The Random Thoughts Thread

‘Nuff said about that Gents. Let’s keep DC and it’s BS out of here.

Thanks.
 
Computers crash all the time trying to do simple tasks, like checking out por...I mean surfing the interweb. Some how we expect "self driving cars" to be flawless. I just have to think that "self driving" or what Cadillac is calling "super cruise" will lull drivers to an even more false sense of security than what we already have. How many drunks do you figure will be lined up for a "self driving car".

Tesla rams a fire truck from the rear...not the drivers fault...yeah buddy, you were in the driver seat, it's YOUR fault.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-invest...en-tesla-vehicle-fire-211703394--finance.html

Then again, maybe we take a chance on the computers, some drivers can't seem to think for themselves and blindly follow a computer...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/new...em-to-drive-into-a-lake/ar-AAv89Lx?li=BBnbfcL

...even if that cat had more than one beer, the adrenaline rush of sinking into a frozen lake sobered him up with the quickness!
 
Last edited:
bob91yj said:
Computers crash all the time trying to do simple tasks, like checking out por...I mean surfing the interweb. Some how we expect "self driving cars" to be flawless. I just have to think that "self driving" or what Cadillac is calling "super cruise" will lull drivers to an even more false sense of security than what we already have. How many drunks do you figure will be lined up for a "self driving car".

Tesla rams a fire truck from the rear...not the drivers fault...yeah buddy, you were in the driver seat, it's YOUR fault.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-invest...en-tesla-vehicle-fire-211703394--finance.html

Then again, maybe we take a chance on the computers, some drivers can't seem to think for themselves and blindly follow a computer...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/new...em-to-drive-into-a-lake/ar-AAv89Lx?li=BBnbfcL

...even if that cat had more than one beer, the adrenaline rush of sinking into a frozen lake sobered him up with the quickness!
Click to expand...

The argument will be made that we sent rockets to the moon using computers, and they did just fine.

However, the very important piece of the puzzle that is always left out of the conversation is the amount of testing done on the rocket software vs. the testing done on the automotive application.

Developing software for over 30 years, I have done my fair share of testing. I have seen people/companies take shortcuts, too - company money is important, and a software failure won't hurt anybody. Most of the projects I have worked on have been critical, and I learned that it has to work - so I have spent countless hours tracking and fixing bugs, for almost perfect software. (There is no such thing as perfect software - anyone that says there is is either grossly misinformed or a liar.)

Never in my life have I seen (and will be part of) a test setup like we have here at NASA. Every line of code is tested countless times. Every possible scenario (hopefully) is run through, verifying the software's behavior. Lives are at stake, and safety is taken very seriously.

Now, switch to the automotive field. Unfortunately, these companies do not have the market time or resources to test their "self driving code" to the extent NASA does (as should any and all software that is responsible for people's lives.) This industry is very cut-throat, very profit oriented.

I am all for new technology, but there is correct way to implement it.
 
New polling data shows slightly more acceptance of the driverless technology. http://saferoads.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/AV-Poll-Report-January-2018-FINAL.pdf
Personally, I'll admit that I fear other cars being driverless more than I fear being in one. (But in general I feel the same about other drivers)

Part of this fear arises from reports of newer vehicles integration of infotainment systems and the cars/trucks. The brand-specific forums contain many stories of customer dissatisfaction and even lemon law buybacks due to integration problems. Inclusion of rear facing cameras have elevated some of these software issues to safety defects subject to mandated recalls.
 
IDK, if it were to be proven safe, I could do driver-less. When I travel for work, I'll choose a 10hr total flight over a 6hr drive. On the flight, I can sleep, eat, Netflix or if things are really bad, even work.
 
I like where the future is going.

What terrifies me isn't the technology. It's these senators, lobbyist, and environmentalists who see at as a controlling future that terrifies me. The government and auto insurance industry think it will be a great way to tax/charge more for people who don't convert when they become standard. Punish people who don't use the safer tech. And environmentalists have been talking about how we could limit where humans travel with the tech. You know, protected no go human zones. Which I'm also sure the government would love.

The upside is the insurance companies think they will be able to charge more for people who don't convert at first, but think that the ultimate payoff of everyone converting will mostly destroy their industry. They won't have the same models they currently use. Accidents will be even less, and they'll most likely end up like life insurance. Still profitable, but not behemoth.
 
BoldAdventure said:
I like where the future is going.

What terrifies me isn't the technology. It's these senators, lobbyist, and environmentalists who see at as a controlling future that terrifies me. The government and auto insurance industry think it will be a great way to tax/charge more for people who don't convert when they become standard. Punish people who don't use the safer tech. And environmentalists have been talking about how we could limit where humans travel with the tech. You know, protected no go human zones. Which I'm also sure the government would love.

The upside is the insurance companies think they will be able to charge more for people who don't convert at first, but think that the ultimate payoff of everyone converting will mostly destroy their industry. They won't have the same models they currently use. Accidents will be even less, and they'll most likely end up like life insurance. Still profitable, but not behemoth.
Click to expand...

Yeah. The "New Route 66" from Chicago to Los Angeles by driverless, non-stop DroidCar. The West becomes the new "flyover states" as you're now limited to just passing through. Not a fan.
 
Drivers in areas where they’re testing driverless cars quickly learned that driverless cars have no ego to protect them at 4-Way stops or other intersections or parking lots where courtesy is expected, demanded, and sometimes ignored. Driverless cars can get somewhat stuck at intersections because they won’t defend their right-of-way. If another vehicle goes out of turn the driverless car will hit the brakes rather than risk the collision.
 
I drive a truck. I'll go out of my way to risk the collision if you drive like an ahole. :pirate

I like the idea of driverless cars, but I wish we had bullet trains. Everyone else has them and we're a larger country!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom