.

  • 01.04.2013 10:06 AM PDT

Doc: "i'm a pacifist"
Caboose: "your a thing that babies suck on?"
Tucker: "no dude, that's a pedephile"
Church: "tucker, i think he means a pacifier"


Posted by: Android Spartan

Posted by: SweetTRIX

Posted by: ImOnTheDole

Posted by: LJ 248
I'd don't see how people would prefer these cars over manually driving. What if I'ma bit late for something and I have to drive a little more aggressively to get there on time. I doubt that a computer car would be able to do that.
Considering how these cars remove thinking distance as a factor when it comes to braking, they could drive faster than a person safely could.

How is that exactly? Distance when breaking isn't only an issue of reaction time of the driver, there are actual physics involved. People often hit the brakes at the first sight of tail lights when moving at speed, the differnce in time would be fractional on such cases. Do self driving cars have some magic level of traction?
They talk to each other so they can all slow down at the same time, its been proven.

But this still doesn't bypass the fact that cars slide when they brake at speed, whether they all do so in sync or not. Nothing you say here changes that.

You sound like my dad who doesn't believe this technology will ever have a use and never be brought to the public for use.
I've never implied any such thing, i've merely pointed out that doing so is not as simple as some of you are making it.

  • 01.04.2013 10:14 AM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3