backtop


Print 97 comment(s) - last by sorry dog.. on Aug 25 at 12:12 PM

California lawmakers want driverless cars legalized within the state

Few will argue with the fact that one of the only ways to eliminate distracted driving is to completely remove the driver from the equation. This is in part what automated, driverless vehicles -- such as the fleet that Google is operating around the country -- promise. The cars are expected to be safer because distracted drivers will no longer be an issue. Google's driverless fleet has racked up 300,000 accident-free miles.
 
Driverless vehicles can also allow those who were unable to drive themselves to get around without having to seek assistance. Other than making the roads safer, driverless cars also promise to decrease congestion and delays on the nation's roadways by eliminating accidents.
 
California is making moves to get these driverless vehicles on its state roads with one California legislator introducing a bill seeking to clarify that driverless cars are street legal. Google continues to be one of the major driving forces behind driverless vehicles, although there are other companies working in the industry.
 
Google believes that it has the computer science knowledge and financial strength to bring driverless cars to reality for Americans. "It's amazing to me that we (even) let humans drive cars," Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt said a few years ago.
 
A lot of the technology needed for driverless vehicles is already available, and some vehicles on the streets today have many of the components needed to make this feat possible. Industry Association Auto Alliance represents Toyota, Ford, GM, BMW, and other major automakers. According to Auto Alliance, its members are individually exploring autonomous vehicle technology, and the association says that great strides have been made in the past decade.
 
Ford and GM, for instance, are working on autonomous braking technology that allows the car to bring itself to a complete stop when radar and other sensors the vehicle use sense an impending accident.
 
While some state legislators in California are trying to get the vehicles legalized for road use within the state, other states such as Nevada already allow driverless cars to operate on its roads.

Source: Detroit News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I drive casue I have to
By mchentz on 8/23/2012 9:36:08 AM , Rating: 5
I am so looking forward to driver less vehicles. I drive only because I have to.

The car you want that will get you from point A to point B with a significantly reduced chance of an issue on the road. I can only hope this comes to fruition.




RE: I drive casue I have to
By amanojaku on 8/23/2012 9:51:08 AM , Rating: 1
You don't like to drive? WTF is wrong with you? The short highways in NYC are a tease. I almost wish I lived in the desert, where the roads are long and you can open the throttle. I almost cried when I heard Route 66 was gone.


RE: I drive casue I have to
By amanojaku on 8/23/2012 9:52:55 AM , Rating: 1
And I get that people hate traffic jams, especially the ones in California. But, driving is still awesome.


RE: I drive casue I have to
By fake01 on 8/23/2012 10:25:14 PM , Rating: 1
While people consider getting even more lazy with driver-less cars I'm still cruising around in my manual enjoying driving for what it brings. Lots of fun, especially the long straights, hills and corners.

I am curious though. Can you still get fined for speeding in one of these things? Or breaking a road rule?


RE: I drive casue I have to
By drycrust3 on 8/23/2012 6:04:38 PM , Rating: 3
I do wonder whether the original posted comment is genuine, but there are lots of people that through no fault of their own cannot drive, or cannot drive safely for any length of time, e.g. they have Parkinson's disease, having a missing limb, have serious eyesight problems, etc.
Living in the desert does have its drawbacks, especially for the handicapped, e.g. no public transport, no public amenities, reliance upon your own resources e.g. ability to fix the plumbing, etc.
For people who are handicapped a self driving car would be a big help, but I think the real benefit will be when large vehicles such as big rigs become self drive. A driver can take breaks and even have a sleep while the rig drives itself.
One of the big problems I have with self driving vehicles is they can put a person out of work, e.g. road cleaners, drivers of big rigs, etc.
The real benefit of this type of technology would be in places where it is very dangerous or impossible to drive without endangering your life, e.g. combat zones, areas with high nuclear radiation, etc.


RE: I drive casue I have to
By Natch on 8/24/2012 7:54:41 AM , Rating: 2
It's actually a good thing that the state of California wants driverless vehicles.

Have you ever seen some of those people drive??


RE: I drive casue I have to
By Spuke on 8/23/12, Rating: -1
RE: I drive casue I have to
By Amiga500 on 8/23/2012 10:12:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I applaud you for recognizing that you're a deficient driver!!!


I didn't particularly read that in his post.

I know of racing drivers that hate driving on roads - and who could blame them. Yet, you wouldn't call them deficient drivers!

Anyway - personally I love driving - nothing better than finding some nice twisties and nailing a few apexes - but would also love to be able to hit an autopilot when in a traffic jam or when tired.


RE: I drive casue I have to
By Amiga500 on 8/23/2012 10:12:48 AM , Rating: 2
*his -> his/her


RE: I drive casue I have to
By Spuke on 8/23/2012 1:20:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I didn't particularly read that in his post. I know of racing drivers that hate driving on roads - and who could blame them. Yet, you wouldn't call them deficient drivers!
I did and that wasn't a general statement, it was directed solely at him.


RE: I drive casue I have to
By Reclaimer77 on 8/23/12, Rating: 0
RE: I drive casue I have to
By Amiga500 on 8/23/2012 12:08:51 PM , Rating: 1
Congratulations - you've managed to completely contradict yourself in one post.

That is some going, even for you!

;-)


RE: I drive casue I have to
By Reclaimer77 on 8/23/2012 12:15:12 PM , Rating: 2
How do you figure? There's no contradiction here.


RE: I drive casue I have to
By Amiga500 on 8/23/2012 12:46:48 PM , Rating: 2
"People generally enjoy doing things they are good at. All these people who are saying they don't "like" driving, are obviously very deficient in the skills needed to be a competent driver."

Followed with agreement that racing drivers will not like driving.

Most racing drivers like racing - not driving on roads - doesn't mean they are bad drivers though does it.


RE: I drive casue I have to
By Reclaimer77 on 8/23/12, Rating: 0
RE: I drive casue I have to
By ArcsinZ on 8/23/2012 1:19:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But that doesn't mean you were right.


Ok Sheldon.


RE: I drive casue I have to
By nafhan on 8/23/2012 12:58:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
People generally enjoy doing things they are good at. All these people who are saying they don't "like" driving, are obviously very deficient in the skills needed to be a competent driver.
So, being a skillful driver helps one enjoy sitting in traffic for a couple hours on a regular basis. I guess I should take some driving lessons... Further, riding a horse down the middle of the interstate might be quite a thrill for some people, but I don't think that's a good basis for making it legal. Just because you like doing something doesn't mean it's the best thing for everyone around you (or even the best thing for you).

Anyway, there may come a point where you will no longer be allowed to "race" or drive on public roads. That doesn't mean you won't be able to drive at all, it just means that you will have to do so in specially designated areas - which is what race car drivers do. And, really, driverless race cars? I'm not even sure what you were trying to say there... You are not a race car driver on a racetrack with other racers, and if you were, that wouldn't be relevant either!


RE: I drive casue I have to
By Reclaimer77 on 8/23/12, Rating: -1
RE: I drive casue I have to
By nafhan on 8/23/2012 1:48:05 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
even there, I doubt self driving cars would make much of a difference
If I could drink or sleep or work while sitting in traffic for two hours, I would not mind sitting in traffic for two hours. That's huge. Plus, depending on the level of coordination between vehicles, a LOT of traffic problems could actually be alleviated altogether.
quote:
Stupid, terrible analogy. Let's just move on,
Sure it's a bit silly, but I think you're ignoring it because it hits the nail on the head: you think something should be legal because you enjoy it regardless of it's impact on other people.
quote:
Ah I see. So because I enjoy driving, I MUST be some type of thrill seeker or rice racer. Wtf?
My mistake, you enjoy driving slowly in a straight line(?). Anyway, you are again saying that you think something should be legal because you enjoy it. Your reason for enjoying it (driving fast, driving Miss Daisy, etc.) isn't important to the discussion.
quote:
I'm paying taxes and road taxes the same as everyone else, etc...
My taxes go to providing for National parks, but I can't go there and start doing something illegal just because it would be fun. I guess I'm not sure what your point about taxes was. You pay taxes so things that are legal now should always be legal in the future? Also, the name calling: no need for a real rebuttal if you're talking to a "liberal" or a "conservative" or "someone-who-doesn't-agree-with-everything-I-say", right?


RE: I drive casue I have to
By Reclaimer77 on 8/23/12, Rating: 0
RE: I drive casue I have to
By nafhan on 8/23/2012 2:24:17 PM , Rating: 2
I think we're off on a bit of a tangent. In case I didn't make it clear: I'm not saying anything about "should" or "good vs. evil". I was speaking from the point of view of a hypothetical future with self driving cars and some of the possible legal ramifications of that future. I am kind of jerk, and I apologize for that :)

Anyway, I don't see "manual driving" becoming illegal anytime soon, especially considering that self driving cars are not truly usable at this point. Honestly, if a car purchased today was still worth keeping on the road by the time something like this happens, I would be surprised. Plus, there would almost certainly be a "phase out" period for manually driven vehicles that would last years if not decades. Your investment in your current vehicle is safe... IMO.
quote:
How am I "impacting" other people by driving?
Even for the 70% or so of people who consider themselves better than average drivers, driving is a dangerous activity, and personal (i.e. other persons) safety would probably be the number one reason why it might be made illegal. Also, I am not getting your reasoning regarding why laws regarding driving should stay the same forever. Things change. Laws need to adapt to the changes.

If you want a more realistic example: would you be able to handle yourself tightly packed on the road with a bunch of self driving cars going 200Mph+? There's probably only a handful of people in the world truly qualified to deal with that situation, but that's exactly the type of thing that could be commonplace on a completely automated roadway. They would literally have to have special "slow lanes" for manual drivers, and at some point that would not be viable in most areas.


RE: I drive casue I have to
By 91TTZ on 8/23/2012 4:16:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also, I am not getting your reasoning regarding why laws regarding driving should stay the same forever. Things change. Laws need to adapt to the changes.


It seems like whenever someone proposes a really bad idea that flies in the face of all reality, proponents of that idea always fall back on the argument that "things change" and that other people need to "adapt to the changes". That reasoning seems to assume that your idea of change is inevitable and that that majority who is against that idea needs to get in line with the minority that wants that change.

Watch me apply that idea:

"In the future people will have to pay extra taxes to ensure that I can live in a castle. While people may not like the idea at first, it's the responsible thing to do and everyone needs to pay their fair share. Things change. You just need to learn to adapt to those changes and move on with your life."


RE: I drive casue I have to
By nafhan on 8/23/2012 5:03:04 PM , Rating: 2
So, which part are you disagreeing with: you think self driving cars will not exist, or that laws will not need to change to take them into account?

My previous statements are based on the assumption that the majority will overwhelmingly be interested in self driving cars; not some minority cabal inflicting self driving cars upon the poor minority, and I'm discussing it from that point of view. This, I think, is a more likely possible future than you getting a castle...


RE: I drive casue I have to
By 91TTZ on 8/23/2012 4:34:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you want a more realistic example: would you be able to handle yourself tightly packed on the road with a bunch of self driving cars going 200Mph+? There's probably only a handful of people in the world truly qualified to deal with that situation, but that's exactly the type of thing that could be commonplace on a completely automated roadway.


The 55 mph speed limit was created in order to conserve fuel, not for safety. Since aerodynamic drag squares with speed, speed quickly becomes the #1 cause of decreased fuel economy for any given vehicle. A vehicle that gets 30 mpg at 55 mph will get about 7 mpg at 160 mph. And you want to go 200 mph? You're talking about vehicles that get about 5 mpg or less. How is that an improved future?


RE: I drive casue I have to
By nafhan on 8/23/2012 5:24:49 PM , Rating: 2
The 200mph thing is an example of something we could not do at all, today. That's it. Just like today's cars, a self driving car would most likely be able to travel at varying levels of speed as appropriate. It does seem likely that most of the time that speed would probably be closer to 55 rather than 200.


RE: I drive casue I have to
By 91TTZ on 8/23/2012 4:26:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sure it's a bit silly, but I think you're ignoring it because it hits the nail on the head: you think something should be legal because you enjoy it regardless of it's impact on other people.


I enjoy eating steaks. Eating red meat has been proven to cause heart disease. Heart surgery costs a lot of money, most of which is paid by the member's health insurance, which then passes that cost on to the other subscribers.

Since one person's personal pleasure can lead to others paying more in health premiums, is that ground for making it illegal to consume red meat?


RE: I drive casue I have to
By nafhan on 8/23/2012 4:38:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Since one person's personal pleasure can lead to others paying more in health premiums, is that ground for making it illegal to consume red meat?
Actually, increased group health insurance costs is the penalty for having a bunch of over-eaters in your group health plan.

To make your analogy really work, though, we'd have to first assume everyone was under government health care. At that point, yes, eating steak might become illegal. However, IMO, that's an argument against gov. health care, not steak eating.


RE: I drive casue I have to
By kattanna on 8/23/2012 11:33:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Anyway - personally I love driving - nothing better than finding some nice twisties and nailing a few apexes - but would also love to be able to hit an autopilot when in a traffic jam or when tired.


same.

put me and my durango out on a mtn road.. and its a lot of fun. the wife always jokes thats its not a sports car.. but I say it is..at least in my hands HAHAHA

sitting in traffic on the 101 during rush hour..um no.


RE: I drive casue I have to
By Manch on 8/23/2012 11:51:27 AM , Rating: 2
I'm itching to drive down to Germany right now. Just waiting on two more parts for my car so I can have a little bit more fun when I get there. I love driving but Norway sucks if you do. Top speed on the highways is 90km, and thats if the @$$h0les in front of you aren't driving 10 under. In the city, it's usually 50/60km. I wouldnt mind having a truck with autopilot for long trips that I can tow my car on. Has to be more comfortable than flying coach. The damn airlines are removing leg room so they can cram you in and charge you for teh "extra" inch.


RE: I drive casue I have to
By Ammohunt on 8/23/2012 9:06:45 PM , Rating: 2
I have driven from Kiel Germany to Lucerne Switzerland and its stau after stau around the big cities. The only place i got to open up the Audi i rented was on the way back to Frankfurt coming from Neuschwanstein on the A7 220Kph! in a Turbo Diesel no less.


RE: I drive casue I have to
By jeffkro on 8/24/2012 2:40:28 AM , Rating: 2
Oh yeah well I once spent a couple of hours in a German airport


RE: I drive casue I have to
By Ammohunt on 8/24/2012 7:41:25 PM , Rating: 2
Oh yeah? I spent 6 hours in Istanbul (Not Constantinople..nobodies business but the turks)international airport


RE: I drive casue I have to
By Schrag4 on 8/23/2012 1:21:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I know of racing drivers that hate driving on roads - and who could blame them. Yet, you wouldn't call them deficient drivers!


I wouldn't necessarily call "racing drivers" deficient drivers, but I don't think they're necessarily better at driving, either. Can they drive in circles at high speed better than I can? You bet. Do they know when to yield? How to park? How closely to follow other vehicles? Their racing exprience has nothing to do any of those things, in fact it would work against them in some cases (you probably should leave more than 6 inches between your front bumper and the next guy's back bumper).

About the OP's comment - maybe he or she doesn't like sitting in traffic. But if just normal driving among other drivers is what he/she doesn't like, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest he/she, my mother, and my mother-in-law hate it for the same reason - it scares them because they (mother and in-law) are not particularly good at it. Wouldn't mind some clarification from the OP though.


RE: I drive casue I have to
By Rukkian on 8/23/2012 3:56:38 PM , Rating: 2
Just because somebody does not like the mundane parts of driving (I have a 60 Mile commute on a long, flat, straight boring interstate). I could almost do it in my sleep at this point. While it will not last forever (job is temporary), it is still boring. For commuting to work and back, I would love to sit back and either sleep, watch movies, play video games, etc.

For other times, I actually enjoy driving. There are different situations, and generalizing about somebody's skill is not a great way to start a discussion.

I would love to see some automated cars come out, both for me, and to hopefully remove some of the other idiots on the road that like to do anything but drive (read the newspaper, put on make up, txt, etc). I do not see anybody even trying to make manual driving illegal in my lifetime at least, and any automated car would have to have a self driving feature (ala demolition man, irobot).


RE: I drive casue I have to
By Reclaimer77 on 8/23/2012 4:05:19 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
For commuting to work and back, I would love to sit back and either sleep, watch movies, play video games, etc.


That's what public transportation is for. Sleeping in your vehicle is reckless, plain and simple. Regardless if it's driving itself or not, it cannot possibly be 100% reliable or able to handle every situation that could come up.


RE: I drive casue I have to
By Rukkian on 8/23/2012 4:35:53 PM , Rating: 2
If there was public transporation (other than cabs) I would use it.

While the techology is not there at the moment, in my mind within 10 years computers will be able to handle pretty much any situation better than most drivers.

While some people never loose focus, never take their eyes off the wheel, never get tired at the end of the day, I think that they are the exception as opposed to the rule. There are way too many idiots out there. Just takes some great minds working on a big budget (Which google has both of) and I think it can be figured out.

I respect everybody's right to safely operation their car the way they see fit, and would not want it legislated that you have to use a self drive car, the potential for benefits to everybody is out there.


RE: I drive casue I have to
By Amiga500 on 8/23/2012 6:55:42 PM , Rating: 2
Yes... 'cos public transport will take you door to door when you want.

Seriously man. Your like a Neanderthal in this this story/thread.

Reclaimer like car. Reclaimer no like people who not like car.

You are all about free choice and options - well, there are a lot of people here would like the option of an autopilot that they can choose to use for the more mundane parts of driving - or because they flat out don't like driving or could better use the time.


RE: I drive casue I have to
By Reclaimer77 on 8/23/2012 8:52:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You are all about free choice and options - well, there are a lot of people here would like the option of an autopilot that they can choose to use for the more mundane parts of driving - or because they flat out don't like driving or could better use the time.


If that's all they wanted, I wouldn't mind. But look a little closer at what people are actually saying.

If you want a self driving car, fine. But here are my terms.

1. I will not pay ANY extra fees or penalties or taxes for choosing to drive my own vehicle.

2. I will not be forced into "special" areas or have my freedom of movement limited based on vehicle choice.

I could care less what you people want to do. Just drop all this nonsense about safety and how I should no longer be able to drive my own vehicle, or somehow be marginalized in some way.

YOUR side is politicizing this, not me.


RE: I drive casue I have to
By Amiga500 on 8/24/2012 12:14:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If that's all they wanted, I wouldn't mind. But look a little closer at what people are actually saying.


The sub-heading of the article:
"California lawmakers want driverless cars legalized within the state"

quote:
YOUR side is politicizing this, not me.

Lawmakers are politicians - therefore the issue has to be politicized to make it legal.

Unless you are advocating a change to the US constitution where the President be allowed to change any law as he/she sees fit?


RE: I drive casue I have to
By tng on 8/23/2012 10:14:44 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I can see LA TRY to ban cars (except those owned by illegal immigrants)
Yeah, what is with that? I noticed that in the Inland Empire and greater LA area that there are more cars with expired tags (sometimes over 3 years expired) than anyplace that I have seen, most driven by probably illegals. Up here they don't let you even go a month into the new year without pulling you over for that.

quote:
"It's amazing to me that we (even) let humans drive cars,"
Maybe I am paranoid, but this attitude makes me uneasy. I can see this getting to the point where they will legislate all cars are automated citing accidents, highway fatalities and the like.


RE: I drive casue I have to
By nafhan on 8/23/2012 11:00:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I can see this getting to the point where they will legislate all cars are automated citing accidents, highway fatalities and the like.
I'm having trouble seeing why this by itself would be a problem...

With an automated vehicle, you're still in control of what the car ultimately does. You just have a level of abstraction between yourself and the mundane specifics of driving.

There will almost certainly still be places to drive manually as well, it just might not be on public roads.


RE: I drive casue I have to
By 91TTZ on 8/23/2012 4:21:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
With an automated vehicle, you're still in control of what the car ultimately does. You just have a level of abstraction between yourself and the mundane specifics of driving. There will almost certainly still be places to drive manually as well, it just might not be on public roads.


While you're taking away his ability to drive his car, can I take away his ability to play sports? There are numerous other ways to stay in shape and I don't want his irresponsible love for playing sports to affect the health insurance premiums of everyone else. If he breaks his ankle or suffers emotional pain while playing one of his sports then everyone else has to pay for it, raising their rates. I, for one don't want the irresponsible acts of the few to impact the needs of the many, even if that does mean taking away his rights.

PS- I don't want you eating meat, either.


RE: I drive casue I have to
By tayb on 8/23/2012 5:04:37 PM , Rating: 2
I loved that you picked sports to support this argument as sports is something that you cannot do whenever and wherever you like. There are designated areas and places where it would be illegal or impossible to start a game of softball. Likewise, there will be plenty of places for you to vroom vroom in your car but it won't be on a public highways where robots are driving. Robots cannot possibly account for the infinite stupidity of human beings.

Further, you don't have a right to drive, it's a privilege. We restrict that privilege for all sorts of mundane reasons but simultaneously decongesting highways, reducing fuel expenditures, and reducing traffic related injuries and fatalities is an outrageous affront to your personal liberties? Give me a break. You guys are silly.


RE: I drive casue I have to
By sorry dog on 8/25/2012 12:12:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Further, you don't have a right to drive, it's a privilege.


We have that statement beat into us from day one at the DMV, but I really have to call BS on that.

The fact is that vast majority of us would find not being able to drive more than an inconvenience. I would be out of job and I bet that more than 50% of America would be in the same situation if survey was given. I don't doubt that at point in time many many years ago, that wasn't true, however given that my livelyhood and "pursuit of happiness" is at stake, then I would call it a right.
Our lawmaking overlords would rather it be called a privilege, so that you have no ground to stand on if you get caught going 8 over and they want your contribution to state police retirement fund. Bottom line is our society in vast majority of America has been reshaped over the last 50 years to require a car pursue a productive life. Anything less is a severe handicap.


RE: I drive casue I have to
By nafhan on 8/23/2012 5:45:37 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not that concerned regarding your opinion of what I eat.

As far as the rest of your rambling: I guess I wouldn't want to be a small business owner that pays for a group health plan and has an employee that's constantly breaking his leg. That would suck. It would also suck for the other employees because their costs would go up. Again, not generally going to be a legal issue. If you do something sufficiently negligent, I think there are provisions in some health care plans to not cover you at all. Beyond that... keep pounding away with the obtuse sports and health analogies.


RE: I drive casue I have to
By Reclaimer77 on 8/23/2012 11:08:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Maybe I am paranoid, but this attitude makes me uneasy.


I like Google as a company, but yes, frankly I would prefer to not hear statements like that from their CEO. Who is he, or anyone for that matter, to say what we "let" people do?

I hate when people who's goal is to clearly make money, pretend they're trying to save the world. Google is only doing this to increase their profits. Which I have NO problem with. But don't hand me this "people shouldn't drive, I'm saving the world" crap, Eric.

quote:
I can see this getting to the point where they will legislate all cars are automated citing accidents, highway fatalities and the like.


Exactly, which is why I don't support self-driving cars. They represent the beginning of the end for car enthusiasts and people who enjoy driving. The car is one of the last bastions of freedom in this country, and even that's being eroded.

And all these pussies who say they don't like driving or whatever...man I REALLY don't understand that. Is there some sort of Testosterone shortage in the last two generations or what?


RE: I drive casue I have to
By nafhan on 8/23/2012 12:35:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I hate when people who's goal is to clearly make money, pretend they're trying to save the world.
Which is why the phrase "actions speak louder than words" came about. In this case, their actions are creating some awesome stuff to advance the state of the art. It's fine with me if they make money at it.
quote:
The car is one of the last bastions of freedom in this country, and even that's being eroded.
I think I can hear a bald Eagle crying... Anyway, how will self driving cars limit your freedom? Is breaking traffic regulations important to you?


RE: I drive casue I have to
By Reclaimer77 on 8/23/12, Rating: 0
RE: I drive casue I have to
By nafhan on 8/23/2012 1:16:00 PM , Rating: 2
I thought you were being dramatic when you used the phrase "last bastion of freedom" and I was just keeping the drama high :) You have to admit that is a little over the top dramatic... Sorry if I offended your sense of patriotism or something.

Real question, though, and not being snarky: how would that really affect your freedom? The only thing I can come up with is that it would be harder to break traffic laws and generally engage in activities that endanger people around you. You'd still retain complete freedom of movement, and you'd almost certainly still be able to drive manually in designated areas.


RE: I drive casue I have to
By Spuke on 8/23/2012 2:24:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Real question, though, and not being snarky: how would that really affect your freedom?
How would that affect my freedom? You really have to ask that? Well, I wouldn't be able to get into MY car that I paid for and drive it wherever I want, however I want (within the law, of course). Like I said earlier, I don't mind self-driving cars, might even own one but NOT at the expense of losing my freedom to DRIVE MY CAR! I'll even go out on a limb and say I wouldn't necessarily care if certain portions of freeways were auto only (maybe high death rate areas or high congestion areas). BUT like Rec77, I don't want this being used to erode personal liberties I had previously.

PS - Personally I think you're just being a troll and trying to get Rec's dandruff up so this will be the only time I'll address you.


RE: I drive casue I have to
By nafhan on 8/23/2012 4:29:03 PM , Rating: 2
You called me a troll, but then agreed that the only freedom you'd lose is the freedom to drive... I get it that driving is an enjoyable activity for many people. HOWEVER, my point was that driving a vehicle is also a dangerous activity that, in the future, may not be necessary at all for any reason other than "I like it". I'm not saying it SHOULD be outlawed, I'm saying that if it is the only real loss would be the driving itself, not the things that driving lets you do. In other words, you would be losing something dangerous to others that you enjoy doing, not something necessary or essential for your personal freedom (at least not anything I can think of).

As an aside:
"Wherever" restrictions are a separate issue, from self driving vehicles. There's no inherent reason for self driving cars to be more restrictive in where they can go than manually driven vehicles. I agree that travel restrictions would be VERY bad. Restricting movement is something that governments seem inclined to attempt every so often, and an attempt to do so may happen with self driving cars. However, this could and has happened with current transportation modes, too: look up travel restrictions in Russia during most of the Cold War or air travel in the US, NOW. I would say that is something we'll have to fight against if it starts happening, but not really an argument against self driving cars.


RE: I drive casue I have to
By Reclaimer77 on 8/23/2012 4:34:15 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
HOWEVER, my point was that driving a vehicle is also a dangerous activity tha


LOL there we go. Right back to your standby nanny state crutch argument.

Shall I list all the "dangerous" activities we do every day, which are perfectly legal?


RE: I drive casue I have to
By nafhan on 8/23/2012 5:32:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Shall I list all the "dangerous" activities we do every day, which are perfectly legal?
You're not the guy that tests bullet proof vests are you? :)

Seriously, though, there's probably nothing else you do on a given day that has even a small chance of killing someone other than driving a car. If I'm wrong though, I'd be interested in hearing your list! Sounds awesome!


RE: I drive casue I have to
By Spuke on 8/23/2012 5:54:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Seriously, though, there's probably nothing else you do on a given day that has even a small chance of killing someone other than driving a car.
There's nothing else YOU do on a given day that has even a small chance of killing someone other than driving a car. LOL! Fixed that for you.


RE: I drive casue I have to
By nafhan on 8/24/2012 10:17:55 AM , Rating: 2
It's true!


RE: I drive casue I have to
By Reclaimer77 on 8/23/2012 8:47:46 PM , Rating: 1
Nafhan did you know more deaths occur from high school sports than gun shootings per year in the US?

By your logic, kids should stop playing sports. It's just too dangerous! What right does your kid have to potentially kill my kid from a bad tackle? What right does a coach have to push my kid into a fatal heat stroke?

I think we should start phasing out all athletic activities. Sorry kids, Nafhan Logic dictates that just because you "like" something, doesn't give you the right to do it.


RE: I drive casue I have to
By nafhan on 8/24/2012 10:15:43 AM , Rating: 2
Not really a great analogy. The cause of a death due to heatstroke, for instance, is probably not due to negligence on the part of another person. If there is reason to believe that it is, then it should probably be looked into, though.
quote:
Nafhan Logic dictates that just because you "like" something, doesn't give you the right to do it.
Yep. I generally take consideration beyond whether or not I "like it" in my decision making process. You got me.

As far as actual "rights" go... I don't consider either playing high school sports or driving to be an inalienable right or an essential pillar of society and culture. They're nice things that we like, and that's it.


RE: I drive casue I have to
By Spuke on 8/23/2012 5:52:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You called me a troll, but then agreed that the only freedom you'd lose is the freedom to drive
Just because I think you're a troll doesn't mean a disagree with EVERYTHING you said. :) Ok, dangerous is not enough to outlaw something or restrict its usage. Like Rec said, there are a butt ton of things we do daily that are dangerous yet perfectly acceptable nevermind legal. And, yes, "I like it" is enough for me and many other people. We don't live in a totalitarian state and that whole "pursuit of happiness" thing kind of implies "I like it", don't you think?


RE: I drive casue I have to
By tng on 8/23/2012 1:31:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Anyway, how will self driving cars limit your freedom? Is breaking traffic regulations important to you?
Is that the only thing you can think of, speeding or running a stop sign?

I have to agree with RC77 on this, it makes me uneasy because it is just an incremental step into control of our lives in general. An self driving vehicle would have to be registered everytime it went onto a road, leading to what amounts to being able to track you every where you go.

Not that I have anything to hide, but I would take offense at someone being able to do that...


RE: I drive casue I have to
By nafhan on 8/23/2012 1:59:29 PM , Rating: 2
If you carry a cell phone with you or have OnStar (or similar tech), this is already happening. Further, with license plate scanning cameras getting more common, unless some legislation comes along and kills them SOON, you will not even need to get a new car for the feds to track everywhere your current car goes.

Basically, I'm not saying your concerns about privacy and "freedom" are invalid (they are very valid and concerning!). I'm saying those concerns are not specific to self driving cars.


RE: I drive casue I have to
By 91TTZ on 8/23/2012 4:58:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
quote: "It's amazing to me that we (even) let humans drive cars," Maybe I am paranoid, but this attitude makes me uneasy. I can see this getting to the point where they will legislate all cars are automated citing accidents, highway fatalities and the like.


What he means is:

"It's amazing to me that we (even) let humans drive cars, as opposed to making them pay Google a fee for our Driving As A Service product."

It's a great way to enslave people by legislating that they use a company's proprietary product.


RE: I drive casue I have to
By Reclaimer77 on 8/23/12, Rating: 0
RE: I drive casue I have to
By danjw1 on 8/23/2012 12:12:04 PM , Rating: 2
I hate driving too, but it is because of all the idiots on the road that don't know how to drive. And, yes, I even live in California. We need to have a higher standard to get a drivers license or automated vehicles. One way or the other, we need to take the person who thinks THEY ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT PERSON ON THE ROAD, out of the equation. You know them, they weave between lanes, never signals, cuts everyone else off, talking on the phone the whole time and leans on his horn all the time. So either ban these people from the roads or take them out of the equation.

I recently read an article that said that laws that stopped people from using phones while driving were not having an effect on the accident rate. The postulated reason was that the people that do that are bad drivers in the first place. I see people driving recklessly pretty much every day, and yet those people still have licenses. The only way to get them from killing other people, is to take the control away from them.


RE: I drive casue I have to
By Reclaimer77 on 8/23/2012 12:20:27 PM , Rating: 2
You know what I find interesting on the Internet? When people talk about driving, it's always about how EVERYONE else is a bad driver. Statistically speaking, it almost seems impossible that all of these posters are in-fact "better" drivers than everyone else. Yet it's always everyone else that's a bad driver, everyone else should be banned, everyone else needs better tests etc etc.

Doesn't that seem a little suspicious to you? Seems like a lot of confirmation bias and dishonesty. People generally view themselves as far better people than they actually are.


RE: I drive casue I have to
By danjw1 on 8/23/2012 12:30:53 PM , Rating: 2
I would have no problem with more rigorous drivers tests. More people die each year in car accidents then do in aircraft accidents, but it is much harder to get a pilots license. Pilots are required to pass regular medical examinations and show recurrence training or under go a new practical exam. But no one would want to put up with that. So lets take the driver out of the drive. Roads are intended for transportation, not recreation. If you want to drive for fun, go to a track.


RE: I drive casue I have to
By danjw1 on 8/23/2012 12:31:40 PM , Rating: 2
One more thing, most planes have an autopilot. :-)


RE: I drive casue I have to
By tng on 8/23/2012 1:37:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
One more thing, most planes have an autopilot.
Sorry, but you are wrong. The large majority of planes in the world are small private planes that do not have autopilot capability, nor do most need them since pilot training is much more rigorous than learning to drive.

Sometimes I think that we need a much tougher standard for driving a regular car and less focus on abdication of the personal responsibility with an automated car.


RE: I drive casue I have to
By nafhan on 8/23/2012 2:29:30 PM , Rating: 2
Where I'm from the driving test mostly consists of recognizing road signs. I think more stringent driving standards would be great!

My personal pet peeve: old people driving tractor trailer sized motorhomes. No special license requirements for them...


RE: I drive casue I have to
By tayb on 8/23/2012 4:51:21 PM , Rating: 2
Same here. Driving is a waste of time, unproductive, and expensive. I'm laughing at the people who say I must be "bad" at driving to hold this opinion. As if my skill in any given endeavor determines my enjoyment of said endeavor. I love playing softball even though I suck at it. I don't like to cook, but I've been told I have excellent taste buds and would be excellent at it. I've seen dumb arguments on this site before but this one is near the top.

Part of the "expensive" part of driving is how much time I waste sitting in traffic. Opportunity costs through the roof plus the actual cost of gas and wear and tear on my car. With robots driving there won't be any traffic. Traffic is caused by human stupidity. I spend probably 10 hours a month in traffic. Just think... 5 whole days a year I could save. Wow.

I don't understand what people enjoy about driving just as I don't understand what people enjoy about smoking a cigarette while drinking booze. Fortunately, their enjoyments aren't predicated on my understanding of them. They can enjoy or not enjoy what they like. I won't be so silly as to say that they enjoy smoking because they are good at it. That would be dumb.


Move on
By lifewatcher on 8/23/2012 11:08:01 AM , Rating: 2
Same as those, who enjoy riding horses, avid drivers should only be allowed to practice their hobby at isolated/designated areas (provided autonomous and safe self-driving machines exist) . I have been able to avoid accidents with fatal outcomes so far, but the stats are quite sobering. For the last couple of decades, the average death-toll on the US roads is around 40 000 per year.

On a different note - who will be legally responsible in accidents caused by the cars? I'm sure it'll be the car manufacturers. So, higher car payments, but no personal liability insurance?




RE: Move on
By Reclaimer77 on 8/23/2012 11:13:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Same as those, who enjoy riding horses, avid drivers should only be allowed to practice their hobby at isolated/designated areas (provided autonomous and safe self-driving machines exist)


Piss off.


RE: Move on
By twhittet on 8/23/2012 11:43:07 AM , Rating: 2
You're a genius. Really.


RE: Move on
By Reclaimer77 on 8/23/2012 11:49:29 AM , Rating: 2
Comments like that don't even warrant a mature, reasoned response. People like him should be scorned and insulted into submission until they either change their mind, or just keep their stupid traps shut.

I don't tell people what to do or how to live. What they should drive, or how they drive it. All I ask is for others to do the same for me.


RE: Move on
By amanojaku on 8/23/2012 12:10:18 PM , Rating: 2
Reclaimer, this is what I was talking about in my other post. The OP makes a poor argument, but your comment wasn't any better. Instead, you could have just pointed out that 40,000 deaths or whatever isn't even 1/10th of 1% of the population. There's no justification for eliminating manually driven cars.

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=25486...


RE: Move on
By Reclaimer77 on 8/23/2012 12:53:10 PM , Rating: 2
My point wasn't that he was wrong, that's self evident. My point was that reading his post made me angry, and I felt the need to express that to him. Maybe that didn't save the world, but it sure made me feel better :)

quote:
Instead, you could have just pointed out that 40,000 deaths or whatever isn't even 1/10th of 1% of the population. There's no justification for eliminating manually driven cars.


Well that doesn't work with these people. In their minds they would be fully justified in putting us all in concentration camps, if it prevented just ONE death due to the human condition.

You don't think I've tried and tried with the statistics, facts, supported evidence? It never works. In the end all that's left is disdain.


RE: Move on
By praktik on 8/23/2012 12:58:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well that doesn't work with these people. In their minds they would be fully justified in putting us all in concentration camps, if it prevented just ONE death due to the human condition.


Interesting! What an idiot to have said that!

Who said that and where? can you provide a source? I'd love to read the source so I could join in mocking them with you!


RE: Move on
By twhittet on 8/23/2012 1:01:03 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, all you have left is disdain, that is obvious. That is apparently all you have to do all day, whereas most of us have lives and jobs, with not as much time for disdain.

I really wish I had 30 hours a week to devote like you do. You are making the world a better place - you really are. A better country even - if only we had a country of Reclaimers - we would be the pissy troll capital of the world!

If only we could harness your "disdain" to create energy independence. The more "green" energy produced, the more it would piss you off, and we would have unlimited energy forever!


RE: Move on
By tng on 8/23/2012 1:47:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't tell people what to do or how to live.
Yet there are plenty of people who will do that for you... Kinda self important people to, never been out of the urban area where they grew up or never had to live in the middle of no where, where a car is not a luxury item.


RE: Move on
By amanojaku on 8/23/2012 12:19:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Same as those, who enjoy riding horses, avid drivers should only be allowed to practice their hobby at isolated/designated areas (provided autonomous and safe self-driving machines exist) .
I gotta call you out on this.
quote:
Inventing the wheel, but never daring to use it, because "that damned machine will only provide us a fast ride to Hell!"
That was you, friend.

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=25450...


RE: Move on
By lifewatcher on 8/23/2012 12:45:46 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, it was me, talking about adopting new technology. Cars did/do have their purpose in helping this civilization. But that is not to say that things should always remain the same. A better way is in the works. Be as it may, I have every reason to enjoy this development and the eventual ban on manual-operated machines - from drunk idiots to teenagers with anger management issues and cut macho pipes on their rides.


RE: Move on
By Reclaimer77 on 8/23/2012 1:08:51 PM , Rating: 2
Dude that was some EPIC backpedaling right there. Bravo. You're full of it, but still, bravo.


RE: Move on
By BifurcatedBoat on 8/23/2012 1:37:11 PM , Rating: 2
Google's system is assisted by GPS mapping of the roads to know where it is going. It seems feasible for big metro areas to map out all of their roads, and for highways to be mapped all over the country.

There will always be times however when going off those mapped paths will be necessary. I imagine in fact that what will probably happen here is that we'll end up with driverless "zones" coexisting with other areas where manual driving is still required.

I also wonder what will happen when a driverless car does cause an accident. Even if the rate is 100x lower than the rate for human-driven cars, sooner or later it will happen. How will people react to that?

The rate may be 100x or even 1,000x lower, but there is something more acceptable about having your fate be in your own hands vs. feeling powerless over it.


RE: Move on
By JediJeb on 8/23/2012 2:33:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Google's system is assisted by GPS mapping of the roads to know where it is going. It seems feasible for big metro areas to map out all of their roads, and for highways to be mapped all over the country.


Seems a lot of GPS updating will need to be done. We have been in our building here at work for 8 years, and still all the mapping sites and GPS will send people to the other side of town if they put in our address. Also where my parents live the roads are not even on the map. They show up on a map made in the 1950s but new ones have many of the roads near them deleted. My friend here at work decided to let his new GPS show him the shortest way home, and ended up on a dirt path with no outlet that the GPS showed as a two lane highway. These things might work in a big city, but get much outside those and there will be problems.


RE: Move on
By sorry dog on 8/25/2012 11:53:13 AM , Rating: 2
I sure it's better now, but a few years ago when I was a on site tech, I used google maps a lot but about 1 out 10 address would not be accurately found.

The liability issue really is a big stumbling block for automated cars. Kalifornia might legislate the liability away, but it really needs to be 50 states approved for car manufacturers to sell it on a big scale. I think it will require a federal initiative to bring enough momentum for all the states to cooperate in a timely manner... That is still probably at least a decade away.


RE: Move on
By 91TTZ on 8/23/2012 5:34:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Be as it may, I have every reason to enjoy this development and the eventual ban on manual-operated machines


For the most part we prevent bad things from happening to us. The manual driving of cars will never be outlawed because the vast majority of people don't want that to happen.

The drunk drivers and teenagers with anger management issues are a problem, but a very very small one in the large scheme of things. For every bad driver that you notice there are thousands that pass by and you never even look twice.

Why would you enjoy taking away a privilege enjoyed by millions of people? There are many things in life that other people enjoy but I don't. Never do I want to take away their enjoyment.


RE: Move on
By sorry dog on 8/25/2012 10:47:18 AM , Rating: 2
Good red handed catch.

Hypocrisy = Troll


RE: Move on
By 91TTZ on 8/23/2012 4:53:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Same as those, who enjoy riding horses, avid drivers should only be allowed to practice their hobby at isolated/designated areas (provided autonomous and safe self-driving machines exist) .


And what about those reckless fools who ride bikes? Can you believe that there are people who subject themselves to the risk of being run over just to ride a bike? Bike riding should be illegal, and those who want to ride bikes should ride exercise bikes.

Also, sports. Dangerous, dangerous, dangerous. Leave the sports playing to qualified professionals and watch from the safety of your TV.

And don't even get me started about hiking.


The ramifications will be larger than most think
By twhittet on 8/23/2012 1:30:39 PM , Rating: 2
Self-driving cars are the future, but there are a lot more pros and cons than most people think about.

IF everything was automated:
Traffic jams wouldn't need to exist (except to accommodate pedestrian traffic and the occasional accident).
Average speed would increase (peak speeds would decrease)
MPG would increase dramatically
People could sleep or do anything they want while commuting
Travel would most likely increase dramatically

If we get past the technical and political issues, what would this do to our cities? Everyone wants the American dream. Everyone wants a big house, a backyard, etc. If mpg dramatically increased (making transportation cheaper) and was automated, Urban Sprawl would also greatly increase.

Some people already drive hours a day to/from work, what would happen if it they could sleep the whole time? Would commuting distance go from 1 hour to 4? A person could sleep only in their car, and use the other 17 or so hours a day to work or be with their family.

Would we create additional roads for these ultra-suburbs? Would there actually be more cars on the road at any one time because driving is now so easy? How much farmland will we lose to this?

The obvious questions will have to be settled first, but there are many other interesting questions to ask about the future.




By drycrust3 on 8/23/2012 2:48:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Traffic jams wouldn't need to exist

Unfortunately, you are wrong here. Traffic jams will still exist even if most vehicles were driverless.
The forerunner of a traffic jam is congestion, which naturally happens when you have the concentrative effect of people driving from a wide area e.g. "the suburbs", into a small area e.g. "the central business district", "downtown", etc. No matter how carefully you plan it, you will get congestion. As I see it, "congestion" isn't the same as "a traffic jam", it is just one of the prime ingredients to it, which is when there are so many vehicles within an area they essentially cannot move without hitting one another, which isn't good.
My belief is a lot of traffic jams are avoidable, especially those that happen on a daily basis, and the key to that is proper traffic management.


Good driver
By mchentz on 8/23/2012 10:46:33 AM , Rating: 2
I hate driving. I find it extremely tedious and boring. I know its only a matter of time before I get in an accident. Its a miracle I am not dead already from driving. Between congestion and If I have a lapse in judgement when driving. This will be a good thing for me.

I can only assume the person in the driver seat will be able to take control when they want to. I do have a hard time with assumptions thought :).




Driverless Vehicles?
By SkierInAvon on 8/23/2012 12:11:01 PM , Rating: 2
Driverless Vehicles?

Who pays for the car insurance?
Does somebody who doesn't exist - driving - need car insurance?
If two driverless vehicles end up in an accident - which software programmer - gets the ticket from the cop?

Who does the American Bar Assocation say "is at fault?"

When your case is litigated will you arrive at the Courthouse in another driverless vehicle - only to be greeted by a 'Judgeless' Courtroom?

What will late night TV commedians say - if they find out your damaged driverless vechile was programmed by "a lady programmer"?




Kalifornia
By btc909 on 8/23/2012 12:26:33 PM , Rating: 2
Is this another way of Kalifornia to get out maintaining, improving, & expanding roadways?




Safety First... or money?
By robperry on 8/23/2012 12:41:05 PM , Rating: 2
To me, it doesn't seem likely that we will see autonomous cars filling the roads any time soon... I'm sure that lost revenue from licensing fees and moving violations have already been brought up, so where do they plan to make up for the loss? Another hefty tax, of course. As much as we'd love for there to never be another DUI, I'm sure that someone out there views them as a necessary evil.




Yet another reason
By FITCamaro on 8/23/2012 1:35:40 PM , Rating: 2
Not to move to California.




Big Whoop!
By Ammohunt on 8/23/2012 2:47:35 PM , Rating: 2
I have personally racked up 300k acident free miles over the last 5 years what does that prove? Drivers Ed in High School works!




sucky drivers
By derp on 8/24/2012 8:47:50 PM , Rating: 2
i think a toaster would be a better driver anyway than most of the idoits on the la freeway.




I wonder how long it takes...
By sorry dog on 8/25/2012 12:28:28 AM , Rating: 2
How long before California makes this a mandate for 15 years in future.

...and the rationale?

Think of the children, of course.




"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki