Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Self driving buses, trains, trucks etc
Comments
-
AlmightyCushion wrote: »Your the one that brought up the advertising.
Even if people want self driving cars and the technology is popular I think banning driving out right is something that would be a long way away at the earliest. It would have to be a time when every new car sold is self driving (that will take a long time after self driving cars are available for sale, look at how long we've had electric cars and they still have a relatively small percentage of new car sales). Then it would need to be about 10-15 years after this at least before it could happen so that there is enough stock of second hand self driving cars to fulfill demand for cars.
Also, the cars would either need to sold as self driving only or have a remote switch to disable manual driving.
I think the most likely way they'd do it is every new car sold after year XXXX would be self driving only, no manual driving possible in these cars. Manual driving would still be legal but then after year YYYY manual driving cars would not be allowed on the roads.
If the first level 5 self driving car is available for sale in 2025, the vast majority love self driving cars, uptake of the technology is high and there is popular support for banning manual driving cars for safety reasons I think you're still talking at least 2045 before an all out ban on manual driving happens. Realistically, I think if manual driving is banned it would happen a lot later than that.
I didn't bring advertising into it, remember, someone else said marketing would be "pivotal" to driverless vehicles and their occupants.
I was just trying to gauge the level of enthusiasm and demand, if any, for intending occupants being the subject of targeted advertising in a captive environment.
We hear a lot of ill thought out nonsense about sustainability today, but this push for more and more advertising makes one wonder what exactly it is that that people are wanting to sustain.
There is an air of incompatibility about the whole thing.
On the enforced banning of driving, yes, it does appear inevitable.
That is an element of chicken and egg in this that is going to be crucial to the success or failure of autonomous vehicles.
I doubt many people realise that driving will be essentially have to be outlawed to facilitate the successful transition to autonomous vehicles.
It will be interesting listening to politicians trying to sell that idea!0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,039 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 49468
that gave me a chuckle. you've put pivotal in quotes as if you're directly quoting someone.I didn't bring advertising into it, remember, someone else said marketing would be "pivotal" to driverless vehicles and their occupants.
the only person you're quoting is yourself; you're the only one to have used that term. talk about an explicit attempt at a straw man.0 -
The rag that's reporting how the UK is funding new research into flying taxis and robo-lawyers?
Yes, more typical nonsense from the DM.
https://dailym.ai/2zSUKY8
Too right!
People have a hard enough time maintaining their cars. The last thing I want is then flying over my head.0 -
Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,099 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 33540
I didn't bring advertising into it, remember, someone else said marketing would be "pivotal" to driverless vehicles and their occupants.
I was just trying to gauge the level of enthusiasm and demand, if any, for intending occupants being the subject of targeted advertising in a captive environment.
We hear a lot of ill thought out nonsense about sustainability today, but this push for more and more advertising makes one wonder what exactly it is that that people are wanting to sustain.
There is an air of incompatibility about the whole thing.
You brought it up with me. You asked what people would be doing in their cars seeing as they wouldn't be driving.
I said this:AlmightyCushion wrote: »Anything else. The same things they do in their free time. They could do some work, watch videos, read a book, browse the internet, text people.
Do you really think most people enjoy their morning and evening commute? Most people I know either don't mind it or don't like it. I don't think any of them actually enjoy it. Give them a self driving car that allows them to text and watch youtube instead of driving and they'd be happier.
Even people who really like driving, probably don't like their commute as it usually involves plenty of sitting around in traffic.
Then you brought up advertising in response to me.Yes, the upshot of this technology and investment and being forbidden to drive appears to be that they will have more time to be on facebook and youtube.
The evangelists here do say that having more time to be sold stuff is pivotal to autonomous vehicles.On the enforced banning of driving, yes, it does appear inevitable.
That is an element of chicken and egg in this that is going to be crucial to the success or failure of autonomous vehicles.
I doubt many people realise that driving will be essentially have to be outlawed to facilitate the successful transition to autonomous vehicles.
It will be interesting listening to politicians trying to sell that idea!
I don't see why driving will have to be banned for self driving cars to succeed. The technology is being developed so that it will work with existing cars.0 -
I didn't bring advertising into it, remember, someone else said marketing would be "pivotal" to driverless vehicles and their occupants.
I was just trying to gauge the level of enthusiasm and demand, if any, for intending occupants being the subject of targeted advertising in a captive environment.
We hear a lot of ill thought out nonsense about sustainability today, but this push for more and more advertising makes one wonder what exactly it is that that people are wanting to sustain.
There is an air of incompatibility about the whole thing.
On the enforced banning of driving, yes, it does appear inevitable.
That is an element of chicken and egg in this that is going to be crucial to the success or failure of autonomous vehicles.
I doubt many people realise that driving will be essentially have to be outlawed to facilitate the successful transition to autonomous vehicles.
It will be interesting listening to politicians trying to sell that idea!
Yes, it's clear that driving manually will be made illegal. I'm sure the legislation to enact the ban will be made in the week following the legislation that bans the manufacture or sale of any product containing alcohol in this country.
In the US it will come the week following the ban and sales of firearms to the general public and ordering the surrender of all privately owned firearms and munitions.
More pie-in the-sky based on the religious faith that ADS can be made safer than humans. Actually, it can never be made safer than probably the majority of drivers - who never have an accident causing a fatality. It might come to be safer than the small minority who do. I'm sure the Irish government of the time will have a viable plan ready to handle the unemployment caused. Just imagine how much they will be able to decrease the size of the Garda force.
No government will ever ban driving. The social cost would be incalculable. Fatal road accidents are extremely rare events and are a trivial cost in comparison to the insoluble employment problem.
I came across an interesting study by the Rand corporation in which it was determined that ADS would need to rack up 805 billion km before they could be statistically proven to be 20% safer than humans on average and that 225 years of driving time would be needed to achieve that. Of course that is based on the rather high fatality rate in the US. The burden of proof would be far higher in other countries, like Ireland. https://www.engineering.com/DesignerEdge/DesignerEdgeArticles/ArticleID/11981/The-Problem-with-Test-Driving-Autonomous-Vehicles.aspx0 -
Advertisement
-
magicbastarder wrote: »that gave me a chuckle. you've put pivotal in quotes as if you're directly quoting someone.
the only person you're quoting is yourself; you're the only one to have used that term. talk about an explicit attempt at a straw man.
I was quoting someone else, someone who thinks that current driven transport prevents its occupants from doing all the crazy and wonderful things they list along with a conviction that today's drivers cant wait to be able to sit back with their feet up looking at videos on YouTube while the car does the driving.Deleted User wrote: »Probably it will be marketed in the same vein as business class airline seating to one demographic, as a restful zone for others, a study zone for others, as a platform for exploring somewhere new where you can take photos to your hearts content etc etc etc.
What I'm getting at is the old way of marketing was limited to one function, driving. Now it will pivot to what you can do while the vehicle is driving itself
Restful zones, study zones, sounds great doesn't it?
A platform for exploring new stuff, blow me over, wha?
Pretty inventive stuff there, straight from the copywriters.
Maybe some people are impressed with that kind of sales waffle, but I doubt its many.
In spite of the fact that many youngsters (and oldies) can be seen trying to view a mobile phone and drive at the same time, I do still doubt that they're going to fully embrace the idea that sooner or later the authorities are going to be banning driving in order that they may immerse themselves more safely in their online explorations.
As I've said, nobody has shown where a majority of drivers have indicated that they'll welcome not being permitted to drive and that seems to me at least to be a major point being overlooked in their enthusiasm for trying to get autonomous vehicles on the road.0 -
Yes, it's clear that driving manually will be made illegal. I'm sure the legislation to enact the ban will be made in the week following the legislation that bans the manufacture or sale of any product containing alcohol in this country.
In the US it will come the week following the ban and sales of firearms to the general public and ordering the surrender of all privately owned firearms and munitions.
More pie-in the-sky based on the religious faith that ADS can be made safer than humans. Actually, it can never be made safer than probably the majority of drivers - who never have an accident causing a fatality. It might come to be safer than the small minority who do. I'm sure the Irish government of the time will have a viable plan ready to handle the unemployment caused. Just imagine how much they will be able to decrease the size of the Garda force.
No government will ever ban driving. The social cost would be incalculable. Fatal road accidents are extremely rare events and are a trivial cost in comparison to the insoluble employment problem.
I came across an interesting study by the Rand corporation in which it was determined that ADS would need to rack up 805 billion km before they could be statistically proven to be 20% safer than humans on average and that 225 years of driving time would be needed to achieve that. Of course that is based on the rather high fatality rate in the US. The burden of proof would be far higher in other countries, like Ireland. https://www.engineering.com/DesignerEdge/DesignerEdgeArticles/ArticleID/11981/The-Problem-with-Test-Driving-Autonomous-Vehicles.aspx
But but but we're being told it's just round the corner.
One wonders whether the RSA feels anything like the turkey voting for Christmas when the time comes for having no lives left to save.
Remember, it was set up partly because the costs to the exchequer caused by motor accidents, sorry, collisions was so exorbitant.
Heres an interesting take on it all:
Once technological barriers to self-driving cars fall, the end of human driving seems inevitable.
On a moral level, people shouldn’t be driving at all, if only for
1.) on a personal level, the unacceptably high chance of a fatal or injurious accident;
2.) on a societal level, the shared cost of emergency services dedicated to such events; and
3.) on an economic level, the inefficiencies of entire industries and government organs required to service even the minor accidents that plague our roadways.
That last point is relevant when you see the chaos caused on the M50 by relatively minor incidents.
http://www.thedrive.com/opinion/8101/will-humans-still-drive-in-an-autonomous-future0 -
Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,099 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 33540
I was quoting someone else, someone who thinks that current driven transport prevents its occupants from doing all the crazy and wonderful things they list along with a conviction that today's drivers cant wait to be able to sit back with their feet up looking at videos on YouTube while the car does the driving.
Restful zones, study zones, sounds great doesn't it?
A platform for exploring new stuff, blow me over, wha?
Pretty inventive stuff there, straight from the copywriters.
Maybe some people are impressed with that kind of sales waffle, but I doubt its many.
In spite of the fact that many youngsters (and oldies) can be seen trying to view a mobile phone and drive at the same time, I do still doubt that they're going to fully embrace the idea that sooner or later the authorities are going to be banning driving in order that they may immerse themselves more safely in their online explorations.
As I've said, nobody has shown where a majority of drivers have indicated that they'll welcome not being permitted to drive and that seems to me at least to be a major point being overlooked in their enthusiasm for trying to get autonomous vehicles on the road.
Who is talking about banning driving? We're talking about self driving cars. The two are not one and the same.
You were the one who brought up the increased advertising people will see in self driving cars as they look at their phones more. DaCor was talking about how advertising of cars will move from them being great to drive to showing what you can do in your car now that you aren't driving.
You even go on to say that people today are happy to be on their phone when driving their non self driving car. If they want to be on their phones more than driving their car now, then I think that helps prove the point that most people don't really care about driving and would rather be doing something else.
You're getting wrapped up in your own riddle of nonsense.
We're not talking about the pros and cons of driving being banned, we're talking about self driving cars.0 -
I came across an interesting study by the Rand corporation in which it was determined that ADS would need to rack up 805 billion km before they could be statistically proven to be 20% safer than humans on average and that 225 years of driving time would be needed to achieve that. Of course that is based on the rather high fatality rate in the US. The burden of proof would be far higher in other countries, like Ireland. https://www.engineering.com/DesignerEdge/DesignerEdgeArticles/ArticleID/11981/The-Problem-with-Test-Driving-Autonomous-Vehicles.aspx
As I said, itll happen gradually over decades, not overnight. Plenty of time for new generations to come to terms with autonomous cars.
Also the Rand Corp recommended that as soon as cars are proven AS safe as humans, they should be introduced immediately.
Also your maths are way off.
There's conservatively 200,000 autonomous cars planned for the next few years, Waymo have nearly 100,000 of these, Uber 25,000, with every car and tech company making up the rest (Im not counting the 100,000 Tesla's already on the road gathering data, but you potentially could)
If only these cars were driving 5 hours a day (and remember they're robots so except for maintenance and fuelling they can drive nearly all the time) that's 805 billion racked up in 40 years.
Drive 10 hours a day, 20 years. Double the fleet, 10 years. We're still only on 400,000 cars.
Over 6 million are sold in the US alone every year.
And also not counting the millions of simulated miles they drive daily.0 -
If you can show some research or studies that demonstrate that drivers are actively expected to welcome being forbidden to drive I'll look it over.
In the absence it really does appear that your advocacy for permitting robots to take over the roads is based solely on proving that they can.
That may well be the case, but whether it something that the majority of people want has not been established, nor has any thought been given to whether it will be seen as a step forward or backwards, given that you seem to think that society in general has benefited from the universal acceptance and availability of smartphones.
You will accept that that is something that is debatable, with steps now being taken to advise reductions in usage, reduction in the sharing of personal information and discussions taking place belatedly regarding age appropriateness.
Generation selfie shows you that just because something has been accepted by the masses it doesn't necessarily prove that it is a step forward for society.
That brings us to the moral aspect.
If, as the proponents say, autonomous pods will be far safer, but the general public doesn't buy into it, would you endorse the forced phase out of driven vehicles on the basis of needing to save lives?
That is some mouthful there. I am not sure we are at the stage yet where people are advocating that humans will be banned from driving, especially when your comrade in arms, suggests that autonomous driving will either be banned outright or at least 50-60 years away.
You never answered my previous questions by the way, but anyway.
Regardless of your own views and conspiracy theories on the matter, things will move along in an organic way where both regulators, governments and the public will see the benefits of newer smarter cars and the safety standards they bring in reducing road fatalities.
As to the moral aspect, there is no human right to drive. If you really really want to go down that rabbit hole.0 -
Advertisement
-
That staement is being fully borne out by several of the recent NTSB investigations into serious crashes of Teslas on autopilot that contain this phrase "over-reliance on vehicle automation" as one of the main reasons for the crash.
https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-tech/85183/driverless-cars-everything-you-need-to-know-about-autonomous-vehicles
From the article.Tesla has admitted that the car was under software control, using the company’s Autopilot technology, when it hit the barrier. Huang’s hands were not on the wheel – as they should have been, according to Tesla’s guidance – when the accident occurred.
“The driver had received several visual and one audible hands-on warning earlier in the drive and the driver’s hands were not detected on the wheel for six seconds prior to the collision"“Over a year ago, our first iteration of Autopilot was found by the US government to reduce crash rates by as much as 40 percent. Internal data confirms that recent updates to Autopilot have improved system reliability.
“In the US, there is one automotive fatality every 86 million miles across all vehicles from all manufacturers. For Tesla, there is one fatality, including known pedestrian fatalities, every 320 million miles in vehicles equipped with Autopilot hardware. If you are driving a Tesla equipped with Autopilot hardware, you are 3.7 times less likely to be involved in a fatal accident.However, it is not the first death involving a Tesla vehicle running on Autopilot. Two years ago, a driver was killed when a Tesla Model S drove into the side of a truck. It was reported that the driver may have been watching a Harry Potter movie at the time of the accident.
So, lets clear up some of your points on the matter.
It seems you want to have it both ways.
First of all, you state that humans are better drivers than computers or AI, as you put it.
However, you then state that SAE level 2/3 technology should be banned because humans become too reliant on it.
The common denominator here is the error-prone human drivers, as the article shown above.
Also, and I have mentioned this a few times. Tesla is not a fully autonomous car. It is SAE level 2, which needs the human to keep their hands on the steering wheel and to interject when prompted.
Again, having your cake and eating it. Using Tesla as an example of how full autonomous vehicles won't work is like saying airbags don't save lives of drunk drivers, therefore we should just get rid of airbags.
On Waymo, well they would say that of course, seeing as they are the pioneers of SAE level 4 tech. As I already mentioned pages back, Google already cracked level 3 back in 2008, but decided against putting the car to market, as they thought that humans would slack off thus it may be more dangerous. There is no proof that they were right or wrong on this, but they ditched the level 3 tech and instead went straight for level 4.
Again, you seem to want your cake and eat it. You state that full autonomous driving is 50 years away, yet Waymo is about to put 82,000 SAE level 4 cars onto American streets over the next 24 months......
Again, what exactly is your argument now, as you have moved the goalposts so often, it resmebles an ice hockey rink.0 -
I came across an interesting study by the Rand corporation in which it was determined that ADS would need to rack up 805 billion km before they could be statistically proven to be 20% safer than humans on average and that 225 years of driving time would be needed to achieve that. Of course that is based on the rather high fatality rate in the US. The burden of proof would be far higher in other countries, like Ireland. https://www.engineering.com/DesignerEdge/DesignerEdgeArticles/ArticleID/11981/The-Problem-with-Test-Driving-Autonomous-Vehicles.aspx
Well seeing as how 82,000 SAE level 4 cars are going to hit the roads over the next 2 years, we will see soon enough.
Your figure of 225 years is based just on 100 cars, Waymo currently has 600 on the roads, clocking up 25,000 miles a day and with 82,000 more to hit the streets, the data will be easily collected and will show that these cars are safer than your average human driver.0 -
82k is just Waymo. Plenty more from other companies.Well seeing as how 82,000 SAE level 4 cars are going to hit the roads over the next 2 years, we will see soon enough.
Your figure of 225 years is based just on 100 cars, Waymo currently has 600 on the roads, clocking up 25,000 miles a day and with 82,000 more to hit the streets, the data will be easily collected and will show that these cars are safer than your average human driver.0 -
Twenty Grand wrote: »82k is just Waymo. Plenty more from other companies.
Yeap, of course.
Using the daily average of today, Waymo alone will be clocking up 3.5 million miles a day, that is 1.2 billion miles over one year. And that is just one company, using one data set.
We will know a lot more by 2020 and a hell of a lot more by 2025.
I just find it astonishing that people think this stuff is 50-60 years away. Mad stuff.0 -
The rag that's reporting how the UK is funding new research into flying taxis and robo-lawyers?
Yes, more typical nonsense from the DM.
https://dailym.ai/2zSUKY8
People are often quick to doubt a story often due to their own meda prejudice.
The £10m funding is coming from the Business Secretary, (not the folks at the DM).
A group of advisers in the 'Department for Transport' have recommended that ministers “explore the current level of public acceptance around flying taxis and the role that Government and industry should play in addressing public perception”.
Engine maker Rolls-Royce has already designed a propulsion system for a flying taxi which it says could take to the skies as soon as early next decade ...
UK firm Vertical Aerospace have also already created an all-electric, battery-powered prototype.
There's no reason to think why this won't happen, just a matter of development time vs running cost (i.e. profit margins).
As for robolawyers, again it's just a matter of time, tech and profit availability. For years now you can get an simple web-bot to fully process your next car insurance, in the past would have to call someone up on the telephone.0 -
How on earth could it have been inferred that the funding was coming from the Daily Mail?Layne Rotten Colon wrote: »People are often quick to doubt a story often due to their own meda prejudice.
The £10m funding is coming from the Business Secretary, (not the folks at the DM).0 -
That is some mouthful there. I am not sure we are at the stage yet where people are advocating that humans will be banned from driving, especially when your comrade in arms, suggests that autonomous driving will either be banned outright or at least 50-60 years away.
Seems you're not up to speed then.
Your mate Elon is certainly advocating that driving be made illegal.
https://www.theverge.com/transportation/2015/3/17/8232187/elon-musk-human-drivers-are-dangerous
Others are demanding it happens by 2030
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/driving-cars-illegal-2030
https://splinternews.com/driving-should-be-illegal-1793851503
I guess they're all nuts, yeah?0 -
From the article.
So, lets clear up some of your points on the matter.
It seems you want to have it both ways.
First of all, you state that humans are better drivers than computers or AI, as you put it.
However, you then state that SAE level 2/3 technology should be banned because humans become too reliant on it.
The common denominator here is the error-prone human drivers, as the article shown above.
Also, and I have mentioned this a few times. Tesla is not a fully autonomous car. It is SAE level 2, which needs the human to keep their hands on the steering wheel and to interject when prompted.
Again, having your cake and eating it. Using Tesla as an example of how full autonomous vehicles won't work is like saying airbags don't save lives of drunk drivers, therefore we should just get rid of airbags.
On Waymo, well they would say that of course, seeing as they are the pioneers of SAE level 4 tech. As I already mentioned pages back, Google already cracked level 3 back in 2008, but decided against putting the car to market, as they thought that humans would slack off thus it may be more dangerous. There is no proof that they were right or wrong on this, but they ditched the level 3 tech and instead went straight for level 4.
Again, you seem to want your cake and eat it. You state that full autonomous driving is 50 years away, yet Waymo is about to put 82,000 SAE level 4 cars onto American streets over the next 24 months......
Again, what exactly is your argument now, as you have moved the goalposts so often, it resmebles an ice hockey rink.
I'll leave you to it as I really can't be bothered deconstructing and untangling the mental gymnastics you engage in to derive alternate meaning.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Twenty Grand wrote: »Ya but he also talks about colonizing Mars, rockets replacing airplanes and killer AI.
No governments have said anything about banning driving.
No one on this thread either except when you brought it up.
Ya but, ya but.
There's ample opportunity for caring zealots to start lobbying for banning driving isn't there?
Elon and the others are just thinking about all those lives that can be saved if we'd just let the safer robots take over.
Surely that's something you'd see yourself rowing in behind?0 -
Seriously clutching at straws. Trying to invent a circumstance to back up your ill informed opinion.Ya but, ya but.
There's ample opportunity for caring zealots to start lobbying for banning driving isn't there?
Elon and the others are just thinking about all those lives that can be saved if we'd just let the safer robots take over.
Surely that's something you'd see yourself rowing in behind?
Nope, I'd never endorse it. I like driving, just hate commuting.0 -
Twenty Grand wrote: »Seriously clutching at straws. Trying to invent a circumstance to back up your ill informed opinion.
Nope, I'd never endorse it. I like driving, just hate commuting.
How does showing Elon and other fans of robotic vehicles saying that driving should be banned equate to clutching at straws and being inventive??
These are the people promoting the technology that you find so amazing.
If you didn't know thats what they want, it is you rather than I who is ill informed.0 -
These are the people promoting the technology that you find so amazing.
If you didn't know thats what they want, it is you rather than I who is ill informed.
It's not some sort of conspiracy, it's called technological evolution.
At some point in the near future an AI based system will become a safer driver than any human can, that's just the way things are.
There will still be human-based car racing events, driving tests, bicylces and many areas designated for human controlled driving experiences.
Next you'll be telling us the Ferguson tractor was created as a conspiracy to 'do away with' all the horses.0 -
How does showing Elon and other fans of robotic vehicles saying that driving should be banned equate to clutching at straws and being inventive??
These are the people promoting the technology that you find so amazing.
If you didn't know thats what they want, it is you rather than I who is ill informed.
Meh, I don't care either way. As I said, time will tell.0 -
Layne Rotten Colon wrote: »It's not some sort of conspiracy, it's called technological evolution.
At some point in the near future an AI based system will become a safer driver than any human can, that's just the way things are.
There will still be driven car racing events for the entertainment of spectators, driving tests, bicylces and areas designated for human controlled driving experiences.
Next you'll be telling us the Ferguson tractor was created as a conspiracy to 'do away with' all the horses.
Why are you trying to introduce conspiracy theories?
It's clear you're mistaking me for one of the conspirators here who are trying to advance their fake theory that the leading advocates of robotic vehicles are NOT calling for driving to be banned.
Maybe you should be directing your conspiracy theory ire at them?0 -
You're away with the fairies.Why are you trying to introduce conspiracy theories?
It's clear you're mistaking me for one of the conspirators here who are trying to advance their fake theory that the leading advocates of robotic vehicles are NOT calling for driving to be banned.
Maybe you should be directing your conspiracy theory ire at them?
Average life of most cars is 15 to 25 years. It would take at least that to move to all autonomous if the government banned the sale of new manually driven cars (no chance). Probably closer to 40 years to full take up if everything goes perfectly.
Maybe, justaybe driving will be banned then, but I'll probably be too old to be driving at that stage and the generations behind me may have never learned to drive.0 -
Heard a driverless vehicle needs internet coverage in order to work properly. How the hell is that supposed to in areas without decent internet coverage. Anyone who thinks this is going to become the norm in the next 20 years is living in dream land. Also how the hell is your average mechanic supposed to fix one of these driverless vehicles.
How are we going to get enough people trained up to be able to fix these driverless vehicles in next 20 years. It seems people are getting so caught up in in the fact that the technology is coming without looking at the simple practicalities.0 -
Twenty Grand wrote: »You're away with the fairies.
Average life of most cars is 15 to 25 years. It would take at least that to move to all autonomous if the government banned the sale of new manually driven cars (no chance). Probably closer to 40 years to full take up if everything goes perfectly.
Maybe, justaybe driving will be banned then, but I'll probably be too old to be driving at that stage and the generations behind me may have never learned to drive.
Take it up with Elon, it's his baby, yeah?0 -
Advertisement
-
Heard a driverless vehicle needs internet coverage in order to work properly. How the hell is that supposed to in areas without decent internet coverage. Anyone who thinks this is going to become the norm in the next 20 years is living in dream land. Also how the hell is your average mechanic supposed to fix one of these driverless vehicles.
How are we going to get enough people trained up to be able to fix these driverless vehicles in next 20 years. It seems people are getting so caught up in in the fact that the technology is coming without looking at the simple practicalities.
These people dont do "practical".0
Advertisement