Why won't people turn on their headlights?

[cruisingdownthestreet]

i truly believe we have a moral and civic duty to inform someone who doesn't have their headlights on by honking, flashing high beams, and/or pointing a flashlight at them.

[doogee]

How about all the Audi and Volvo drivers that drive around with their rear fog lights on in clear daylight?

It's things like this that make me excited for autonomous driving. People in North America cannot handle driving. There is no education behind it like there is in most European countries.

Self driving cars will be a big sigh of relief for road safety. Just sucks for the people that actually enjoyed driving. We'll probably be stuck trailering our gas cars to the racetrack if we want to drive them.

[Viffermike]

Originally Posted by doogee

How about all the Audi and Volvo drivers that drive around with their rear fog lights on in clear daylight?

It's things like this that make me excited for autonomous driving. People in North America cannot handle driving. There is no education behind it like there is in most European countries.

Self driving cars will be a big sigh of relief for road safety. Just sucks for the people that actually enjoyed driving. We'll probably be stuck trailering our gas cars to the racetrack if we want to drive them.

If autonomous cars work about as well as auto(nomous) headlights, well ...



... every autonomous car will be required to have a manual override mode, just as every car with auto headlights has a manual override mode. Trust in that, with the realization that many owners of those future cars will choose to drive them manually.

[MightyMouseTech]

Originally Posted by doogee

How about all the Audi and Volvo drivers that drive around with their rear fog lights on in clear daylight?

It's things like this that make me excited for autonomous driving. People in North America cannot handle driving. There is no education behind it like there is in most European countries.

Self driving cars will be a big sigh of relief for road safety. Just sucks for the people that actually enjoyed driving. We'll probably be stuck trailering our gas cars to the racetrack if we want to drive them.

They will never, ever remove the ability to drive any current vehicle. You can still drive around in a Model T if you want.

Can not wait for autonomous cars. Then the sheep will GTFO of the way.

[Viffermike]

Originally Posted by MightyMouseTech

They will never, ever remove the ability to drive any current vehicle. You can still drive around in a Model T if you want.

Can not wait for autonomous cars. Then the sheep will GTFO of the way.

Not to derail, so I'll metaphor-ize this:

Just as there are left-lane hogs who do that just to spite those who drive properly (see another thread) and clueless drivers who don't pay attention to how visible their car is at the proper times (headlights), there will be autonomous-car haters who will do crazy, crazy shite around those self-driving cars to see if they can get them to fail.

Bank on that.

[jpnh]

Originally Posted by MightyMouseTech

They will never, ever remove the ability to drive any current vehicle. You can still drive around in a Model T if you want.

Can not wait for autonomous cars. Then the sheep will GTFO of the way.

I suspect it will be the other way around.....everyone/autonomous cars will be mandated to be the sheep and conform with whatever the collective of other cars and their programming will allow

This thread and the other could very easily be combined as its really almost the exact same issue being discussed

[doogee]

Originally Posted by MightyMouseTech

They will never, ever remove the ability to drive any current vehicle. You can still drive around in a Model T if you want.

It's going to happen. Not for a very long time, but this is where things are headed.

Autonomous cars are the solution to accidents and traffic jams. At some point there will be no place for "manually operated vehicles".

[VRG_135]

And another one tonight......I'm sure they thought the daytime running lights were the headlights......

[Vigilante375]

I'm going to go with these are people that live in cities or drive on major highways or an Interstate. All of those have street lights that light up to road enough for them to see and not able to tell if their headlights are on. Thats the idiots I see since I drive in area's that are very well lit.

My thing is, if your headlights are not in the ON position then your dash should be blinding you or no lights should be turned on. That should be the first damn clue. Idiots should be thinking "Why are my dash lights so bright?" or "Why can't I read the dash gauges?"

Common sense is nothing this day and age. Cars are getting "smarter" and people are getting dumber because they are expecting the car to do everything for them.

[FC4]

If I notice someone's lights are not on when they should be...I carry on with my life.

[Viffermike]

Originally Posted by doogee

It's going to happen. Not for a very long time, but this is where things are headed.

Autonomous cars are the solution to accidents and traffic jams. At some point there will be no place for "manually operated vehicles".

Explain to me how an autonomous vehicle with no manual override would (I'm brainstorming here):
1). Be drive-able to be serviced if something needed repair: i.e., a body panel, a tire losing air, a knocked-off mirror, a noncritical software glitch, etc.
2). Be drive-able in countries without the infrastructure to support the system: i.e. [insert Second- and/or Third-World country here]
3). Be drive-able in remote areas where conventional GPS signals cannot or do not reach (i.e. parts of Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, Texas, Colorado, Oregon, etc.)
4). Be drive-able below ground (i.e. tunnels, parking garages, etc.) where conventional GPS signals cannot or do not reach
5). Be drive-able on a route not prescribed by the autonomous system (necessary due to everything from traffic issues to fulfilling, say, a distance-based restraining order)
6). Be drive-able for purposes other than simply going from Point A to Point B: i.e., hauling cargo with/without a trailer, going off-road, recreational use, etc. Not everyone has a use for an autonomous Chevy Bolt or somesuch ...
7). Be drive-able during legitimate emergencies where reliance on the system is impractical, too slow, or life-threatening (example: a woman giving birth)

And most of all:
8). Be drive-able because the system itself fails

I've said this in other threads: The autonomous operation of complex vehicles that endanger lives is a pipe dream that does not exist yet and will not exist for several generations. Even in instances where the technology has been in use for many years -- from aircraft autopilot systems to military applications such as guided armaments (cruise missiles, etc.) -- manual override is still either possible or required. Example: pilots must still execute the takeoffs and landings of commercial aircraft.

Don't believe the hype. Blanket autonomous personal vehicles will not happen for a very, very long time -- particularly in the U.S., where such a system goes against the most fundamental right our country was founded on: personal liberty. That cannot be completely sacrificed in the name of saving lives.

[jpnh]

Originally Posted by Viffermike

Don't believe the hype. Blanket autonomous personal vehicles will not happen for a very, very long time -- particularly in the U.S., where such a system goes against the most fundamental right our country was founded on: personal liberty. That cannot be completely sacrificed in the name of saving lives.

Personally I hope it NEVER happens.

If you think people are crappy drivers TODAY when they are forced to practice/apply their driving skills every time they drive.......how bad do you think they are going to be if they only need to apply them once in a while?

[dkmesa]

Originally Posted by to_riffic

Or how bout....why can't people learn to not leave their high-beams on at night when they're driving?

My biggest pet peeve is when a driver has a low beam out and thinks it's acceptable to blind others with their high beams until their lazy ass replaces the low beam.

[dkmesa]

Originally Posted by FC4

If I notice someone's lights are not on when they should be...I carry on with my life.

That is a novel concept. You, sir, are a hero...a true man among boys.

[ShakyDog]

"3). Be drive-able in remote areas where conventional GPS signals cannot or do not reach (i.e. parts of Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, Texas, Colorado, Oregon, etc.)"

I have never been outside in any part of any country, that I was not able to pick up a GPS signal of 30' or better for the last 20 years. Could you give a specific example of an area in those states that do not work with GPS? Cell phone, yes many times, but never with a GPS.

Steve

[doogee]

Originally Posted by Viffermike

Explain to me how an autonomous vehicle with no manual override would (I'm brainstorming here):
1). Be drive-able to be serviced if something needed repair: i.e., a body panel, a tire losing air, a knocked-off mirror, a noncritical software glitch, etc.
2). Be drive-able in countries without the infrastructure to support the system: i.e. [insert Second- and/or Third-World country here]
3). Be drive-able in remote areas where conventional GPS signals cannot or do not reach (i.e. parts of Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, Texas, Colorado, Oregon, etc.)
4). Be drive-able below ground (i.e. tunnels, parking garages, etc.) where conventional GPS signals cannot or do not reach
5). Be drive-able on a route not prescribed by the autonomous system (necessary due to everything from traffic issues to fulfilling, say, a distance-based restraining order)
6). Be drive-able for purposes other than simply going from Point A to Point B: i.e., hauling cargo with/without a trailer, going off-road, recreational use, etc. Not everyone has a use for an autonomous Chevy Bolt or somesuch ...
7). Be drive-able during legitimate emergencies where reliance on the system is impractical, too slow, or life-threatening (example: a woman giving birth)

And most of all:
8). Be drive-able because the system itself fails

I've said this in other threads: The autonomous operation of complex vehicles that endanger lives is a pipe dream that does not exist yet and will not exist for several generations. Even in instances where the technology has been in use for many years -- from aircraft autopilot systems to military applications such as guided armaments (cruise missiles, etc.) -- manual override is still either possible or required. Example: pilots must still execute the takeoffs and landings of commercial aircraft.

Don't believe the hype. Blanket autonomous personal vehicles will not happen for a very, very long time -- particularly in the U.S., where such a system goes against the most fundamental right our country was founded on: personal liberty. That cannot be completely sacrificed in the name of saving lives.

You may need to do some more research on the topic because you aren't very clear on it. Also, never did I mention this was going to happen anytime soon. And of course there is no answer to some of these questions yet. But a solution will be found.

1). Be drive-able to be serviced if something needed repair: i.e., a body panel, a tire losing air, a knocked-off mirror, a noncritical software glitch, etc.

This I am not sure, but it doesn't sound like an overly difficult problem. I can easily see autonomous tow vehicles though.

2). Be drive-able in countries without the infrastructure to support the system: i.e. [insert Second- and/or Third-World country here]

I wouldn't expect autonomous driving to be a thing in third world countries.

3). Be drive-able in remote areas where conventional GPS signals cannot or do not reach (i.e. parts of Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, Texas, Colorado, Oregon, etc.)

Easy, autonomous vehicle aren't being build to rely on GPS, this is pretty well known. Most manufacturers are already gathering driving data from everyday vehicle and mapping out exactly how traffic flows, how long red lights are, where the car is positioned etc. Tesla downloads this information to their cars through an update. So you can only imagine how powerful this will be in only a decade. If you don't think gathering enough data is possible, just take a look at what Google has done around the worth with Google Streetview. It's amazing.

4). Be drive-able below ground (i.e. tunnels, parking garages, etc.) where conventional GPS signals cannot or do not reach

Read my response to #3.

5). Be drive-able on a route not prescribed by the autonomous system (necessary due to everything from traffic issues to fulfilling, say, a distance-based restraining order)

Not sure how to answer this one.

6). Be drive-able for purposes other than simply going from Point A to Point B: i.e., hauling cargo with/without a trailer, going off-road, recreational use, etc. Not everyone has a use for an autonomous Chevy Bolt or somesuch ...

Again, I don't have an answer for this one. Lots of problems to be solved still.

7). Be drive-able during legitimate emergencies where reliance on the system is impractical, too slow, or life-threatening (example: a woman giving birth)

Don't have a solid answer to this one. But with traffic being greatly reduced, I wouldn't be surprised if emergency specific lanes were brought into areas with a large population.

And most of all:
8). Be drive-able because the system itself fails.

Unfortunately, this might not be a thing. With the way things are headed, cars aren't going to need nearly the same amount of maintenance, they'll become much more reliable and in the grand scheme of things accidents etc will be so much lower without human control that the end result is still a massive improvement.

[joshe92]

s

[Viffermike]

Originally Posted by doogee

You may need to do some more research on the topic because you aren't very clear on it. Also, never did I mention this was going to happen anytime soon. And of course there is no answer to some of these questions yet. But a solution will be found.

1). Be drive-able to be serviced if something needed repair: i.e., a body panel, a tire losing air, a knocked-off mirror, a noncritical software glitch, etc.

This I am not sure, but it doesn't sound like an overly difficult problem. I can easily see autonomous tow vehicles though.

2). Be drive-able in countries without the infrastructure to support the system: i.e. [insert Second- and/or Third-World country here]

I wouldn't expect autonomous driving to be a thing in third world countries.

3). Be drive-able in remote areas where conventional GPS signals cannot or do not reach (i.e. parts of Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, Texas, Colorado, Oregon, etc.)

Easy, autonomous vehicle aren't being build to rely on GPS, this is pretty well known. Most manufacturers are already gathering driving data from everyday vehicle and mapping out exactly how traffic flows, how long red lights are, where the car is positioned etc. Tesla downloads this information to their cars through an update. So you can only imagine how powerful this will be in only a decade. If you don't think gathering enough data is possible, just take a look at what Google has done around the worth with Google Streetview. It's amazing.

4). Be drive-able below ground (i.e. tunnels, parking garages, etc.) where conventional GPS signals cannot or do not reach

Read my response to #3.

5). Be drive-able on a route not prescribed by the autonomous system (necessary due to everything from traffic issues to fulfilling, say, a distance-based restraining order)

Not sure how to answer this one.

6). Be drive-able for purposes other than simply going from Point A to Point B: i.e., hauling cargo with/without a trailer, going off-road, recreational use, etc. Not everyone has a use for an autonomous Chevy Bolt or somesuch ...

Again, I don't have an answer for this one. Lots of problems to be solved still.

7). Be drive-able during legitimate emergencies where reliance on the system is impractical, too slow, or life-threatening (example: a woman giving birth)

Don't have a solid answer to this one. But with traffic being greatly reduced, I wouldn't be surprised if emergency specific lanes were brought into areas with a large population.

And most of all:
8). Be drive-able because the system itself fails.

Unfortunately, this might not be a thing. With the way things are headed, cars aren't going to need nearly the same amount of maintenance, they'll become much more reliable and in the grand scheme of things accidents etc will be so much lower without human control that the end result is still a massive improvement.

No offense, but I have done a bunch of research on this, and I'm well aware that GPS isn't the sole method of geolocation for autonomous cars. Apologies for the lack of clarity, but nevertheless: these cars will need at least two completely failsafe systems -- again, completely failsafe -- to operate even remotely well among both each other and manually operated vehicles:
- Geolocation
- Proximal location (i.e. radars, visual sensors, etc.)

Furthermore, the only one of my points that you were able to try to refute was #3 (and #4 since it is related). All others you conceded were not solve-able at this time. What that tells me, irrespective of your individual argument, is two things:
- There are no real solutions to these scenarios at this time that have the possibility of becoming ultrareliable, and
- Manually operated vehicles will always be mixed among autonomous vehicles in areas where both can operate.

The second one is key and goes hand-in-hand with point #2 because the bottom line is this: our vehicular infrastructure -- roads, power grids, fuelling, even the roads themselves since traffic flow theory would change drastically -- will likely have to be near completely transformed, if not completely rebuilt, for autonomous vehicles to even begin to be viable on a majority scale.

Care to tell me how that will be paid for, and by whom, in each country where such a technology would possibly be viable? And all of this, just to save some lives -- not all, just some -- at the expense of the right to move about freely?

Come on. What automakers and entities like Google and Uber are doing is exploring the possibility for autonomous vehicles to serve their own business purposes, the bottom line of which is one thing and one thing only: revenue. That alone will keep autonomous vehicles from becoming viable on a mass scale for several generations in this country, because by nature, competition discourages collaboration unless it is mandated by a more powerful reality: a government, or fossil fuels running out, or alien invasion (sic), or what have you. And collaboration will be needed to create autonomous systems that are failsafe enough to be viable on a mass scale.

[jpnh]

I expect that the FBI and the NHTSB will need to update their stats gathered each year to include deaths as a result of failed autonoumous driving systems

[Caddyshk]

Originally Posted by MightyMouseTech

They will never, ever remove the ability to drive any current vehicle. You can still drive around in a Model T if you want.

Can not wait for autonomous cars. Then the sheep will GTFO of the way.

You will come around to Ms. Wynne's Socialist Agenda! Sell your Polluting Gas Guzzlers now

[doogee]

Originally Posted by Viffermike

No offense, but I have done a bunch of research on this, and I'm well aware that GPS isn't the sole method of geolocation for autonomous cars. Apologies for the lack of clarity, but nevertheless: these cars will need at least two completely failsafe systems -- again, completely failsafe -- to operate even remotely well among both each other and manually operated vehicles:
- Geolocation
- Proximal location (i.e. radars, visual sensors, etc.)

Furthermore, the only one of my points that you were able to try to refute was #3 (and #4 since it is related). All others you conceded were not solve-able at this time. What that tells me, irrespective of your individual argument, is two things:
- There are no real solutions to these scenarios at this time that have the possibility of becoming ultrareliable, and
- Manually operated vehicles will always be mixed among autonomous vehicles in areas where both can operate.

The second one is key and goes hand-in-hand with point #2 because the bottom line is this: our vehicular infrastructure -- roads, power grids, fuelling, even the roads themselves since traffic flow theory would change drastically -- will likely have to be near completely transformed, if not completely rebuilt, for autonomous vehicles to even begin to be viable on a majority scale.

Care to tell me how that will be paid for, and by whom, in each country where such a technology would possibly be viable? And all of this, just to save some lives -- not all, just some -- at the expense of the right to move about freely?

Come on. What automakers and entities like Google and Uber are doing is exploring the possibility for autonomous vehicles to serve their own business purposes, the bottom line of which is one thing and one thing only: revenue. That alone will keep autonomous vehicles from becoming viable on a mass scale for several generations in this country, because by nature, competition discourages collaboration unless it is mandated by a more powerful reality: a government, or fossil fuels running out, or alien invasion (sic), or what have you. And collaboration will be needed to create autonomous systems that are failsafe enough to be viable on a mass scale.

For you and anyone who is still in denial about this. Just look at current forecasts from vehicle manufacturers and quite a few credible people. It is going to happen. It's your kind of thinking that stalls innovation.

It's going to take a while.

http://www.driverless-future.com/?page_id=384


Also, I never claimed to be an expert. I bet someone can answer your questions with great detail.

Just because I dont know, doesn't mean there is no answer lol.

[MightyMouseTech]

Originally Posted by Caddyshk

You will come around to Ms. Wynne's Socialist Agenda! Sell your Polluting Gas Guzzlers now

Not long now.

Sha na na nah, sha na na nah, heyyyyyy ey eyyyyyy, good bye......


And that is coming from someone who is about as socialist as you can get.