Quote:
Originally Posted by spdrun
I have at best mixed feelings about automated cars. Good on paper, but they'll also enable those dumb arseholes who want to live in BFE, Pennsyltucky and commute 3 hr into the city by car every day, since they can do work while driving
|
That is a problem, because...?
Quote:
|
I can see more interesting applications for unmanned vehicles. Imagine a vehicle roughly the size of a motorcycle that can weave through traffic, approach houses, and have an articulated arm to do express package deliveries, for example.
|
Well, yes, perhaps on paper, but in the working world, it is no a good idea to antagonize the neighborhood, so to speak.
Quote:
|
This being said, V2V shouldn't be needed for automated cars, since they need to be able to react to non-car objects (pedestrians, animals, debris), as well as cars where the signal is blocked or the system is broken.
|
Not true. A system such as that would rely on V2V plus external radar or equivalent, and possibly a 3rd system as well. But i do agree that the article doesn't do a good job of describing the utility of V2V tech.
Quote:
|
It also seems forward to mandate a specific system when self-driving cars aren't even yet at the VHS-vs-Betamax stage and tech will change rapidly.
|
I agree with this.