Senate The future lies in automation..?

PG, of those areas the only one where it would cause me any real concern is rural communities. But here it's worth pointing out that the level of investment automated driving is not on par with its use as a salvage strategy for rural communities that cannot be otherwise addressed. It is for roll out as the predominant form of transit in the future.

Taking a step back, though, even were it to be dedicated for use in rural communities, given the tremendous disparities that exist there (health, eeducation, etc) creating self-driving vehicles would probably be one of my last priorities. We could make huge gains in quality of life and life expectancy by shifting the same level of investment into extant, long-proven interventions. More, I daresay, than the quality-adjusted life-years to be gained by reducing accidents on rural roads through use of automated vehicles.

 

Wocky do you envision a small scale, taxi/public transport-like arrangement for drvierless cars; or personal cars that self-drive?

 

I honestly haven't been imagining any place for driverless cars at all.

Are you asking me what I think will happen? Should happen?

 

@Lord Vivec: I just want to be clear, as an ally, that I know I came out of the gate quite strong in this thread. I am sorry if it was too much, or if you are offended when you read it.

I took you as emblematic of the reaction of an entire thread, because you were/are one of its thought leaders. Multiple comments, though, were overblown in there assessment of what was happening. I don't think a pause on testing in real world roads/traffic is at all comparable to "giving up on flight" nor is it a reason we "don't deserve nice things." It's retooling experimental design for better safety, in light of results. Which happens all the time in science, and is also the only sane way to be proceed from a safety and regulatory standpoint.

I hope we can all have more tempered discussion going forward, and I'll name myself as the first that should strive harder to abide by that.

 

Yes. There are two "approaches" out there - a kind of ad hoc route based ride sharing service, like a shared Uber; or individually owned self driving cars.

 

I honestly have no idea how you came to that conclusion.

 

I just think it's suspect that Wocky is warning us about machines.

 

Say it, don't meme it. -PG

 

Evil cars.
Hasselhoff tried to warn us.

I'm all for every type of transport automation. The most efficient train in London is automated, which has been great in the recent snowy weather that cripples all the regular human operated transport.
Though in the US I think there are issues with people driving too much already.
It's a big country, but as stated by others many places are designed so you can only get around easily by car. This is a problem in a nation facing obesity related health issues because it means less physical activity.

Europe doesn't have this problem as much, public transport infrastructure is generally better & you can walk around most places or get to them without needing a vehicle.

Environmental issues are a concern, but the overall vision will be to reduce that by changing how cars are powered & where that comes from (hopefully renewables & fusion, but probably not in my lifetime).

Trains I believe are the best long-term mass transit automated solution. At least between big cities.

 

Wocky is against automated cars because Will Smith, playing Will Smith in "I, Robot", was against automated cars.

 

But what if the automated cars can fly? We always wanted flying cars, didn't we? Probably can't train everyone to be a pilot, but now you don't need to be one!

 

An update to the Uber fatality:

http://fortune.com/2018/03/19/uber-self-driving-car-crash/

I'd be curious to know what OS Uber is using compared to Google's tech as they seem to have far more miles logged with "most" accidents attributed to human error or human interactions with the autonomous car

https://www.wired.com/2016/02/googles-self-driving-car-may-caused-first-crash/

I'm by no means a luddite, but I think we are going to find that the technology is going to outpace the ability or desire to put in place the proper infrastructure to truly make this "safe"

The autonomous cars could be R2D2 competent but the human drivers (morons, drunks, anger management students, shavers, makeup appliers, etc) are always going to have the probability curve heading towards an autonomous/non-autonomous interaction.

The key to making this work would be to dedicate travel paths away from pedestrians and have traffic management systems that make this impossible. Essentially completely altering road systems, particularly in major metro areas. Hell, I've had a hard time dodging bike messengers and bike food delivery folks in NYC and I am trained to drive an emergency vehicle.

Out of curiosity, what is the bar set at before companies are allowed to go to open road testing? You don't test flight aircraft in initial stages over major metro areas for a reason.

 

Yes, I know it will never happen. And barring some miracle, humanity likely won't get out of this century intact. Instead of accepting the reality that will bring us there, I'd rather talk about what we should be doing to help avert it.

 

Humanity will fine.

We'll be living in space.
Have a one world government.
A giant AI will be Supreme Leader of humanity.

 

I agree. hence, clean cars, clean fuel, clean energy. isn't that the more realistic option than just banning all personal vehicles, which as you've noted will never happen?

i also think there is significant work that can be achieved in increasing public transport and the like, but why can't that work be done alongside work involving automation? it doesn't have to be such an all or nothing approach.

 

From what I can gather, Guy thinks automated cars will prolong the gas guzzling vehicles usage by people. I just don't know how.

 

Emissions from burning gasoline and diesel are not the only consideration. The mining of raw materials, the manufacture and disposal of parts especially batteries and computers, the maintenance needed, the ever-increasing volume that must be produced (the developing world is adopting our unsustainable model), the electricity that must be generated (increased in order to support the hundreds of millions or billions of personal vehicles), the infrastructure that must be built and maintained, the infrastructure that personal vehicles support (suburbs, sprawl)-- all have significant environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated by electric vehicles alone.

 

EVANAROLA

 

Shall we just destroy all technology, like good little luddites?

 

EVERYTHING has an environmental impact though. I have an environmental impact. You have an environmental impact. We're both using computers that were created by those very means you're describing.

 

Thanks appleseed.

 

I am clearly not a luddite.

Yes, everything has an environmental impact, but we must do everything we can to reduce it. Personal vehicles are an inefficient way to address transportation needs and they encourage poor urban planning. We must dispense with the lie that we can more-or-less continue our post-war developed world lifestyles (and export them to billions in the developing world) and avoid inconvenience while still ensuring the continued viability of the planet's ecosystem.

 

I just find it very hard to believe that, someone as intelligent as yourself, can take such a ridiculous stance. Yes, the environment needs protecting, but humanity and its progress cannot grind to a halt.

 

The problems-not-solutions crowd get good mileage out of outlandishly "woke" comments though, Danna. See also: the Daily Mash article on Momentum.

 

Well then. That settles it.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/busines...pe-police-chief-says-early-probe-12765481.php