Driverless cars? - Y / N

[Forgon]

So,



The question: Would you want to give up the ability to drive yourself or go with the Driverless cars as Google's preparing for as the future?

This is a hard question, because I know many people LOVE to drive, it's a pleasure for many, including myself. But at what point do we need to see the light? Car accidents are ridiculously commonplace, should we embrace an iRobot type future (I mean how the cars are rriven in the movie, i.e. they can go faster and are safer because they are driverless).

I'll go first:

I'm pissed, I love driving so much, but I'd rather have much higher chance of living.... So regrettably I'd choose a driverless car.

[breadisfunny]

yes please. i would very much love a driverless car as it would eliminate the need for taking a drivers test.

[Schuetze]

No, thanks.

It removes the joy and fun of driving a car. I rather trust myself with driving a car than to leave it to a computer that can malfunction at any time.

[Deleted]

No, thanks.

It removes the joy and fun of driving a car. I rather trust myself with driving a car than to leave it to a computer that can malfunction at any time.

I trust a computer much more than I trust other humans when it comes to driving. Even early tests already done with automatic parking etc. show great promise.

[ZenAkrua]

On principle, no. On personal anxiety, yes.

[Lyaral]

I like driving so no.

[Viscoe]

Yes. In an instant. I can't drive myself because of severe anxiety, so I'd be happy to have independence in the form of not needing to do the driving.

I can imagine it would be an incredible boon to the elderly, blind, and disabled, as well, which we'll all be (one of) someday. :P

[MMKing]

Yes.

How 95% of the population is not banned from driving is beyond me.

[tylenol]

I always wonder what will happen when they eventually move to driverless trucks (the ones that transport goods), lot of truck drivers around the world, there are rules (in the US anyway) which would be pointless if there were no driver.


11-Hour Driving Limit, May drive a maximum of 11 hours after 10 consecutive hours off duty.
14-Hour Limit, May not drive beyond the 14th consecutive hour after coming on duty, following 10 consecutive hours off duty. Off-duty time does not extend the 14-hour period.
Rest Breaks, May drive only if 8 hours or less have passed since end of driver’s last off-duty or sleeper berth period of at least 30 minutes.
60/70-Hour Limit, May not drive after 60/70 hours on duty in 7/8 consecutive days. A driver may restart a 7/8 consecutive day period after taking 34 or more consecutive hours off duty. Must include two periods from 1 a.m. to 5 a.m. home terminal time, and may only be used once per week, or 168 hours, measured from the beginning of the previous restart.
Sleeper Berth Provision, Drivers using the sleeper berth provision must take at least 8 consecutive hours in the sleeper berth, plus a separate 2 consecutive hours either in the sleeper berth, off duty, or any combination of the two.

Driverless trucks could operate 24/7, fuel stops and whatnot aside, no more paying 3.5 million truck drivers (US), eventually getting a new fleet of driverless trucks will pay off

[Aitch]

I'll be first in line when they are sold to the public. Driving is such a waste of time.

[owbu]

well they cant be worse than humans I guess

Also: More gaming time for me!

[prwraith]

I'm all for it, machines can't be much worse at it than humans.

[Merite]

I would.

I've seen them in person on a few occasions, know someone who works in X, but there's still a few questions for me.

I think the actual implementation in a city like San Francisco or New York will leave a lot to desire at first. You don't exactly obey the traffic laws during rush hour because some idiot puts on their yields and decides they're parking. As far as I know, they still know what to do, but they're slow, like as if a tourist was driving, I hate tourist drivers. The second that Uber has driverless taxis, I'll be taking them.

I personally drive a motorcycle (and commute on a motorcycle) and really wonder how a driverless car will react to me driving down the middle of a lane past them at ~100 mph. If it freaks out, that could be weird.

[Aitch]

I personally drive a motorcycle (and commute on a motorcycle) and really wonder how a driverless car will react to me driving down the middle of a lane past them at ~100 mph. If it freaks out, that could be weird.

The answer to that is obviously driverless motorcycles!

[breadisfunny]

The answer to that is obviously driverless motorcycles!

that kind of defeats the point of driving a motorcycle.

[Mierzei]

As long as it doesn't run on Windows OS, sure.

[Strun]

I can't even drive, so this is a plus for me.

[Awe]

No, thanks.

It removes the joy and fun of driving a car. I rather trust myself with driving a car than to leave it to a computer that can malfunction at any time.

In the big picture computers are better and safer with those tasks. Look at planes. Yes, from time to time there is a fatal crash caused by avionics failure. But without them the amount of hull losses would be greater. They prevent more accidents than they cause. I think that it will be the same case with cars. Humans are more prone to errors than machines. Machines lack common sense but when programmed and deployed properly they do more good than harm. For every car crash created by computer logic failure there will be 10 crashes caused by idiots street racing on urban roads. Not to mention drunk drivers etc. You may trust yourself. But what that trust will give you when some retard will slam into you at 70MPH when you wont even expect it?

[Forgon]

As long as it doesn't run on Windows OS, sure.

Bwahhaha!! Super funny!

[Deleted]

Makes me remember a little thing from the past...



Microsoft vs. General Motors

At a recent computer expo, Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated "If GM had kept up with technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving $25.00 cars that got 1,000 miles to the gallon.

In response to Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release stating: If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the following characteristics:

For no reason whatsoever, your car would crash twice a day.

Every time they repainted the lines in the road, you would have to buy a new car.

Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason. You would have to pull over to the side of the road, close all of the windows, shut off the car, restart it, and reopen the windows before you could continue. For some reason you would simply accept this.

Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn would cause your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would have to reinstall the engine.

Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, was reliable, five times as fast and twice as easy to drive - but would run on only five percent of the roads.

The oil, water temperature, and alternator warning lights would all be replaced by a single "General Protection Fault" warning light.

The airbag system would ask "Are you sure?" before deploying.

Occasionally, for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle, turned the key and grabbed hold of the radio antenna.

Every time GM introduced a new car, car buyers would have to learn to drive all over again because none of the controls would operate in the same manner as the old car.

You'd have to press the "Start" button to turn the engine off.