Uber Ordered to Halt Driverless Cars on Day of SF Launch

So far, I've most read " a huge mess for insurance companies" and a whole lot of positive response to that.

Funny , insurance companies as about that last ones to feel sorry for.


Oh, and wait drivers and robots sharing the same road,, commonly.
That does not compute.

 

If you're driving under the speed limit on the highway, I'd question your judgement and your ability to drive.

 

Pftttt.....cars do that all day every day here and ours do have drivers.

 

We are slowly de skilling ourselves. This is just another stupid idea that will eventually become common place. Cars have got safer yet accidents have not dropped proportionately because for every safety improvement our confidence levels go up and we pay less attention to the task in hand. The best safety aid would be a six inch spike in the middle of the streering wheel. Oh you would pay attention then wouldn't you.

 

It will take awhile - but it will happen. The trucking/freight companies are already licking their lips and, when there is big business and lots of money behind something, it definitely will happen.

Mistakes ? Accidents ? Sure , initially, but there won't be 50,000+ deaths per year (almost as much as total US losses in Vietnam over 10 years - every year).

Indeed. How people drive on their "commutes" ( I rarely drive in rush hour and it astounds me when I do) leads me to believe a lot of folks leave themselves twice as much time as they actually need so they can drive extra slooooowwwww.

I'm not inconveniencing you on the roads - don't inconvenience me.


Oh yeah - and driverless cars. Soon. Get ready to shake your fists (but I don't think the "robots" will notice...)

 

Kinda, what I was saying. But more so, if we don't do it right we might not actually get all the way there. Far too often business finds the line between cheap and what we'll accept and stops there. If we get down to 25,000 deaths that'd be great right!?! And many companies would be okay with that, but I'd rather we go forward with intelligence and work towards hitting 0. If we don't watch and push the 'progress' we'll end up with something far less progressive than it should be.

I would argue that the second someone going slow on the road is inconveniencing you, you haven't left enough time to get where you're going. We have minimums, and so long as someone is above that they're in their right. If people were not rushing in cars all the time we would have a lot fewer deaths each year too. Better late then dead is an unfortunately true statement.

 

That's not supported by either the science or the laws. Time and time again, it's been shown that the major cause of accidents on a highway has not been absolute speed, but variations of speed between cars. If you're going slower than traffic, even if that traffic is going 80 mph, you're a hazard.

In Colorado, you can (and should be) ticketed if you're impeding traffic behind you, even if the tragic behind you "wants" to speed, and you're traveling at the speed limit.

 

I expect a day when robot cars will be mandated, and I pity the man who bought a conventional car the year before.
It will be worthless yet he will still have to make the payments.

 

Honestly question what every you want. I keep it at about 60 in the slow lane. I'm not getting in the fast lane or passing lanes or blocking everyone.

 

We all have a speed that seems comfortable to us. A speed that we will do if we are able and traffic/obstacles etc are not in our way.

Yours is 60. Mine is 80-ish, which on some freeway systems will get your ass handed to you.

Last year of college I was driving a near- mint 73 Olds 98 Regency with the 455.

I would occasionally look down at the speedometer when I was on I-75 and find I was going 110-120.

It was so long and the motor was so strong and I was 25 and ...man I miss that boat...

 

Doesn't make the actions of people correct. If everyone on the highway is going 100, it does not mean you should also be driving 100 to be safe. The reason they person who is not following the pack mentality is a danger is largely due to the other drivers being distracted / in a rush. There is no reason a car going slower than you should be a hazard for that fact alone unless other cars are also at fault.

 

Damn! I'm buying another ZX14...while I still can.

 

I think that if the test seemed to be dangerous, it was a good idea to suspend it and find out what was happening and why. That's not really a reason to whoop with derision if you are an opponent or disbeliever is self-drive automobiles; and it's not a reason to feel shame or anger if you are a proponent. It's just an obvious step in the testing and implementation of a new technology that is obviously extremely complex. I dislike driving in Frisco on any day of the week my own self, because it is so complex.

 

The car's sensors determined there was no eminent danger and floored it. So human like.

 

Oh well, can't win them all.

 

....and then on top of it, I'll turbo-charge the damn thing, should be good for about 350hp.

 

I think of myself as a pretty forward thinking guy, but I'm not ready for driverless cars. If I want someone else to drive, I ride the bus. I get why they might be appropriate for certain situations I guess. Economically it makes sense for this to start in cities, but for safety testing don't they want to pilot these sorts of programs in mid sized Great Plains cities with wide streets and less congestion?

 

If the software in those cars is anything like that put our by Microsoft, the cars will be buggy disasters that require constant update patches.