My question is honest, and not argumentative .... I just do not understand. I invite someone to explain it to me and I presume others that do not understand as well. I completely understand lane assist for inattentive or distracted drivers; I understand braking when the traffic stops suddenly in front of the same distracted driver; I love the mirror indicators when a vehicle is in the blind-spot. I even understand parking assistant for those that cannot parallel park. On the news today, the media was quoting Google, and mentioned how great it will be for blind motorist to become mobile. Clearly, I do not understand how it will work, but I presume the idea is based on GPS .... supplemented with a variety of sensors. But have you ever had the GPS direct you onto a gravel road, albeit shorter, and off the Interstate? In our community, roads are frequently detoured for marathons, bicycle races, parades, carnivals, athletic events, road work, accidents, rock slides and ice and snow hazards.. GPS will provide no clue to the blind driver regarding temporary detours and closures ... or will it? Will the system move you to the far lane and slow down when a Highway Patrol vehicle is off the road with the lights flashing? or a motorist is changing a flat tire on the shoulder? We get a lot of snow .... and the lane markers are obscured .... will the system slow the vehicle to a crawl like attentive drivers do when icy patches are encountered? In the event of an accident ..... who is liable? the automobile manufacturer? the software developer? the sensor supplier? or the blind driver? I just suppose that the Attorneys cannot wait. I can anticipate a whole new governmental inspection ..... in addition to safety and emissions ... a sensor verification inspection requiring costly new analysis equipment. Again .... I am not trying to be negative, or argumentative .... and I know that I sound insensitive to drivers with disabilities ... I just do not understand ..... and seek understanding. Personally, I'd much rather have a vehicle with lane assist; blind spot monitors; and automatic braking ...... and a detector to immobilize and park the vehicle of drunk or drugged drivers, or drivers that enter the Interstate going against the traffic (a frequent occurrence in my area).
No, not in an unexpected way at least, but I welcome gravel roads if they will save me time. Many systems provide this already including google which I believe gets most of its info from Waze Don't see any reason why it wouldn't Where are you living that you have attentive drivers? Most of the laws I've seen have said the driver is at fault. not sure why Google is saying this is good for blind drivers because that technology is still a long way off I would hate a car that requires me to pass a test every time I go to drive somewhere. I guess we all have different opinions. I welcome the day when everyone else has self driving cars that all talk to each other and the smoothness of perfect traffic flow is achieved. However that's a long way off still. Most people will have a panic attack when their car merges onto the interstate properly rather than slowing to <20 mph first.
Pros 1) thousands fewer accidents 2) regain hours a day in driving time 3) (eventually) faster commutes Cons 1) trust machines to drive better than you do 2) for the tiny percentage of accidents that still happen, the belief that you could have stopped it. 3) trust humans not to spoof the data the machines are sharing.
A well designed system of smart cars will have fewer accidents, less congestion and faster commutes. Here is a pretty good description that addresses your question and the video halfway down the page is especially on point. A fantastic, concise explanation of why traffic jams happen
Bravo! I knew there was at least one man in this man's Navy that hadn't none nuts! For all the reasons you mentioned, and all the scenarios, I will never trust a self-driving vehicle. There are just too many various kinds of situations that can occur, and I don't believe the vehicle will be able to react in time. (Not to mention all the crazies in other cars, that will still cause accidents and run into a self-driven car.) I also think most people won't be able to even afford a self-driven car. So you will still have 98% of people driving a normal vehicle.
I'm on the other side in that I don't understand why there isn't more interest in self driving vehicles. GPS is only part of the navigation technology. The latest version of Google Maps app dynamically routes you around traffic and hazards. Traffic is monitored in real time and if an alternate route gets you to your destination faster, Google will ask you if you want to change routes. I now use Google Maps for long distance driving even if I already know the way. This has likely saved me a lot of time stuck in traffic. For now tickets are given to the driver. Accidents are the fault of the driver. There will always be people that blame the car. This will not change whether you have self driving cars or not. See "unintended acceleration". We are not at full automation so it's a wait and see on what happens in terms of litigation. When the system can no longer route due to whatever road conditions, it pulls over and stops. If you think about it, that's what a human would do too so there is no change there. What's so great about self driving cars? Because I get to be a passenger. If you ask me if I want to drive to work, my answer is no. I'd rather be driven and I won't have to go to a bus stop or stop at multiple stations. Don't get me wrong, I love to drive. I'd just rather do it in a drop top convertible on twisty 2 lane canyon roads with no one around on the weekends. I have no desire to drive my Prius to work during rush hour.
There was something on the news yesterday, maybe an interim measure on the way to self-driving cars: about designing cars to be able to communicate with other nearby cars, say within 300 yards. To improve imminent collision sensing. First couple of search results: Car-to-Car Communication What’s Next? V2V (Vehicle-to-Vehicle) Communication With Connected Cars | WIRED
A story that just came out this morning: Uber is using self-driving cars, Volvos, in San Francisco. But they still have a person behind the wheel for "emergencies."
Thanks for the comments. I better understand most of the points made. One I chuckled at .... rather drive a gravel road if it's shorter? Come on now .... The specific incident I am referring too was shorter, and less travelled, but significantly longer in time, filled with ruts and mud-holes, not to mention dings in the paint and the potential for a chipped windshield. I too use a google device, and receive traffic alerts. OTOH, the navigation software that came with my 2015 TAH (not a google product), has large blank spaces where there has been streets for 100 years. No one commented on my statements about a system to detect drunk and drugged drivers, and safely park the car. I suspect the Highway Patrol would endorse that feature, and surely would save more lives than just about any other device. Thank you Coast Cruiser for your Christmas greeting. The same to you.
Felt, I don't know where Mountain West is but if it's a low population zone, I can understand where you're coming from. Spend a great deal of time driving in a heavily congested urban masshole area and self-driving makes a lot more sense! You're preaching to the choir or talking in an echo chamber because we, as forum members, actually care enough about autos to join and participate in an automobile forum. The folks who "need" self-driving cars aren't here.
i suspect we won't see full mandatory self driving cars for a long time, due to pushback from older drivers, not technology. most people under 30 - 40 years old will love them, and then they'll just be accepted like any tech that's been around awhile. my 3 thirty somethings are already on board.
The US is going to mandate this in a few years. I noticed they mentioned standardized protocol, but no mention of security. Given the short federal timeline, there will be no security, but companies will make a lot of money! Feds: Cars must be able to talk to each other
Coming back from the mountains running in a train of Jeeps, I was around midpack. Traffic came to a stop at Idaho Springs, CO. Waze suddenly said get off the highway, take this gravel road up and over to mount evans. I radio'd it out as I dove off the highway. I got a lot of "you're crazy that's way longer and washboard, I'll just wait it out." I beat everyone to Denver by 3 to 4 hours, they had about 30 - 40 miles to go is all. Yes, I'll gladly use a gravel road if Waze tells me it's faster. I did, I said I'd hate to have to pass a test every time I wanted to drive.
Do you truly think you can react faster and with the same accuracy as a computer? Currently the radar cruise is pretty limited due to its sight distance but if that was improved.....
I don't want to jump to conclusions .... but ........... I have known people that were commode hugging, knee walking drunk .... and they would swear they were perfectly capable of driving. I recently read that drunks behind the wheel kill more people that guns. That is the crowd that causes so many accident in our area, and the problem is getting worse, not better. We have had drunks wiping out entire families while driving the wrong way on the Interstate.
I am ALL FOR any measures or technology necessary to reduce the amount of stinkin drunk drivers! And now, in many states "distracted driving" accidents is overtaking the amount of drunk driving accidents and deaths. That's another thing the Gov and the auto manufactures need to take a serious look at. They are loading these cars up with so much technology and information that is distracting. (And look at that giant screen they put in the new Prime... You don't think that's going to take peoples eyes off the road?!) I've had several close calls already, just by watching those darn hybrid indicator screens. Gotta turn that stuff off. Drunk driving + distracted driving = a disaster waiting to happen.
There were over 400,000 of the "distracted driving" accidents out of 5.12 million auto accidents (and it may be under reported by a factor of 5 per the source) Drunk driving causes about 10,000 deaths and 1.8 million overall Accidents there were 73,505 gun deaths per year for comparison I think it is very sad that our next generation is so incompetent that they can't even be bothered to drive, let alone perform a skilled trade. If no one drives, no one will be left with the mechanical ability to repair let alone build the cars in the marketplace. I think the true problem is easily solved with about a buck of electronics that can disable a cell phone. As opposed to billions of dollars on unnecessary self driving infrastructure. I am told that over 99% of financial fraud occurs through the internet, yet we are willing to increase failure and theft for supposed convenience (even though credit card system can operate without internet) When we place our trust in a new million pound elephant like self driving, will we not end up with another easily exploited open system?
You can set that screen to the right to show alerts. It will then usually just show No Message. Many of the default alerts can be turned off in the settings menu on that display too.
Excellent Rmay!! There's already been several cases of vehicles being hacked into. Not the self-driving kind, but just regular computers in various vehicles. So imagine if they were able to hack into the self-driving system… and the havoc they could cause. You know it's going to happen. Eventually. The thugs are always a step ahead of the game. The new Toyota Camry is tops on the list for being able to open it and start it with a remote control device outside the car.