Autonomous Vehicles NOT Ready for Prime-Time

[Woodie]

Air bags (by the dozen), Anti Lock brakes, Stability Control, all mandated by law. Now that backup cameras are required, the manufacturer has to install a screen somewhere. Might as well just integrate EVERYTHING into there, so that nothing will not be interconnected. The bloody cigarette lighter depends upon the touch panel working correctly, and they're notoriously unreliable.

[KuroNekko]

I completely and fully understand the differences between the two, AND, their perpetual dependencies upon one another. I wonder if you, as well as others not profiting from said technology, understand the dependencies? The never ending use of distractions while driving (or even walking around) caused by the mere presence of non-essential technology in vehicles that we just can't live without. These 'infotainment', dumb-phones, nav-gadgets, whatever, distractions, are to be countered by more technology, autonomy...automation. And if it one thing I know intimately is automation. All of which will be jammed down our throats in the name of received 'safety'. Why? Because of the distractions, which are profitable and permitted for use in vehicles. Hence the vicious, absurd and expensive cycle. A repeat drunk needs an ignition permission to operate a car. But an increscent dumb-phone user...no problem, let-er rip on down the road. I personally don't view either any differently.also really

As far as base models go, believe me, I seek them out and buy them when I'm in the market. The pickin's are less than slim for anything functional, affordable or worth a damn especially in the "ultimate driver's machine" category. The lots are not, and were not, overflowing with manual trans GTS/SLS Kizashis for instance. The K is/was the perfect blend of what a driver's car should be. Not packed terribly full of techno annoyance, was affordable and surprise, doesn't exist any longer. However the lowest model POS's all have a touch-screen jammed in the dash as standard equipment. People that can't afford a real and dependable mode of transport have to have a screen ya know. It's practically a God-given right anymore. The autonomy may not drive of the purchase price of the car (by intention), yet as many are experiencing, it's the fixing it when its busted aspect that is not only expensive, it's usually a long, drawn-out time consuming and frustrating ordeal.

How anything is used, well, bottom line is you simply can't fix stupid and technology sure as hell can't fix it when, in fact, all technology is accomplishing is perpetuating stupidity. Yes everything has its uses for good, then excessive use comes along as a 'natural progression' and generally breeds trouble.

I'd suggest not bringing up 'the firearm topic' then if you don't want that discussion as I'm afraid we'd likely disagree horribly on the subject. Once again, it's all about safety...

There is a virtue to simplicity I can certainly agree with but the consumer demands are showing the industry that technological features are what most want. The automakers will obviously give people what they want or think they want in trade for sales. You remarked that it's hard to find base models and the reason why is reflective of the fact that most people don't buy them. From the reviews and articles I've read on various models from different makes, it's apparent that the top level trim sells better than the lowest trim.

As for the firearm analogy, I simply brought it up to contrast the positions I imagine you'd take. With infotainment and automation technology in cars, you deem them unsafe and probably support a resistance or regulation against them vs. a free market approach focusing on owner responsibility. Yet, for firearms, I imagine your views would be flipped, supporting less or no restrictions and siding with the opinion that safety is the responsibility of owners, not an authority. That's what I was getting at. Please correct me if my assumptions were wrong.

Lastly, I find this article related to automated driving rather interesting.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/driving-drun ... 00243.html

Air bags (by the dozen), Anti Lock brakes, Stability Control, all mandated by law.

All have increased the weight, complexity, and price of vehicles. However, all have also contributed significantly to lowering the likeliness of accidents from driver input and/or causalities resulting from them. Simply put, occupant survival rates have increased dramatically due to these and when comparing death rates from accidents to nations with less regulatory standards and more primitive cars, it really shows.

[Ronzuki]

Can you guess how I voted?

https://www.theengineer.co.uk/poll-auto ... 6f52ee9238

[KuroNekko]

Ronzuki, your sentiments remind me of this scene from Robocop.

[Ronzuki]

[Ronzuki]

One helluva promo aye?

http://www.foxnews.com/auto/2017/11/08/ ... aunch.html

BTW, incase you're wondering, I voted in the survey above to put this non-sense on the road "when it's nearly flawless". Which can never happen because of the simple fact that modern industrial technology, and that's what a self-driving anything is, is getting worse as far as "flawless" is concerned.

[BLyons]

That article left out all the key facts and greatly exaggerated things. The shuttle sensed a delivery truck backing up into its path. It stopped. The truck driver did not stop and dinged the fender a little bit. The truck driver was cited and the shuttle kept operating. But telling the truth doesn't make for as good of news as selling fear.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/11/08/s ... as-launch/

[KuroNekko]

One helluva promo aye?

http://www.foxnews.com/auto/2017/11/08/ ... aunch.html

BTW, incase you're wondering, I voted in the survey above to put this non-sense on the road "when it's nearly flawless". Which can never happen because of the simple fact that modern industrial technology, and that's what a self-driving anything is, is getting worse as far as "flawless" is concerned.

I wish we had the same standards for human drivers. I wish they were behind the wheel when they were "nearly flawless" drivers. But nope! Drunk, high, distracted, reckless, it's the norm when it comes to humans.

That article left out all the key facts and greatly exaggerated things. The shuttle sensed a delivery truck backing up into its path. It stopped. The truck driver did not stop and dinged the fender a little bit. The truck driver was cited and the shuttle kept operating. But telling the truth doesn't make for as good of news as selling fear.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/11/08/s ... as-launch/

I've also noticed this in many articles. They sensationalize the event but don't actually investigate the accident details like what caused the crash and who was responsible. In nearly every single incident involving automated driving, it was determined to be human error, especially in accidents involving two vehicles.
This sort of reporting is obviously chasing clicks, feeding on those who may have an agenda. It's akin to, say hypothetically, Saudi Arabian news always reporting on when female drivers get into accidents. Whether stated blatantly or not, the agenda is that many feel female drivers are dangerous, reinforcing the notion of the threat to the recent status quo when women weren't allowed to drive. However, the news ignores the fact that in most of these accidents, the fault was on a male driver of a different car rather than the female driver. However, this fact is ignored due to the agenda and sensationalization. What matters to them is that the accident involved an automated vehicle or a female driver, not the actual facts of who actually caused the accident. Be wary of the media.

[Ronzuki]

I wish we had the same standards for human drivers. I wish they were behind the wheel when they were "nearly flawless" drivers. But nope! Drunk, high, distracted, reckless, it's the norm when it comes to humans.

We do have 'standards' and rules... for just about everything. Human drivers...makes it exceptionally easy to determine who is at fault. The driver, the human. Nothing else. Flawless or not, tech or human, sh!ts going to happen and I want to be able to point my finger at the individual that efed up and hold them accountable. So, when the tech efs-up, tell me, who exactly is at fault? The list is ENDLESS. Endless lists in the courts means endless amounts of time, endless amounts of money and endless amounts of aggravation. None of which the average Joe-blow has or wants.

Throw all this magical, and literally mind-numbing, tech into the mix upon our not-so-stellar roadways...then who, or what, is at fault? Lots of entities and, with the wheels of injustice schlogging along at the speed of nearly reverse as usual, shouldn't take but the rest of one's life and many, many 10s of thousands of dollars to resolve and conclude. Who's the law going to slide in to bed with? Me the real victim, or the giant companies with the large bank accounts and armies of attorneys that can totally confuse that act of chewing gum? Never-mind the political numb-nuts that'll be creating the laws, in a vacuum, governing things they know absolutely less than zero about. Can't hardly wait to see all the unintended collateral damage created from their 'hard work' crafting said laws. Again, a GREAT time to be an up and coming lawyer.

As far as the media is concerned...I couldn't agree with you more. However, for once, one of their 'brain-washing the masses' campaigns is aligning with my point of view! Keep up the good work fellas!

[KuroNekko]

I'm going to have to disagree with your notions of the complications it will cause legally. If anything, it will get much better because proving fault will involve less opinions and witnesses and more objective data as computers get involved. Today, you get into an accident and other people who weren't even there assess and assign blame based on the word of others. In some cases, you get partial fault. To protect myself, I have a GPS-enabled dash camera recording every time I drive. If there's an accident, I at least have objective evidence to present.

With automated driving, computers are monitoring driving conditions and will most likely be able to reveal in data what caused an accident. As the technology progresses and automated cars become more common, they will inevitably communicate with other automated vehicles, creating a computerized driving environment that not only relies on cameras and sensors, but data from other cars and GPS. This would likely greatly reduce not only accidents but also traffic jams as traffic flow will be optimized by computers. Research has already proved that the leading cause of traffic jams is human error is assessing the movement and flow of other cars.

Also, your concerns are reactive. You're basically concerned about what happens after an accident however, it's very likely that advanced automated driving is actually going to make the likelihood of accidents lower than ever. This is especially important in the current day and age of so many distractions. If there's anything to be concerned about, it's making sure we all pay much less for insurance in the future when driving becomes safer than ever thanks to automation.