But the pilot is still there. Why is that? 777's encounter some traffic preparing for takeoff and a little after landing but only a tiny fraction of what cars in a city encounter. There might be a problem of one car's operating system not dovetailing neatly with that of another car. Imagine a busy intersection. Are traffic lights used to meter the flow of traffic? Or does each car's computer somehow make the call? I can imagine there would be a weak signal transmitted at intersections so each car's computer will be prompted when that particular lane is ready to move. Or maybe the computer can read the lights with some sort of scanner?

I can easily imagine such scenarios might move at a snail's pace with driverless vehicles. Issues of which vehicle yields the right of way could be complicated.

I'm not saying it will happen tomorrow. The tech still has a way to go. Just pointing out that the tech is advancing.

Eventually I think automated cars place e's trains and what ever will be common place and no one will think twice about it.

If you don't understand it, I can't explain it to you.

(I'm messing with you)

There are always going to be things that come onto a roadway unexpectedly. There is a lot of case law that addresses liability and there is a lot of accident history that addresses the physical properties of this kind of thing.

The autonomous vehicle would be more likely to detect something on the road much sooner, break faster and substantially harder, be able to swerve without over or under steering and thereby have a vastly better chance of avoiding the situation, day or night, fog, blizzard, rain or shine. It would have faster reaction than people do and would not be subject to the distractions that people have, not be subject to under reacting. Radar can see further down the road and is not disrupted by night or much of anything else. If other vehicles are nearby, it is entirely possible that data recorded about possible problems can be passed from one vehicle to others in the area.

But still 5hit happens. Were I in charge of laws regarding autonomous vehicles, I’d still put the liability on the vehicle operator as well as the manufacturer to degrees. You can bet that the manufacturer would be quick to point out if the vehicle’s sensors or diagnostic systems were not working right, if the tires or breaks were old or the vehicle needed servicing. Just as in the recent GM unintended stalling related case, you can also bet that manufacturers would cover up known problems that made them liable. All in all, I bet the overwhelming majority of traffic accidents would be eliminated, possibly in the 98% range.

The bad news is that 10s of millions of jobs would be eliminated. Truck drivers, cab drivers, delivery drivers, ambulance drivers, bus drivers and on and on would no longer be needed.

Not sure of the gains outweigh the losses. Just what is the cost of reducing traffic accidents this way?

I think that's the thing everyone is worried about!

MV

Car begins braking, swerves toward truck. Sends emergency brake signal to the truck, the truck brakes and goes for the shoulder.

or

Apply brakes, go into the ditch. You have better chances in the car-vs-culvert than the kid does.

The reaction appears to be autonomous cars aren't perfect, but acknowledge that neither are humans. Like every science fiction genre that addresses the issue, we love machines but should have a healthy distrust of them.

Laws of physics still apply. A cum'pooter driving may improve reaction time marginally, but there are still limits dictated by traction and inertia. A truck going 50 won't stop or swerve in 25 feet, period.

And if I were hurt, I'd sue the manufacturer. Why should some stupid twerp's life be more important than my safety? Or my family's safety? If the kid were hit, then his parents would sue. Why should some old grump's safety be more important than a fragile, naive kid's.

At least a human driver can decide (and suffer the consequences) rather than having a f**king cum'pootah play G-d. I'm beginning to think that the Luddites had a point.

***** it. Hit the kid. Should not be in the road in the first place. Sopunds like a young kid so the parents can pop out a replacement if they want to.

Yea yea. I know this is why I don't have kids.:D

After Toyota's possible accelerator 'software-glitch', or GM's faulty ignition switches, who is going to build our 100% reliable, super-safe, fully-automated vehicles.
Maybe NASA. Oh wait. didn't they bring us the Challenger and Columbia disasters?

From the 1944 Sherlock Holmes movie 'The Pearl of Death'
When Watson asks how a museum's new security system works,
Basil Rathbone replies "Electricity, the high-priest of false security!"

Happy Motoring, Mark

I make fun of this but I know nothing is perfect and I would appreciate anything that would keep the oncoming pickups out of my lane.

Gotta admit I am particularly jumpy these days as I just got injured in a car crash for the first time. Hell of it was I was sitting stopped at a stop sign.

If that's the standard to be attained for progress, then we've already failed with automobiles, aircraft, all medical technology since leeches, spacecraft and satellites, firearms, ships, buildings, everything that uses the electro-magnetic spectrum . . .

I imagine the safety program will include pulling them off the road at the slightest hiccup just in case. There will be no limping home. You will be stranded in more places more often and your ride will be in the shop more than ever before. ... unless you are allowed to pilot it yourself, but what says the gremlins won't take over when you try that?

Besides, we were all supposed to be riding around in flying cars by now!

Happy Motoring, Mark

..........and when you get in one of these wonderful driverless machines, how long do you sit there waiting for it to boot up, so you can tell the sodding thing where you want to go? :rolleyes:

Didn't Bill Gates chastise GM et al for not building a $25 car like the IT industry has with electronics ? :wallbash:



.