Probably going to get buried under the Trump stuff, but
Could there be a time in the future where driverless cars are so effective that human driving will be banned to minimise risk to other people on the road?
Should human drivers be banned in that situation?
Other urls found in this thread:
lauralemay.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
>could there?
yes
>should human drivers be banned?
debatable
The problem with driverless cars is that they're bound to the law...which isn't ALWAYS ... logical
For ex:
What if you're driving on a quite narrow road and you meet a large dead animal (and the line is continuous...can't pass it legally)...does the car just...stop nd stay there until you pick up the animal ?
Its important to have human drivers. The second that cars are 100% computer driven is the second that transportation becomes a 100% cucked Jewgle-owned monopoly that rips you off and imposes jew rules on you. Think of how shitty YouTube is and then imagine having to ride in cars every day that are that shitty.
Say something racist inside the car? Out to the curb you go.
yes and yes
It will happen. Civilization must perish by humans hands or humanity will perish by civilization's hands.
go trump
Yes
Yes
... in urban areas and highways
Rural area roads tend to be complicated (not exactly a tarred road) and would never be banned or restricted there
I fully expect bot-driver only territories or roads
not in America
I think there may be expressways made that are driverless-only, but there is still romance for the car in the country
I want too further ellaborate on this idea but adding human life on the line
>driving down a 2 lane narrow road
> road is overlooking a cliff
>two cars got in a crash infront of you blocking both lanes
>both people run out the car and immediatly go to the side where
>now there is two people in between the wreck and your car
>one person on each lane so no chance of avoiding it
>rach car still has a passanger in it
>all of this happens quickly and there is 40 yards between the automated car and the wreck
>your car takes control but what does it do
Does it run too the cliff or hit the wall which will then hit the cars hit both cars dead on or brake and not stear then hope for the best. This situation will sooner or later happen.
But i genuinly believe completely driverless cars will take off anytime soon. Many states requier you to be in full control of your vehicle so if you are laying down and turning another way doing some random bullshit. You can get a ticket.
fuck yeah trump 2016
Probably, we'll eventually get to the point where there are lots of self driving cars before we realize that self drive + humans is a bad combination. Rather than ban self driving cars, they'll ban humans from driving cars because or car companies and their money.
>should human drivers be banned?
Well, I really wouldn't want a computer completely controller my car. After all, a computer, no matter how advanced, can be hacked, exploited, and broken. Having someone else maliciously taking control of the car I'm riding in is a very unsettling thought.
>Captcha: Select all images with street signs
the irony of youtube is that without it the prevalence of anti jewish conspiracies would be greatly diminished
Yes but the danger of human drivers will just be an excuse. Computer drivers will be mandatory in order to control movement.
then 50 years later the car dictates how you will romance
then it just goes ahead and gives ur bitch a car baby
see where it goes?
it's a slippery slope
See, you didn"t get flooded with trump guys, silly you.
yes it will happen 100% in developed countries
a network of connected self driving cars can travel faster, safer, and be highly efficient.
they will alter our cities dramatically. If anyone here is looking for a home, buy one that's 1-1.5 hours outside of a major city. It will be very affordable/spacious and self driving cars will make the commute very comfy.
most are controlled opposition to make the real conspiracies look far-fetched
> 4 lane roads
good luck chaim
Meatsack insurance will make driving yourself prohibitively expensive first.
After a few years of that they will do away with traffic lights because robot cars will be able manage without.
At that point, humans will not be able to drive.
yes and there is no second amendment to protect us
>>a network of connected self driving cars can travel faster, safer, and be highly efficient.
And when a terror attack strikes the network, you get country-wide pile ups as the suddenly disconnected cars crash into each other
People are too terrorized even to try driving again
I figure cars won't even have steering wheels within the next 30-40 years.
Self driving cars make it so that assassinations are easier and unprovable.
Over my dead body
If 4 jaywalkers run out into the street and your robot car has the option of hitting them or swerving and hitting 2 law abiding citizens crossing the street at the crosswalk, what does it decide to do?
To answer, your question (except from 'evil trump guys'). No, because the limiting factor is energy and it"s availability, faggot..
> should human drivers be banned
What planet do you live on ?
self destruct and kill 1 passenger instead
only one body for the Resyk Center
can robots grip the wood grain?
>And when a terror attack strikes the network, you get country-wide pile ups as the suddenly disconnected cars crash into each other
Nay causing network disconnect wont crash any cars
they need the network up to cause any crashes
if it's a fully autonomous car at level4 according to NHTSA, it should be travelling at an appropriate speed for a two lane cliffside road and should brake in a straight line as hard as possible when the situation you said occurs.
In other words i don't think the car will wait to take action only when there's 40 yards of distance between it and the crash site.
I'm not experct but I'm sure there's ways to avoid or minimize the chance of that. we're talking a multi-trillion dollar industry here, many many many dollars will be spent preventing issues
>we're talking a multi-trillion dollar industry here
So is the medical industry, how many malpractice deaths do you see a year?
Do you know how many auto deaths there are from vehicle defects?
I mean, they spent a lot of money. There's no way corners could have been cut to lower cost at the price of safety.
Altruistic entrepreneurs like Tesla Motors wouldn't ever be in the game for profit.
depends on how you design the network, you don't have to have ALL cars in the entire city to talk to each other, just the surrounding cars should be enough.
there doesn't need to be a central network, it could be localized between vehicles.
>there doesn't need to be a central network, it could be localized between vehicles.
And a singular device to send out random signals and clog the frequencies the cars communicate on would have the same result.
Human drivers will probably negate most of the benefits driverless cars will bring to traffic, they should be banned when the time comes.
>moniez
>value
> fucking reality
Of course, commoners can not be trusted behind the wheel of an automobile.
If that happens eurocucks gonna get so butthurt if they get butthurt even over automatic transmission.
Sadly, the time will come eventually.
Not for the next 50 years though.
The current generation has to die out first.
singular device probably wouldn't work right? i guess you can sabotage one car and its immediate surroundings.
you'll at least need to drop this jamming device in many cars for it to work and i'm not sure how easy it is to produce devices in mass.
the cars could also be on different bands and frequences to be more robust, like the FDD-LTE bands by carriers
also, the car still have cameras, LIDARs, ultrasonic sensors to help it be aware of its surroundings as backup
>If anyone here is looking for a home, buy one that's 1-1.5 hours outside of a major city. It will be very affordable/spacious and self driving cars will make the commute very comfy.
>basing your most important financial decision on a meme technology
>Should human drivers be banned in that situation?
Probably just have different licensing regulations.
muh freedom guys. Not regular freedom. Phylosophycal freedom. Real freedom
meme central contributing
If the car couldn't deal with having to execute unlawful maneuvers it'd go dead within 500m here in italy kek
its not a meme technology and commutes of an hour are not unheard of
plus the benefit of living outside of the cities are great, you get a large yard, no niggers, good community, safe, no niggers, good schools, no niggers, and no niggers
Fuck you, I'm not reading that.
>all cars on the road are driverless
>cars are designed to automatically stop when there's a person in the road
>niggers take advantage of this by standing in roads so they can car-jack every whiteboi who comes into their neighborhood
White people are so naive.
You guys have this motorcycle races on mountain roads. Wish we had mountains.
They're called brakes, nigger. Your fucking kike "thought experiments" seem to forget the most basic rule of driving.
A computer isn't going to tailgate. A radar/lidar system isn't going to "just not see..." the shit in front of them.
The driverless car will apply the brakes while the two dumb cunts who decided to drive in manual will still be standing there on the roadway. At least until some other dumb cunt in manual rear-ends you and kill three people.
Tbh I don't think driverless cars will ever completely replace humans behind the wheel. I think it will be like auto and manual transmissions. While the majority of people will turn on autopilot, there will be a small-ish group of people who enjoy driving. I don't think we will see the complete removal of steering wheels, but 99% of people won't touch them unless there's an emergency
Obey traffic laws and the right-of-way. The car applies the brakes. If it does not stop it time it runs over the stupid niggers breaking the law, who are legally at fault for literally leaping in front of a moving vehicle.
Most likely unless it is a suicide the vehicle would have detected the pedestrian movement and slowed down even before it needed to stop, but after applying the brakes it's unlikely the vehicle would be traveling fast enough to do serious injury. Residential streets are 25/35 for a reason.
If a gaggle of niggers decided to run across a highway, it's still on them.
This shit isn't hard, and we don't end up with dumb cunts swerving into oncoming traffic and killing a family of four in a head-on collision because she was trying to dodge a squirrel.
Oh you were talking about driverless cars, so booooooring, who the fuck cares, lamborgini man.
Driverless cars are eventually going to make automobile ownership an exclusive hobby for the wealthy like what owning a horse it like now. With autonomous cars in place, fewer people are going to buy cars because it's going to easier to hail an automatic taxi to your door instead of driving your car to wherever. The insurance Jew is also going to start charging people more money because human drivers won't be able to compete with robots on the freeway. Finally, there's going to be a renaissance in cities as parking garages and lots are generally repurposed into other uses. That's going to convert more people into using public transportation. Around 1/3 of all land in most American urban cores in just for parking and there are 10 parking spaces for every car in the US. Also the average parking space in a multistory parking garage costs something like $40k to build plus there is an opportunity cost as something else could occupy that space instead.
People might not be banned from driving cars, but the economics are going to make it less and less likely for the average person to own one. A wealthy person might go to a racetrack or take a Sunday drive in the country, but there won't be many meatbags driving cars in the cities.
owning a horse is not a hobby for the wealthy... older yet still ridable horses are cheap and you can find boarding that includes food and shelter for 250-500 a month
Self-driving cars will have to come with some form of manual control otherwise they lose out on a huge amount of utility that the self-driving portion simply won't be able to mimic as quickly or easily as a manual action.
Take parking your car for example. In designated spots, even user designated ones, it will be quick and easy for the car to drive itself but what happens when you need to adjust the location of the car away from it's recognized paths? Maybe a tree has fallen and you need to path onto the grass to get around it, without a manual mode it will require a much more complex solution for a fairly simple action.
I could see them banning manual mode on certain roads like highways but not until self-driving is present in some form for nearly every vehicle on the market.
If you've ever worked manual labor, you can probably think back to a few times where you had to do weird shit with your car. Whether it's backing through a field or driving through a construction site or anything. There are tonnes of weird situations where you need manual control of your vehicle. Also, here is a problematic situation for the developers of this technology:
>driving fast down a relatively narrow road
>suddenly, a group of children run into the lane
>turning left kills everyone in the car
>turning right kills everyone in the car
>continuing straight kills a group of children/elderly couple/whatever
>not enough time to come to a stop
Does the car save its occupants at the expense of the people in the way? Does the car swerve to avoid the people in the way, killing the occupants?
Bump
The car would have 360 degree sensors. It would be able to detect and brake before a human driver could react to the situation.
Your kobayashi maru scenario is pure fantasy. A group of suicidal children snakbar's running into a highway is just fantasy.
The car would probably be programmed to stay on the road but brake as soon as it became a danger.
The children / elderly / a deer would get hit. Many manual drivers would have also hit them. Perhaps the self-driving car's faster reaction speed may mean it brakes soon enough to hit at 35 mph rather than 40 or 45 mph.
Further down the line it may be possible for it to check to see if there is open space on the side of the road as swerving into a cornfield may be preferable to plowing through a group of schoolchildren who didn't look both ways. That seems complex and potentially dangerous though.
Where the fuck do you live faggot?
>kids don't run in roads
Yea, OK
Car breaks just like a human would. I hate this fucking question.
Humans are the worst drivers. Slow reflexes, easily distracted, easily impaired. I look forward to the day when they aren't allowed to drive on the public roads.
I hope so, the sooner the better. I want to be able to drive to and from a nice country pub. And all the taxi drivers where I live are lazy pakis, and I bet they don't pay tax. I hate having to hand over my hard-earned to them.
No people would willingly submit to this Orwellian nightmare, many love driving and besides robotization would be exposed in full view of the public for what it is: the killing of job