Not for Hawk :)

[HornetMaX]

Even if the preseason test is today in Donington

http://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/08/meet-devbot-a-self-driving-electric-racing-car/

[Hawk]

 

Talking about waving a red flag at a bull(and yes I do know bulls are colour blind) Haha! 

It's all very interesting, but it'll never happen! 

My guess is that their true agenda is to develop technology for driverless cars for public highways, but it'll never become a sport as in F1, and for that reason their only possible development for driverless cars is away from motorsport..... Just my thoughts on this of course. 

Oh! I have thought of a use for this research.... A re-launch of Scalextric!... Would be fun! 

Hawk.
PS: I really don't believe driverless cars are the way forward for public highways either..... I think they are flogging a dead horse there.

[doubledragoncc]

Well imagine it as the next step of simulation racing just a tad more expensive

DD

[HornetMaX]

PS: I really don't believe driverless cars are the way forward for public highways either..... I think they are flogging a dead horse there.

Dead horse ?! Really ?! Man, sometimes I get the doubt that you do live in a cave from the '70s

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-08-18/uber-s-first-self-driving-fleet-arrives-in-pittsburgh-this-month-is06r7on

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/17/self-driving-trucks-impact-on-drivers-jobs-us

[matty0l215]

Either everyone goes driverless (i robot style ) or no-one should.

[HornetMaX]

Either everyone goes driverless (i robot style ) or no-one should.

Why ?

[TFC]

I do think people need to learn to embrace change. I get that progression of technology in any one industry making people obsolete results in redundancies, but redundancies due to technological advances has been something people have been dealing with since before the start of the industrial revolution. Nobody cares and in fact normally welcome the changes until it affects them or someone they know directly, as is life. Having been affected by this myself I know it's never too late to start a new career!

I'm not for or against driverless cars, I don't really see a place for them in motorsport except for maybe the safety car, but logistics and transport sure why not..

[Hawk]

PS: I really don't believe driverless cars are the way forward for public highways either..... I think they are flogging a dead horse there.

Dead horse ?! Really ?! Man, sometimes I get the doubt that you do live in a cave from the '70s

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-08-18/uber-s-first-self-driving-fleet-arrives-in-pittsburgh-this-month-is06r7on

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/17/self-driving-trucks-impact-on-drivers-jobs-us

UBER: Well they are going to be supervised by a driver sitting in the driver seat so that's certainly not "driverless" and shows there lack of confidence in totally driverless technology.

Driverless Trucks: Pure speculation by so called experts(experts predicting any future event usually ends up massively wrong), and to let pure driverless trucks onto the public roads, or any driverless vehicle onto the public highways would be a gross gamble with the general publics safety.

It's not a case of me living in a cave. Lol. It's me looking at what and why they are trying to push this sort of technology. I think you'll find that this attempt to push this current technology will fail badly which will make them all realise that they will have to come at the problem from a totally different direction and by using totally different technology that people will be happy to accept.

Personally I think the problem can only be solved by taking to the air for public transport from A-B and not trying to do it on the cheap by the concept of driverless vehicles.... Think of all the money that would be saved if we didn't have to continually build more roads and the exponentially rising costs of maintaining all those roads? 
Something has got to be done for sure otherwise the roads will just become grid-locked due to the ever increasing traffic loads on them.


This is what people should be thinking about, not driverless road vehicles:
https://www.youtube.com/v/LDp1XztObUQ

Flying Car:
https://www.youtube.com/v/wSvGSnOQms8


Is this a good enough embrace for change guys, or is it you guys that are stuck in the mud and not for a real change in the way things are done? Lol.

But no, it's not about not embracing change at all, it's about looking at what so called experts say we will get compared what we really need to solve the issues.

Ever heard of "Clive Sinclair" and his battery operated buggy? He was convinced that was the next generation of transport.... Well just like him these driverless vehicle experts are going to fail badly and so will anyone who is stupid enough to invest in them. 

Lets face it, driverless road using vehicles are not the solution and don't server any constructive purpose whatsoever. They are just totally on the wrong track with driverless road vehicles in my opinion.

Hawk

[HornetMaX]

Lets face it, driverless road using vehicles are not the solution and don't server any constructive purpose whatsoever.

Set aside reducing the amount of road accidents caused by humans ?

[TFC]

My 'embrace change' post was pretty ambiguous to be fair, it was a generalisation. As I said, not for or against, I think technology like this has to be given a chance before jumping to the conclusion that it's going to fail.. After all, the worlds infrastructure is one big ongoing R&D project.

I do agree that personal air travel would reduce the cost of maintaining public highways, but given that there is no such thing as zero accidents in any medium of transport (such as commercial air travel where computers play a huge part in flying the aircraft) would the fewer accidents be more severe?

[Hawk]

Lets face it, driverless road using vehicles are not the solution and don't server any constructive purpose whatsoever.

Set aside reducing the amount of road accidents caused by humans ?

Yeah, it'll just increase the number of road accidents caused by non-human drivers instead. Hehe! 

Hasn't a driverless function on a car already killed someone in the states?

There will always be failures in technologies and driverless vehicles won't change the accident rates as a whole, could even end up increasing them, and probably end up killing more innocent pedestrians compared to just other road users..... If deaths are going to happen then I would rather a death of another driver involved in creating the accident than an innocent by-standing pedestrian. Innocent pedestrians would probably end up being the greater number of deaths/accidents through driverless vehicle accidents. There are still a lot of situations a computer cannot adapt to quickly when mistakes are made in comparison to a human driver. In other words if a driverless vehicle computer makes a mistake then it's likely to be disastrous, whereas if a human makes a mistake while driving then there is a pretty good chance the driver could correct the mistake without issue, a computer cannot do that because it isn't aware of a mistake other than situations programmed into it.

When we have true AI computing then a AI robot could possibly replace a human driver, but until then it would be a mistake to introduce it without a human supervisor driver(which in itself would make the whole concept of driverless driving pointless).

Hawk.

[Hawk]

My 'embrace change' post was pretty ambiguous to be fair, it was a generalisation. As I said, not for or against, I think technology like this has to be given a chance before jumping to the conclusion that it's going to fail.. After all, the worlds infrastructure is one big ongoing R&D project.

I do agree that personal air travel would reduce the cost of maintaining public highways, but given that there is no such thing as zero accidents in any medium of transport (such as commercial air travel where computers play a huge part in flying the aircraft) would the fewer accidents be more severe?

Totally agree with you that it's just one big R&D project, but at the same time you have to question some of these so called experts judgments.... I'll guarantee that no-one can show me a public pole that says the majority would love to see driverless vehicles introduced to replace human drivers, so it begs the question: Were are these so called experts getting their opinions from and the confidence to say it's the next big change in society? They are not getting it from the ordinary public so just were are they getting their expertise from to form that expert opinion? 

As for the air accidents: Well I'd rather have a very few catastrophic accidents than millions of catastrophic and non catastrophic ones on the roads. Air travel is and always has been a safer way to travel. 

Hawk.

[HornetMaX]

Hasn't a driverless function on a car already killed someone in the states?

Yes indeed. But the numbers of death per driven Km by an autonomous car compared to the same for human-driver car is already now in favor of autonomous cars.
Granted, more data is needed, but from the data we have up to now the signs are there ... and while it is definitely possible that autonomous car will improve over time, it is already known that humans driving skill swill not. Quite the contrary actually, thanks to Pokemon Go

Innocent pedestrians would probably end up being the greater number of deaths/accidents through driverless vehicle accidents.

Any reason that supports that ?

There are still a lot of situations a computer cannot adapt to quickly when mistakes are made in comparison to a human driver. In other words if a driverless vehicle computer makes a mistake then it's likely to be disastrous, whereas if a human makes a mistake while driving then there is a pretty good chance the driver could correct the mistake without issue, a computer cannot do that because it isn't aware of a mistake other than situations programmed into it.

The above is wrong, as the current numbers show.

When we have true AI computing then a AI robot could possibly replace a human driver, but until then it would be a mistake to introduce it without a human supervisor driver(which in itself would make the whole concept of driverless driving pointless).

You may have missed that: that day is really really close, if not already there.
In fact it's so close that the next major problems may not be technical but legal.

Air travel is and always has been a safer way to travel. 

True, but that's because people don't fly their own airplanes in general (they let professional pilots do that, under strict regulations and checks). And because you have a pilot and a co-pilot, a ton of sophisticated instruments and electronics, a giant infrastructure to regulate the whole thing.  And because pilots go to jail if they play with their smartphones while flying
And in case of poor visibility, most modern passenger planes switch to auto-landing ... wonder why ...

But I guess there's no point in discussing: the biggest companies and research institutes in the world are pouring billions of dollars into autonomous cars ... those chaps should ask Hawk, as he already knows they are just wasting time and money

[Hawk]

Well Max we won't really know who's correct until the day comes when they try to push driverless vehicles onto the reluctant public.... Let's wait and see how many investors will lose a lot of money when that day comes..... "Mark my words" comes to mind here.

But I agree that computers do have there uses in auto control situations like blind landings of aircraft and the control of certain control devices that lend to a safer and better control of a vehicle, but that's a whole different world compared to actually putting a computer in total control of a vehicle on the public highways.

I just wonder if they've stress tested their control devices against people who would purposely disrupt the accuracy of the vehicles ability to stay in control? I doubt it if they rely on laser scanning of their environment to create an accurate picture to drive by?

AI: True AI is at least 30 years away they say.... And I'm talking about true AI here and not the current AI we have right now.
In fact when and if they do achieve a true AI system then humans better beware, because they will become smarter faster and stronger than we ever could become. What's to say they wouldn't decide that we need wiping off the face of the earth for their own needs and evolution? 

Hawk.

[HornetMaX]

I though I had already posted this: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-08-18/uber-s-first-self-driving-fleet-arrives-in-pittsburgh-this-month-is06r7on

This month, for public use. It won't be pushed onto reluctant users: you'll be free of not using it if you don't like the idea.

The day it is finally and undoubtedly proven the autonomous vehicles are safer, only motorheads will be against.
Now, you're free to think it will never happen, but what if it happens ? What if it is proven that autonomous cars are safer than human-driven cars ? What will be your position ? I'm curious ...

AI: you've seen too much Terminator ... we're talking about a car that can safely take you from A to B, not about a robot than can self assemble and reason abut how to conquest the galaxy.