|
Come out from under that rock that is your life and get a goth gf like Elon Musk! (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DJ RANN |
Tesla is mainly off the hook.
NTSB acknowledged the driver had set cruise control to 75 mph. Top speed the freeway he was on was 65.
He crashed doing over 70 mph and they're also claiming the car had damaged impact bumpers from a crash the week before in exactly the same place on the car.
Sure, the navigation system seems to have caused it but if either of those other things hadn't been present, Tesla can argue he'd probably still be alive. |
|
|
| r5a |
im wondering if theres something fundamentally wrong with the auto pilot or the car itself.
lately ive heard a lot of stories in the paper about the Telsas just accelerating into a crash for no apparent reason and Telsa has an answer for each one.
couple months back on my lunch break i was doing a lap around the hood. i heard a car accident just happen so i walked over to check and make sure people were ok. some telsa rammed into 3 parked cars, hard enough to completely move one from its original spot. i asked the tesla driver what happened and she literally told me "i dont know it just started to go, i couldnt stop it" all her passengers claimed the same, that she tried to stop it but couldn't.
i assumed they were all lying to me for insurance reasons and or embarrassment (that she ed up and hit gas instead of brake) but the more i wonder if she really was telling the truth. she seemed genuinely confused at what happened. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
I think people don't know how to drive a Tesla tbh.
The acceleration has no lag, is completely linear and at <4 secs to 60mph, people just it up.
They also don't understand that when you take your foot off the brake, the natural resistance is pretty strong, like braking in a normal car, and then combine that with it not having any rolling pull like an auto does, and people get confused.
Personally, I have no ing idea why there's any interest in a self driving car and I actually have this half-serious conspiracy theory that people don't them at all, and that's it's just the auto industry trying to sell sheep the latest model. |
|
|
| Vector A |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
Personally, I have no ing idea why there's any interest in a self driving car and I actually have this half-serious conspiracy theory that people don't them at all, and that's it's just the auto industry trying to sell sheep the latest model. |
Really? Think about it:
(1) Safer (once they improve the tech, obviously).
(2) No need to worry about driving while tired, drunk, high, on the phone, whatever. The car does it for you.
(3) Do other stuff while you commute.
(4) Faster deliveries since the only necessary stops are for gas. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Vector A
Really? Think about it:
(1) Safer (once they improve the tech, obviously).
(2) No need to worry about driving while tired, drunk, high, on the phone, whatever. The car does it for you.
(3) Do other stuff while you commute.
(4) Faster deliveries since the only necessary stops are for gas. |
1) Maybe, but given that tests have been put on indefinite hold in many states due to safety concerns, that might never actually happen. They also can't and don't deal with force majeure accidents or other drivers who aren't safe.
2) We've had hands free for 15 years now. Driving drunk? If only there were really cheap ride sharing services. It's not like you get drunk 90 miles form home.
3) This is really the only valid one.
4) Don't know what this one means. Nearly all the self driving cars that are anything close to fruition are electric?
Going back to point one, I don't think driving a car is ever really "safe" - You only have to look at dash cam footage on liveleak to realize roads are full of bat people, not to mention things like bridges that collapse, cars that malfunction (not just self driving), weather condition, etc. It's also going to only ever be a mix of drivers, and self drivers. For these reasons, I honestly don't think we could ever really rely on self driving cars. It's only going to take one or two people dying (as has happened) to shut the whole thing down or have a company sued in to oblivion (which is what tesla is facing right now but they can at least state it's only an option).
There's then there's this new idea....
We should have these self driving vehicles or vehicles where you didn't have to drive yourself. They take us where we want to go. And then we could put more than one person in them and drop off along the route.
We could have the general public use it. We could call it transport for public or something. Those vehicles would be like those parts of a motherboard that send data to and from places. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
The main reason is that it will automate haulage and transport, saving companies lots of money they currently pay human drivers. It will also massively improve efficiency in certain fields, as employees who have to travel frequently to attend meetings will no longer be paid for dead travel time in which they can't work.
The principle is sound. The execution is extremely tricky. You're asking a computer to deal with a complex and dangerous real-life physical system. I would agree that over a large enough sample size, accidents are pretty much inevitable, and when the blame falls on a company rather than a human, it's difficult to see how that company can survive the resulting accumulation of legal action. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
True regarding haulage but in many places in Europe, they've already implemented it.
For instance, Switzerland which neighbors 5 countries, 3 of which are trade powerhouses so a lot of goods need to pass through it. They don't allow heavy trucks on their roads to pass through, instead, they force the trucks to be loaded on trains and have an incredible network to get the goods to where they need to go, and it actually works faster and more efficiently than trying to drive them. The trains go twice the speed a truck can and can be transferred directly to the eventual target city such as Paris or Madrid.
Now granted only the Japanese have a comparable train system but I have no idea why all these trucks, doing the same routes every single day of every year, aren't on some expedited train system.
France is running a similar system for north/south hauling and it's making truck drivers redundant. Sure, you need a "last miles" solutions but long haul should really be a thing of the past.
I can see a place for automated trucks and hauling though, as they can have dedicated lanes (they have dedicated truck lanes already here on a lot of motorways) and if they crash (not withstanding anything else they take out) all you loose are the goods, but when an automated car crashes a person dies and that's not acceptable.
Video conferencing and remote offices have already massively impacted the need for in person interviews (and will only increase) so I'm not sure that reason is strong enough self driving cars.
To my it just seems incredibly weird we're basically making single person busses, rather than making public transport more accessible and efficient, or even better for alternative forms of transport like cycling etc.
in certain areas in the states, these scooter sharing programs like Bird are absolutely everywhere and for short commutes in densely populated urban areas, they're actually pretty viable and well used. I never thought it would catch on but I see tons of them in rush hours now. |
|
|
| Jon_Snow |
| “Those who say it can not be done, should not interrupt those doing it.” -Chinese Proverb |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
I work in an industry that intersects considerably with both construction and manufacturing, and believe me, you'll never cut out site visits and site-specific deliveries. Even with conference calls, Google Street View, cloud storage and Field Reporting Systems, you've still got an army of people criss-crossing the country every week to inspect physical conditions in the flesh, to check measures, to do PC walk-arounds and to supervise installations, and while ever they're driving, they're not working.
Also, with online shopping continuing to grow in popularity, I can only see the amount of delivery vehicles on the road increasing, going to an ever-more numerous array of different locations.
The benefits to business and industry are very obvious, and that's why the technology is being developed. It's not some giant gimmick to lure in tech-obsessed idiots. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
I'm not saying that, just simply pointing out that even as little as 10 years ago (let alone 20 or 30), the need for in person meetings was far greater.
I meet my company lawyer, accountant/CPA, business consultant and graphic designers, maybe once a year. Some people I work regularly with I've never met and probably never will yet do business with them ever single week or month.
I'm simply stating that the need for in person meetings has never actually been lower and it's decreasing as time goes one but yes, there's still a need and plenty of people still do it.
I'm just not sure it's really a driving force behind needing automated vehicles, unlike shipping freight and deliveries which simply don't need a delivery driver and I'm amazed it hasn't been automated or streamlined sooner like in other countries.
I can't talk for the UK, but people in general are actually commuting less these days as the number of people working form home is a largest shift (by a long way) in the commuter numbers. It's actually reducing the number of cars on the road used for commuting. The numbers also show that more people are walking and cycling to work than 10 years ago and again it's increasing but it still accounts for less than 10% of the population.America used to be a commute heavy country and walking to work was basically unheard of but areas get denser and there's pushes to get people out of cars (for various reasons) you can actually start to walk places and people are moving to areas where they can have a life outside of a car (Dallas Texas is one place that has massively invested in housing close to businesses/commercial districts, as has Seattle, so have major swathes of Los Angeles and San Francisco).
Finally the average commute here is 26 minutes. Sure that's maybe an extra 40 minutes a day, but honestly, I'm not sure if that again is really reason enough to justify a self driving car that going to be extortionately more expensive for the foreseeable future than a regular car.
That's why I said originally Half serious conspiracy theory becuase I do think at least in part it's industry led rather than consumer demand led. Elon musk basically said "this is the future" and his pattern of market disruption is enough to make other manufacturers follow suit for little more than FOMO.
As for deliveries only increasing, you're absolutely right, but the drone programs are being piloted here and I for one cannot ing wait, and in my mind that will be a massive game changer given it takes deliveries off congested roads and could be instant.
They still have to fix the commercial drone legislation and how it relates to public safety but it seems a damn site easier and clearer path than cars given lives are no where near as much at stake. |
|
|
| Lews |
Who said they will be extortionately expensive?
I ing hate driving and would buy a robot car in a heartbeat.
If they figure out the kinks (that is, find socially acceptable solutions to difficult moral problems: a child runs into road, does car hit child or swerve left into traffic?) and legal issues and people are not Luddites about this, then I could see in 25-50 years all cars on the roads MUST be self-driving and human-driving is relegated to special spaces, as they could decrease road deaths by so much. |
|
|
| Jon_Snow |
| Self driving cars can’t come too soon. The worst part of driving is dealing with all these reckless ppl cutting in and out of lanes because their in a hurry. |
|
|
|
|
