|
Varance posted:I still have this dystopian image of the future in my head, where roads are gridlocked due to a 300% increase in road traffic caused by empty vehicles deadheadind around and/or acting as self-driving billboards designed to capture the attention of people who are sitting in their cars with nothing better to do than read or look out the window. Presumably it'd be cheaper to just place ads on the streaming video services that they will be watching, but yes self-driving cars will only increase infrastructural and environmental impact of cars.
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 06:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 19:31 |
|
|
Kaal posted:Presumably it'd be cheaper to just place ads on the streaming video services that they will be watching, but yes. Our marketing department recently contracted audio advertising. Forget the annoyance of having to listen to someone's earbuds at a high volume, we've found something five times as annoying to piss you off with while riding the bus. 7-Eleven near the next stop? Enjoy listening to a commercial about breakfast taquitos and slurpees. Car dealership coming up? We'll help you get away from these annoying ads by helping you buy a car! It's the most annoying poo poo ever, and I hate the person who actually decided this was a good idea. Varance fucked around with this message at 06:15 on Aug 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 06:11
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I get that you're excited about this technology, but it just isn't as mature as you seem to think it is. "Fully Self-Driving" cars (aka autonomous driverless vehicles) aren't expected to hit the markets for at least a decade, if not several decades. As an aside, the latest prototypes Google is using don't even have steering wheels, so I'm not sure how they're controlling them when they need to intervene: http://www.gospelherald.com/article...ing-already.htm quote:The legal issues alone will take many years to sort out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 06:41
|
|
|
Varance posted:I still have this dystopian image of the future in my head, where roads are gridlocked due to a 300% increase in road traffic caused by empty vehicles deadheadind around and/or acting as self-driving billboards designed to capture the attention of people who are sitting in their cars with nothing better to do than read or look out the window.  Fuuuuck
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 14:15
|
|
|
Cicero posted:No, IIRC at least a couple companies (Google and Nissan) think they could be on the roads by 2020. Volvo plans to test self-driving cars with real customers on public roads in 2017. Several decades is wayyyy too far out. Do you think Uber and Apple would be jumping into this game if they thought a real product was more than a decade out? 5-10 years sounds about right. The cars that you are talking about have so-called "self-driving features", which mean they have the capability to maneuver the vehicle. A car with lane-assist is considered to have "semi-autonomous self-driving features", and those have been on the market for a while now, but those cars haven't had anything near a revolutionary impact. In five years it is expected that we'll be seeing some of the first "fully-autonomous" vehicles, but they will remain "user-operated", meaning that the driver will be required to take over from the computer when needed (this could mean anything from "in case of accident" to "when leaving a pre-mapped highway"). http://www.businessinsider.com/report-10-million-self-driving-cars-will-be-on-the-road-by-2020-2015-5 Google is planning on implementing a fully driverless vehicle without a steering wheel, but that vehicle is also limited to 25 mph and essentially appears intended for navigating their sprawling and thoroughly-mapped campuses, and eventually doing local commuting. It was a little telling that during the recent press unveiling of the prototypes the driver immediately took control (via a removable interface) when a cyclist had an accident in front of them. At another press event, the Google Podcar stopped and courteously waited for a row of folding chairs to cross the street. It's a long, long way from that to mandating usage for all Americans. Beyond that, I don't know. I don't want to completely derail the Traffic Engineering thread with discussions of futurism, but I think that it's fair to say that the 3PM elements won't be a concern for quite a while. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3139423/Google-s-self-driving-car-prototype-takes-California-s-roads-time.html As for Apple: While it's becoming increasingly clear that self-driving technology will be a major milestone, and Apple is clearly recognizing that, their decision to get their skin in the game doesn't imply an imminent breakthrough. Apple is a long way behind Google, and if they want to compete for any share of that future and no-doubt lucrative market then they're going to need to start catching up now. http://www.forbes.com/sites/chunkamui/2015/08/21/google-is-millions-of-miles-ahead-of-apple-in-driverless-cars/ Kaal fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Aug 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Transport and negotiating spaces is not just a spacial but social task. Self-driving cars will lack that social sense. Ok they slam on the breaks every time someone "jay walks". Now everyone knows you can just dart out in front of a car any time you want. Drivers get mad at this because now drivers are constantly having the breaks of their self-driving cars slam on. So what's the solution? A brutal crack down on jay-walking? That's going to make walking and cities awful. Give self-driving cars the right to sometimes hit people or intimidate them out of the way if they're being shits? When I'm walking or driving in the city I'm always looking for eye-contact, using a ton of non-verbal communication. Self driving cars aren't going to be able to do that, which will make them either really inefficient in cities or we'll have to even further crack down on walking. I don't understand this argument at all. "We can't have self driving cars without a police state because all pedestrians will mess with them otherwise"? You sound like you got some sorta ISsues you need to work out, most people aren't going to deliberately stand in streets all day just to mess with cars.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
People are really assholes, and some people will certainly make it a race to the bottom to see who can be the most awful and still get away with it. Ignoring all of that, in the grand scheme of things, drivers of cars are really only a small part of the problems with cars. Driverless cars won't change the energy they consume, the development patterns they encourage, nor the cost of infrastructure to support them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
Being able to read a book in the car means people will accept longer commutes which likely increases sprawl. Another fun dystopian outcome is your employer expecting you to work in the car. Push towards that 11 hour work day.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
Eskaton posted:How do self-driving cars solve the infrastructural bomb of sprawling suburbanization? Driver's license requirements were much, much looser in the 70s and 80s. My parents just had to take a driver's education class over the summer and take a written test. No road test was required. When you think about bad drivers on the road, remember that a large chunk of them have never had to take a skills test.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
Chemmy posted:Being able to read a book in the car means people will accept longer commutes which likely increases sprawl. We don't need to worry about the like 500,000 people tops nationwide that will move even farther out because of self driving cars.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:We don't need to worry about the like 500,000 people tops nationwide that will move even farther out because of self driving cars. You're right. We need to worry about the millions of people that will move farther out in search of affordable housing, and use self-driving cars as part of the rationale for accepting the ridiculous commute.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
See: every US city ever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
TheMadMilkman posted:You're right. We need to worry about the millions of people that will move farther out in search of affordable housing, and use self-driving cars as part of the rationale for accepting the ridiculous commute. We don't need to worry about that, it's not realistic in the least. Who's going to build this "affordable housing", anyway? TheMadMilkman posted:See: every US city ever. Which is actually a disproof of your allegation, due to that whole thing going on where people are flooding back into the cities and inner suburbs, and in most places there's very little expansion of outer suburbs that isn't centered around new employment popping up there (meaning that even if it's 30 miles out from the city, most of the people working there aren't traveling all the way in to the city on a commute basis anyway).
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
Chemmy posted:Another fun dystopian outcome is your employer expecting you to work in the car. Push towards that 11 hour work day. Counterpoint: if I can work in he car, I can sure as hell work from home. Or Starbucks. Or a bar. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I don't understand this argument at all. "We can't have self driving cars without a police state because all pedestrians will mess with them otherwise"? You sound like you got some sorta ISsues you need to work out, most people aren't going to deliberately stand in streets all day just to mess with cars. With as much as peds now think the right of way makes them immune to physics, I can see it being an issue of some size or another.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
How is that different than now? If you jump in front of a car, they will stop. One trick to mess with the system that THEY don't want you to know!!
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
Entropist posted:How is that different than now? If you jump in front of a car, they will stop. One trick to mess with the system that THEY don't want you to know!!
Automated cars, at least on paper, allow our theoretical jaywalking rear end in a top hat to assume #1-3 will go in their favor. They still have to take a risk on #4, but a lot of uncertainty gets knocked out. As the era of worldwide anonymous communication has shown us, if you reduce the risk of rear end in a top hat behavior having consequences a lot of people will do it. I don't think it'd be a big problem in most areas, but even now with all of the risks there are people willing to abuse pedestrian right of way laws, so it's reasonable to think at least some more would do it if they could assume most vehicles would auto-stop for them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 07:45
|
|
|
Since those autonomous vehicles will have "a few" sensors. Automatically record 360° camera footage during emergency situations. Think of it as an automatic dashcan for use in insuarance claims. Thus every driver can easily prove that naughty boy/girl X broke the law. Thanks to nearly every idiot being on facebook and image recognition software, fining might be possible. Also say goodbye to any sort of private data. I guess storing telemetry in emergency situations will be in the interest of the car production company. To prove that their system wasn't at fault. So I guess this is bound be on board.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 08:24
|
|
|
wolrah posted:With a human driver, the vehicle will stop if But again, in order for this to cause actual systemic problems, we'd have to find a bunch of people willing to spend their days mildly inconveniencing people in cars, as opposed to like, having jobs or going to school or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
Kaal posted:The cars that you are talking about have so-called "self-driving features", which mean they have the capability to maneuver the vehicle. A car with lane-assist is considered to have "semi-autonomous self-driving features", and those have been on the market for a while now, but those cars haven't had anything near a revolutionary impact. quote:The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has seen a 7 percent reduction in crashes for vehicles with a basic forward-collision warning system, and a 14 to 15 percent reduction for those with automatic braking. If a 14-15 percent reduction in crashes translates into a similar reduction in fatalities, even that would be a huge deal (although a much smaller reduction than fully self-driving cars should have). Now, I realize at this time that's a tiny minority of cars; my thinking is that full self-driving may have faster uptake since it's a much more compelling feature. It may depend on how expensive it is when it comes out. quote:In five years it is expected that we'll be seeing some of the first "fully-autonomous" vehicles, but they will remain "user-operated", meaning that the driver will be required to take over from the computer when needed (this could mean anything from "in case of accident" to "when leaving a pre-mapped highway"). quote:Google is planning on implementing a fully driverless vehicle without a steering wheel, but that vehicle is also limited to 25 mph and essentially appears intended for navigating their sprawling and thoroughly-mapped campuses, and eventually doing local commuting. It was a little telling that during the recent press unveiling of the prototypes the driver immediately took control (via a removable interface) when a cyclist had an accident in front of them. At another press event, the Google Podcar stopped and courteously waited for a row of folding chairs to cross the street. It's a long, long way from that to mandating usage for all Americans. Beyond that, I don't know. I don't want to completely derail the Traffic Engineering thread with discussions of futurism, but I think that it's fair to say that the 3PM elements won't be a concern for quite a while. quote:As for Apple: While it's becoming increasingly clear that self-driving technology will be a major milestone, and Apple is clearly recognizing that, their decision to get their skin in the game doesn't imply an imminent breakthrough. Apple is a long way behind Google, and if they want to compete for any share of that future and no-doubt lucrative market then they're going to need to start catching up now. I think what would we should all be able to agree on is that all this stuff is very hard to predict, this is kind of uncharted territory. For all we know, the biggest problem could end up being that a testing self-driving car hits Obama's daughters and then they get banned from the road for decades. edit: also I don't think "jaywalkers just randomly walking into the street without looking whenever they want" will be a big problem, because that will only become a rational thing to do once 99%+ of the cars on the street are self-driving, and by the time that happens, self-driving cars will have been on the road for a couple decades, giving us plenty of time to figure out a way to deal with it. Nobody's going to go, "driverless cars have been on sale for a whole year, time to waltz into traffic with reckless abandon". Cicero fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Aug 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
"Jaywalking rear end in a top hat" "pedestrians abusing their right of way" Some of you people are maniacs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
Chemmy posted:Some of you people are maniacs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Chemmy posted:"Jaywalking rear end in a top hat" "pedestrians abusing their right of way" I have nothing against jaywalking when done properly, which means waiting until there's a sufficient gap that you can clear the road without causing anyone to have to slow down. I'll do it without a second thought if there's not a proper crossing nearby and traffic is appropriate. If you don't wait for such a gap and just count on the fact that most people don't want to kill you, you're an rear end in a top hat. If crossing where and when they're supposed to, pedestrians should always have right of way. That's the whole point of the crossing. If they choose to cross anywhere else or against the signal at a proper crossing they should be responsible for their own actions. It's not hard to jaywalk in such a way that you're not at risk of being hit, which also nicely benefits drivers by not making them have to unexpectedly slow/stop to avoid killing someone. It's a win-win. A good general rule of being on the road no matter whether on foot or in/on a vehicle of any kind is if you make someone have to slow or stop suddenly and you could have reasonably done something different to avoid that, you probably just did something lovely.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:We don't need to worry about that, it's not realistic in the least. Who's going to build this "affordable housing", anyway? They're building new houses in Victorville again. They're selling them too. There's not much work in VV or even 30 milea from there (San bernardino). Rich people are moving back to the cities. Poor people are being forced out once again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
Uber is taking UberPool one step closer to being a bus route:quote:Uber lets us trade money for time. But the cheaper the rides, the more people who will use Uber. That’s why it’s testing a way to let you pay less money for a little less convenience and a little less time saved. I recently spotted a new option in UberPool in San Francisco, and Uber now confirms it’s testing what it calls “Smart Routes.” Dynamic transit lines, essentially? This could be a really cool development, particularly if local transit agencies eventually do something similar. Think of how useful this could be for large events.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Uber is taking UberPool one step closer to being a bus route: They've managed to reinvent the airport shuttle, congrats Uber Edit: wait, no they didn't. But they should
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
nm posted:They're building new houses in Victorville again. They're selling them too. There's not much work in VV or even 30 milea from there (San bernardino). You're not very poor if you can afford to get and maintain the mortgage on a brand new house while driving 60 miles or more a day, especially with California gas prices. As of 2013 the latest year with data, the average car owned by Americans (as opposed to new cars being bought) got 23.5 miles per gallon. So that situation's nearly $50 a week on gas for commuting alone. Kinda hard to afford that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
wolrah posted:Are you defending just randomly stepping out in to traffic and expecting everyone to stop for you? Because that's what we're talking about here. But the implicit idea in what you've just said is that in the vast majority of cases, pedestrians are forced to stop and wait for traffic to clear before crossing a road. That traffic has forced them to stop - it's not 'unexpected' but that's only because motor companies spent decades normalising motor vehicle priority during the 20th century. Obviously stepping directly in front of a speeding car isn't ideal for either participant, but I don't really see why it would be a disaster if it became the norm in cities which aspire to be pleasant and walkable for cars to slow and stop for pedestrians crossing more than a stopping distance ahead of them. Why is is it so important that they don't stop for pedestrians when they're usually moments away from stopping for the car at the end next queue they encounter?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You're not very poor if you can afford to get and maintain the mortgage on a brand new house while driving 60 miles or more a day, especially with California gas prices. As of 2013 the latest year with data, the average car owned by Americans (as opposed to new cars being bought) got 23.5 miles per gallon. So that situation's nearly $50 a week on gas for commuting alone. Kinda hard to afford that. Those houses sell for dramatically less than a house in the rest of socal. Many of them become rental properties too. And yes, it is kind of hard to afford. So is thousands on rent. 50 bucks a week is 200 a month and you can save more than that moving to vv if you don't value your time. Many of these home companies are still targeting the working poor and the lower middle class (which is really just poor but won't claim to be poor).
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
My main tinfoil hat worry with self driving cars is that BECAUSE they follow the rules perfectly and actually stop everywhere they should (including "jay walkers") drivers, who are a powerful lobby and tend to get what ever they want (at leas historically) will throw a fit and we'll see crosswalks taken away and jay-walking fines/enforcement get even more draconian. That and so many people hand-wave away the problems of sprawl and auto-centric living with "oh don't worry self-driving electric cars are coming". I don't want self-driving cars to usher in a new 1950's where walking is marginalized and criminalized even further. Basically I want to make sure self-driving vehicles simply make things safer for everyone while as a society we aggressively attempt to lower the mode-share of private-motoring, self driving or not, by making transit, walking, and cycling both safer and more attractive/convenient. I don't want the vague promise of self-driving cars to excuse horrible urban planning and transit funding today, nor erode them in the future.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
Jonnty posted:But the implicit idea in what you've just said is that in the vast majority of cases, pedestrians are forced to stop and wait for traffic to clear before crossing a road. That traffic has forced them to stop - it's not 'unexpected' but that's only because motor companies spent decades normalising motor vehicle priority during the 20th century. Obviously stepping directly in front of a speeding car isn't ideal for either participant, but I don't really see why it would be a disaster if it became the norm in cities which aspire to be pleasant and walkable for cars to slow and stop for pedestrians crossing more than a stopping distance ahead of them. Why is is it so important that they don't stop for pedestrians when they're usually moments away from stopping for the car at the end next queue they encounter? Significantly less energy is wasted by one pedestrian waiting for a safe time to cross a road as compared to an entire arterial roadway grinding to a halt for one person.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:My main tinfoil hat worry with self driving cars is that BECAUSE they follow the rules perfectly and actually stop everywhere they should (including "jay walkers") drivers, who are a powerful lobby and tend to get what ever they want (at leas historically) will throw a fit and we'll see crosswalks taken away and jay-walking fines/enforcement get even more draconian. That and so many people hand-wave away the problems of sprawl and auto-centric living with "oh don't worry self-driving electric cars are coming". I don't want self-driving cars to usher in a new 1950's where walking is marginalized and criminalized even further. Self-driving cars should be a huge boon to lower single-occupancy driving and car dominance. Not only will they be safer for pedestrians and cyclists, cheap self-driving taxis will make it a lot easier for people in urban areas to ditch having their own personal car, which will reduce demand for parking. This is already a trend thanks to Zipcar, Car2go, Uber, etc. but having even better on-demand car options should accelerate it. Devor posted:They've managed to reinvent the airport shuttle, congrats Uber Cicero fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Aug 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
Self driving buses will also be game changers. The biggest cost for transit is labor, eliminate the driver and suddenly you can run fixed route transit a lot more effectively. Though the fact that champions of self driving technology never bring this up is rather telling as to what their desired future looks like.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:My main tinfoil hat worry with self driving cars is that BECAUSE they follow the rules perfectly and actually stop everywhere they should (including "jay walkers") drivers, who are a powerful lobby and tend to get what ever they want (at leas historically) will throw a fit and we'll see crosswalks taken away and jay-walking fines/enforcement get even more draconian. That and so many people hand-wave away the problems of sprawl and auto-centric living with "oh don't worry self-driving electric cars are coming". I don't want self-driving cars to usher in a new 1950's where walking is marginalized and criminalized even further. But why would any of this happen? It doesn't make sense. You'd think if it was going to happen it would have happened during the past like 80 years of car dominance, rather then waiting until the time period when pedestrians would be even less of a "problem" from the car "driver" perspective because they don't need to pay any attention to the road at all. Cicero posted:
It doesn't have that potential because Uber's business model relies on being able to burn vast amounts of venture capital cash and exploit workers under a 1099-worker model that's probably going to be explicitly illegal rather soon. It only has potential if a public transit agency is willing to heavily subsidize it with their own drivers, the way most forms of public transit require heavy subsidization to have acceptable service levels. Because this isn't a business model that can proceed with a private company that has to follow actual insurance and wage laws, both of which Uber is notable for relying on dodging.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:It doesn't have that potential because Uber's business model relies on being able to burn vast amounts of venture capital cash quote:and exploit workers under a 1099-worker model that's probably going to be explicitly illegal rather soon. quote:It only has potential if a public transit agency is willing to heavily subsidize it with their own drivers, the way most forms of public transit require heavy subsidization to have acceptable service levels. Because this isn't a business model that can proceed with a private company that has to follow actual insurance and wage laws, both of which Uber is notable for relying on dodging.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:But why would any of this happen? It doesn't make sense. You'd think if it was going to happen it would have happened during the past like 80 years of car dominance, rather then waiting until the time period when pedestrians would be even less of a "problem" from the car "driver" perspective because they don't need to pay any attention to the road at all. I guess my worry, hopefully unfounded, is that if you replaced all the current cars on the road with cars that never speed, follow all the rules to the letter, and are super cautious, traffic is going to get clogged. Didn't some drivers decide to do some "social experiments" where they drove exactly the speed limit down the highway and it created a massive traffic jam and road rage. I know in large amounts of the US it's normal for cars to not stop at crosswalks even if someone is standing there trying to cross, you often have to wait upwards of a dozen cars until someone finally obeys the law and stops for you. People are going to see their commutes get way longer, way more stop and go because all cars are following the rules, and they're going to get mad. They're going to want to change the rules or change the infrastructure. If the fleet was 100% self driving cars you could change the rules, closer following distances, higher speeds. But self-driving cars following every current rule to the letter would have a ton of people noticing their commute time going up and their car actually stopping at unsignaled crosswalks and not just coasting through stop signs. If it got to the point where peoples commute times went up enough I'm sure we'd here arguments about eliminating some crosswalks or putting them on a timer because "why should a couple pedestrians hold up hundreds of commuters?? This is for the greater good", ie all the same rationalizations people used to marginalize and criminalize pedestrians way back in the day. They'll even green-wash their attacks on pedestrians and cyclists with math showing it's more "environmental" to raise speed limits and reduce crossings. Hopefully just paranoia though, I just hear so many sprawl-apologists jumping all over self-driving cars as proof society and land-use/infastructure doesn't need to change and in fact we'll be able to become even more car-centric in the future. Self-driving cars will making transit obsolete! Self driving cars will make cities them selves obsolete! No actual urban planners believe this, but it has a lot of traction with people who are very attached to the status quo and feel threatened by the tiny amount of progress we've made in the last decade.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 00:58
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Is this really unusual at all for a start-up? Uber has expanded crazy fast. Seems like if they stopped expanding as quickly they could easily be profitable. They can't be profitable if they have to obey the actual employee and insurance regulations they currently try to buy their way out of. Uber can't afford to be profitable if they're actually buying and maintaining self driving cars themselves, at current fares. Remember, the only reason they even have a shot at profitability (if they were to win anti-worker's rights positions) is that they offload as much cost as possible to the suckers who drive for them The thing is this kind of thing is inherently going to be unprofitable in the places it's most needed. That's why it's needs to be something run by a public transit agency who can afford the subsidization. Baronjutter posted:I know in large amounts of the US it's normal for cars to not stop at crosswalks even if someone is standing there trying to cross, you often have to wait upwards of a dozen cars until someone finally obeys the law and stops for you. Uh just for starters, this isn't the law in most places, that you have to stop just because someone wants to cross. At most it's the law that if someone is already crossing you have to wait for them to finish, if they're in a marked crosswalk, which is usually only going to be by a stop sign or traffic signal to begin with. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 01:04 on Aug 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
Self-driving cars aren't going to unflinchingly follow the law even when it's a bad idea.quote:Google's self-driving cars are programmed to exceed speed limits by up to 10mph (16km/h), according to the project's lead software engineer. quote:Uber can't afford to be profitable if they're actually buying and maintaining self driving cars themselves, at current fares. Cicero fucked around with this message at 01:05 on Aug 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
Javid posted:Significantly less energy is wasted by one pedestrian waiting for a safe time to cross a road as compared to an entire arterial roadway grinding to a halt for one person. True - traffic laws are dictated by raw energy efficiency, which is why unnecessarily large cars aren't allowed in cities and single-occupancy is banned. Oh wait.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 09:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 19:31 |
|
|
Cicero posted:
Their current financial reports, which show them losing millions a month with their current strategy of pay for nothing but the servers and what amounts to massive subsides on their fares to try to undercut regular taxi companies. And remember, that's with them not having to pay all the money for buying brand new self driving cars, and keep them maintained and fueled - in their current business model the sucker buys the car, drives it, and pays all the incidental costs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 14:55
|
|