Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Drink "driving" may soon be safe.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by rwatts View Post
    I imagined that one from the perspective of passengers in cars approaching a roundabout from four different directions at a speed of 100 kph. The talking computers could have the vehicles cross each other's paths within a thousandth of a second of hitting each other. Outsiders might find the view spectacular, watching all these streams of vehicles crossing each other's paths and missing by a bee's whisker. But for passengers inside the vehicles it would be terrifying.
    Thus the need for drinking.

    Leave a comment:


  • One Bad Pig
    replied
    Originally posted by rwatts View Post
    Well not exactly drink "driving", but rather drinking while the "driver" is being driven.
    Still not a good idea. What if you hit a bump and spill your drink?

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by rwatts View Post
    Well not exactly drink "driving", but rather drinking while the "driver" is being driven.
    I never had a problem drinking and driving! He is a story from back in the day. We were over a friends house playing the game "Pass Out." The last thing I remember we were going out for pizza. Three hours later I woke up with some one knocking on the window of my 64 Chevy Impala Super Sport. I looked up and there were two cops. The car was running and stopped in front of the police station at a stop light. I was in the back seat using a large pizza as a pillow. Of course there was no one else in the car and I had no idea how I got there. The cops didn't arrest me, they just followed me home ( I lived about three blocks away) - it was a different time. Perhaps I had an early version of one of these computer drive cars?

    Leave a comment:


  • Juvenal
    replied
    Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
    I am surprised this is going ahead so fast. It seems to me that manufacturers of "robot" cars are going to get sued every time one is involved in an accident. Even if they are confident their cars are not to blame, I cannot see any company wanting to get involved in lawsuits on a regular basis.
    I don't know of any but the smallest companies who aren't involved in lawsuits on a regular basis. Car companies regularly spend money covering liability in accidents due to poor engineering, defending against frivolous lawsuits, and paying for recalls. Conversely, as the proportion of driverless cars increases on the roadways, with a consequent drop in accident rates, I foresee human drivers placed under greater public pressure to conform and higher legal scrutiny.

    Leave a comment:


  • Juvenal
    replied
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    So the cars' computers can talk to each other and negotiate who goes first at intersections -- what about the drunk in a NON-driverless car - can they anticipate is NON-logical operation of the vehicle. It can't be assumed that all other cars on the road will be computer operated.
    I think the challenge is actually the other way around, CP. Handling non-driverless cars is what the current driverless cars are already doing, exclusively. Negotiating with other driverless cars is the new, untried innovation.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Pixie
    replied
    Originally posted by Irate Canadian View Post
    Erm, if the system has be trained to avoid accidents, it will be accurate majority of the time. Even then, it's better to have 2 robo-car accidents then 200 driveable car ones.
    Oh yes, it will be safer than a human driven car. Do you think that will stop people suing the car manufacturers?

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    So the cars' computers can talk to each other and negotiate who goes first at intersections -- what about the drunk in a NON-driverless car - can they anticipate is NON-logical operation of the vehicle. It can't be assumed that all other cars on the road will be computer operated.

    Leave a comment:


  • Irate Canadian
    replied
    Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
    I am surprised this is going ahead so fast. It seems to me that manufacturers of "robot" cars are going to get sued every time one is involved in an accident. Even if they are confident their cars are not to blame, I cannot see any company wanting to get involved in lawsuits on a regular basis.
    Erm, if the system has be trained to avoid accidents, it will be accurate majority of the time. Even then, it's better to have 2 robo-car accidents then 200 driveable car ones.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Pixie
    replied
    Originally posted by rwatts View Post
    Well not exactly drink "driving", but rather drinking while the "driver" is being driven.

    Driverless cars it seems are getting very close:-

    http://www.nature.com/news/autonomou...quired-1.16832 *

    A couple of years ago I heard a talk on this topic. The speaker was discussing the concept making traffic control much more efficient because vehicle computers could talk to each other, arranging the order by which cars went through roundabouts, as an example.

    I imagined that one from the perspective of passengers in cars approaching a roundabout from four different directions at a speed of 100 kph. The talking computers could have the vehicles cross each other's paths within a thousandth of a second of hitting each other. Outsiders might find the view spectacular, watching all these streams of vehicles crossing each other's paths and missing by a bee's whisker. But for passengers inside the vehicles it would be terrifying.

    Best to make these vehicles without windows.


    * The comments are interesting too.
    I am surprised this is going ahead so fast. It seems to me that manufacturers of "robot" cars are going to get sued every time one is involved in an accident. Even if they are confident their cars are not to blame, I cannot see any company wanting to get involved in lawsuits on a regular basis.

    Leave a comment:


  • JonathanL
    replied
    Originally posted by rwatts View Post
    Well not exactly drink "driving", but rather drinking while the "driver" is being driven.

    Driverless cars it seems are getting very close:-

    http://www.nature.com/news/autonomou...quired-1.16832

    A couple of years ago I heard a talk on this topic. The speaker was discussing the concept making traffic control much more efficient because vehicle computers could talk to each other, arranging the order by which cars went through roundabouts, as an example.

    I imagined that one from the perspective of passengers in cars approaching a roundabout from four different directions at a speed of 100 kph. The talking computers could have the vehicles cross each other's paths within a thousandth of a second of hitting each other. Outsiders might find the view spectacular, watching all these streams of vehicles crossing each other's paths and missing by a bee's whisker. But for passengers inside the vehicles it would be terrifying.

    Best to make these vehicles without windows.
    I don't know, but it seems to me driverless vehichles without windows would be even more terrifying.

    Leave a comment:


  • rwatts
    started a topic Drink "driving" may soon be safe.

    Drink "driving" may soon be safe.

    Well not exactly drink "driving", but rather drinking while the "driver" is being driven.

    Driverless cars it seems are getting very close:-

    http://www.nature.com/news/autonomou...quired-1.16832 *

    A couple of years ago I heard a talk on this topic. The speaker was discussing the concept making traffic control much more efficient because vehicle computers could talk to each other, arranging the order by which cars went through roundabouts, as an example.

    I imagined that one from the perspective of passengers in cars approaching a roundabout from four different directions at a speed of 100 kph. The talking computers could have the vehicles cross each other's paths within a thousandth of a second of hitting each other. Outsiders might find the view spectacular, watching all these streams of vehicles crossing each other's paths and missing by a bee's whisker. But for passengers inside the vehicles it would be terrifying.

    Best to make these vehicles without windows.


    * The comments are interesting too.
    Last edited by rwatts; 02-05-2015, 01:14 AM.

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
48 responses
135 views
0 likes
Last Post Sparko
by Sparko
 
Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
16 responses
74 views
0 likes
Last Post shunyadragon  
Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
6 responses
46 views
0 likes
Last Post shunyadragon  
Working...
X