What good is the Mark 1 Mod 0 Eyeball at driving when it is glued to the smartphone texting?
And aviation has little to recommend it as a model when the visual flight rules policy is see-and-avoid and mostly only works because of probablility: big sky, little planes. If it actually worked there wouldn't be *any* mid-air collisions. An F-16 has about 2 seconds to see a radar invisible fiberglass glider (which doesn't include any time for doing anything). How does that help when the see-and-avoid algorithm is 4 seconds looking inside the cockpit for every 16 seconds looking out (which planes under instrument rules -- commercial and military -- rarely do).
@RichQ: The question to ask is "would you be willing to pay $xxx one time to have a dedicated chauffeur always drive the car for you?"
Thank you, and I agree that this should stay on topic. My reason was merely to point out the motivation behind my decision, not to start a debate.
From a merely technological standpoint, I have no problem with driverless automobiles. Would I be willing to pay extra for it? No, I would not.
My current vehicle has self parking, which I tried once, was impressed, and have never used it again. I think a vehicle with the option of self-driving would be the same. I would try it once or twice and then revert to my usual behavior of driving myself. To me driving is relaxing, but being a passenger is not.
Opponents of gun-control often argue that criminals don't respect gun laws. Criminals may often be stupid, but they don't usually just break any law they want just for the hell of it. In the UK, the vast majority of criminals will not be armed; they don't carry guns for the same reason that they don't carry heat-seaking missles: they are expensive and cumbersome and unnecessary (because they know I won't have one) and the consequences of being caught with them are dire. In the UK, the sort of criminal that is armed will be generally the type you don't mess with, whether you're armed or not.
Why are you so keen to have your criminals armed? If prefer them to be unarmed.
If driverless cars prove to be significantly safer, then the motor insurance will be cheaper. Perhaps the question ought to be asked: "how much extra on your motor insurance are you prepared to pay to be allowed to drive youself?"
I think the question about interest in an autonomous car needs to be shifted slightly to learn people's interest. The question to ask is "would you be willing to pay $xxx one time to have a dedicated chauffeur always drive the car for you?" That would separate the desire to be in the driver's seat from the distrust of the technology. I think that you would get a much higher percentage of people willing to have a pre-paid, dedicated driver to take them wherever they wanted to go than the survey shows.
Did you know San Franscisco's BART is a totally atonomus vehicle. An attendent was installed in the 80s whose sole job is to stick his/her head out the window and be see, becausee riders were afriad of an automated train.
And, for those 40% I ask - do you ever ride in a taxi? How much control do you have over it? How about an airplane? An elevator?
Magic thinking and suspcious or consipotory thinking will always exist in this great land, and its often the believers in supertious beliefs who respond to surveys - what was the last survey you particiapted in?
Oh, in fact, they are taking guns away. Look no further than California, where a series of "common sense" gun control measures have made it impossible for anyone to purchase a new semi-automatic pistol. This is really not the venue to air your uninformed political views.
I don't normally mention my position on political issues in forums like this, but it was already mentioned in the article and is a good analogy. So, at the risk of bringing up an uncomfortable position, here goes...
As a firm supporter of the second amendment (a.k.a. against all forms of gun control by the government) I must state that I don't trust the government to stay out of my business. That includes controlling my driving. I already have plans to stop buying new cars as soon as OBD-III is introduced in cars. OBD-III is expected to have wireless communications with law enforcement, among other things. With OBD-III, my current location and speed could be available to law enforcement at all times. A corrupt police force could use this information in ways that it wasn't meant to be used and cause me a lot of problems.
Now, if I were in a self driving car that same corrupt agency might just tell my car to drive me to the police station because they "think" I might be a problem.
As you can tell, I'm in the 40% and plan to remain in that group.
Surveys often fail to correctly predict responses to technology. Remember when driverless monorails first appeared at Disneyworld, Atlanta, DFW and JFK airports? It wasn't long before we completely forgot that we were "riding" in autonomous vehicles. Maybe the Google cars will start in dedicated lanes where they are spared the unpredictability and irrational road rage of human drivers. I'll prediuct that few people will complain when they have rapid access to an automated device that will take them where they want to go without the added cost of supporting a home garage, parking place, car payments, insurance, and license fees. Like taxis in New York City, autonomous vehicles will be able to operate with high occupancy rates and therefore (without the cost of a human driver) drive down the incremental cost of each ride.
Replay available now: A handful of emerging network technologies are competing to be the preferred wide-area connection for the Internet of Things. All claim lower costs and power use than cellular but none have wide deployment yet. Listen in as proponents of leading contenders make their case to be the metro or national IoT network of the future. Rick Merritt, EE Times Silicon Valley Bureau Chief, moderators this discussion. Join in and ask his guests questions.