The Driverless Cars of Greenwich
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 фев 2015
- tomscott.com - / tomscott - Thanks to the Transport Research Laboratory for letting me have a test ride on one of the Meridian Shuttles they're testing on the Greenwich Peninsula! If you want a ride, they'll be there, on and off, between March and May -- not often enough to make a special trip worth it, but if you're in the area, see if you can spot one!
As a legally blind man, this is top notch.
ConicalCandy Legally blind ≠ totally blind. I can see, just not well enough to testify in court (legally) or drive for that matter.
@@casperes0912 Do you enjoy blind videos on youtube
I love you mama! P-O-P! Hold it down!
Well I'm glad you see it that way.
@@TheBlazingDead 🤣
Hey Tom! I am an ESL teacher and I love using this video with my students. We expand the content here into outlines, discussions, and debates. Thank you for such great videos! Any chance we could ask for an update on driverless cars in 2017 and beyond?
I can't wait. Computers don't get drunk, high, tired or distracted.
+Kevin15047 Very true! They do get hacked, tricked, bugged and crash though.
FlipFlopGaming
I'll still put more trust in computers.
+FlipFlopGaming people get bribed, tricked, have lapses in judgement, and can 'crash' (fall asleep)
It's a similar thing
enderrevolution2 true, and i understand that. As long as I had the ability to turn it on and off, then i'll be ok. It's when the government says i can't turn it off that i'll be pretty scared.
FlipFlopGaming that's true. At least for now we can turn things off if they go wrong
Am I the only who who had a moment of "Wait, don't leave without your Camera!" at the end?
I really loved how you brought this videos full circle by comparing the man with the flag to the sign on the front of the car. I enjoyed this!
After six years I wonder how far this has come along? I really hope this has improved or upgraded by leaps & bounds.. 🙂
Saw these on the news the other day. They also had smart cars there doing tha same thing.
You are subbed to all my favorite channels :)
but are you subbed to me? :D
Of course! And to Ashens's channel too!
awesome!!! cheers matey!!!
How does a verified RUclipsr like you have only 4 replies?
I think computer driven cars would be much saver at least for things like trucks on highways, sitting 8 hours in one is such a boring thing and people that are bored don't pay much attention.
Leo Wattenberg how tf are you verified?
It's like playing Euro Truck Simulator 2 for 8 hours.
From my anecdotal experience, most dangers related to OTR trucks is from idiot car drivers cutting them off, not leaving enough gap, and sometimes road rage stupidity.
The future where driverless cars are safer than people driving isn't far away. How long do you reckon before it is considered crazy to attempt driving the car yourself rather than doing the safest thing, letting the machine drive?
Bigger question - what are all the imported totally unskilled men going to do when 'driver' is as redundant an occupation as 'lamplighter' is now?
@@SamTheEnglishTeacher Don't insult truck drivers, they have to endure staying awake for a long time to deliver the products that allows you to exist
@@TheSkypetube I'm not insulting truck drivers, I'm insulting third worlders. >90% of the men who pray at the mosque up the road from me are Uber/taxi drivers. Regardless the question remains unanswered.
2020, debate still ongoing
iRobot did reference that, where people called the main character crazy for driving on his own ... if I'm not mixing films up.
Always love your stuff about the future Tom, puts me in a good optimistic mood.
Rotterdam also has a specific place where there is no buslane to destinations. They have a shuttle design like this one but then closed because the temperatures are not so great here. It is located at kralingse zoom. You can go there with the metro from the station beurs.
I really hope 50 years later, I can come back to this video and rewatcth it
thank you tom, your videos makes me unbelievably happy.
We need a time capsule to put this video in. Not so it will still exist, but so that somebody will think to watch it.
an actual law in Pennsylvania U.S.A
If a motorist sees a horse coming down the road, the driver must pull off to the side of the road and cover the vehicle with canvas. If the horse is still scared the driver must get out of his car and take it apart until the horse isn't scared anymore.
Citation please?
Take the horse apart?
Or the car?
both
I'd like to see a source if this law is still active. It might have been a real law back in the day. But people seem to ignore that laws are removed and still pretend they are valid to this day.
@@Liggliluff From what I could find from a google search (aside from the usual 'dumb laws' pages and sites which are dubious at best) it was never a law to begin with, there was a group of farmers that tried to get something like it put into law but it was rejected and the only record of it was the mention of it being petitioned.
seeing this 8 years later makes me chuckle. technology advanced so much in 8 years that tesla cars drive themselves, huge car manufacturers are making more and more electric cars, and renewable spacecrafts are soon to be the next "normal"
Your a great RUclipsr. One of my favorites.
*Tom:* for a vehicle among pedestrians, it's got a surprising amount of speed to it
*Random person in background:* going basically the same speed casually walking while texting
Great video... driveless cars can't come soon enough! Need to test these out in Greenwich too!
For some reason, RUclips decided to show me this vid after 8 years in 31st July 2023. Can't believe I never thought of it, it is really the same as it was back then when Cars themselves were new.
Ohhhh driverless! Tom, love your videos.
look forward to Tom's retrospective thoughts on this, when the time comes....
I'm a car guy, I love driving, and I can't wait for driverless cars to catch on. I would much rather share the road with many AI drivers than drivers who don't respect their car or the rules of the road
Agreed. The worst thing about trying to go places on the road is often other people who just don't have their brains switched on, or are deliberately acting in a malicious manner. An old 8-bit micro hooked up to the GPS and a 360 degree obstacle/range sensor would be an upgrade from that sort of thing, never mind the state of play already reached with prototype self driving cars.
The biggest problem with SDCs really is that driving _well_ is something that requires you to be fully engaged with the process and thinking about what you're doing, rather than just autopiloting with your mind on other things. And that makes it into an AI-hard challenge, rather than one of simple automation like what you would use for porter robots in a factory.
You just want driverless cars around you so that they don't call the authorities when you F off!! 😂😂
My great fear is that once driverless cars become common, our old manual cars will become too expensive to insure, or outright illegal.
So did anyone mention that between December 2015 and May 2016 two driverless cars will suplement regular busses between Ede-Wageningen station and the Campus of Wageningen University for a pilot, with a possible extension to follow? People can apparently reserve a ride using an app and it's all free as well.
CAUTION: SLOW MOVING VEHICLE
That's a typo. It shoud be: CAUTION SLOW. MOVING VEHICLE.
fyi
NHTSA defines vehicle automation as having five levels:
No-Automation (Level 0): The driver is in complete and sole control of the primary vehicle controls - brake, steering, throttle, and motive power - at all times.
Function-specific Automation (Level 1): Automation at this level involves one or more specific control functions. Examples include electronic stability control or pre-charged brakes, where the vehicle automatically assists with braking to enable the driver to regain control of the vehicle or stop faster than possible by acting alone.
Combined Function Automation (Level 2): This level involves automation of at least two primary control functions designed to work in unison to relieve the driver of control of those functions. An example of combined functions enabling a Level 2 system is adaptive cruise control in combination with lane centering.
Limited Self-Driving Automation (Level 3): Vehicles at this level of automation enable the driver to cede full control of all safety-critical functions under certain traffic or environmental conditions and in those conditions to rely heavily on the vehicle to monitor for changes in those conditions requiring transition back to driver control. The driver is expected to be available for occasional control, but with sufficiently comfortable transition time. The Google car is an example of limited self-driving automation.
Full Self-Driving Automation (Level 4): The vehicle is designed to perform all safety-critical driving functions and monitor roadway conditions for an entire trip. Such a design anticipates that the driver will provide destination or navigation input, but is not expected to be available for control at any time during the trip. This includes both occupied and unoccupied vehicles.
Weird watching this in the future now that driverless cars are getting more common.
Except they really aren't. Not in any meaningful way, anyway.
the dark side of driverless/automated cars is that once they become the norm, there will be a huge lack of supply for organ transplants in hospitals.
Easy grow organs in a tank.
You've got a dark side to your thoughts. It's easy to solve. Just genetically change pigs so their organs are matched to humans.
There are still humans that die from other dumb reasons...
That's some time off. There are still motorcyclists. I know a lot of people who work in the ambulance service where many have a macabre sense of humour as a coping mechanism. They refer to motorcyclists as "donors".
We have one of those in Bern that's even able to drive through normal traffic
That was a really interesting view you got there Tom.
We already have the DLR in London, which is basically a driverless train system. And yes I know that those are programmed to only do certain routes and they know where other trains on the lines are, but if all cars were driverless then they could all be communicating with one another to prevent accidents and there's only so many places that you can go anyway - once you get obscure, like to a specific house or a specific village, there's likely to be so few people around that's accidents are less likely anyway.
He's right you know. About everything.
If I could wish for something along these lines it would be for a car that could drive itself home. Numerous times I have found myself wanting to walk home from work or from the store, instead of getting in the car and driving home. That I took the car in the first place might have been due to poor planning or due to one of my errands being too far from home. Give me the button that sends my car home by itself while I walk.
Yay, en svensk i kommentarsfältet!
Boss 50 years from now (probably sooner): "I need you to stay even later at work now. You can sleep in the car."
The sad reality would be more like "I need you to pack your things and go home, you've been replace with an autopilot"
I can't wait for the day I can jump in my car, tell it to take me to work, then have a bit of extra sleep on the way there.
I'm here after 6 years, where at least Teslas have become semi-autonomous.
Maybe in the NEXT 6 years, we'll see at least Few Self-Driving Vehicles running on roads, and accessible to common men
That's all very nice, but too frequently people make the assumption such as this one where all steps to a problem are equally difficult. A comparison was recently made between aeroplane autopilot and driver-less cars and the comparison here is the same. A *real* driver-less car needs to solve a huge number of very hard problems to work, such as navigating accidents, other cars, trees, uneven ground, traffic lights and markings, weather, sudden breaking, bad indication and such; these are all computer imaging problems which is still a very fraught part of computer science.
An aeroplane has no obstacles to hit and simply follows a trajectory, the same is the case for this vehicle, which likely employs none of the computer imaging techniques that are being heavily developed for driver-less cars to function. I imagine the modus for this driverless car is to simply drive from a to b slowly and avoid pre-programmed objects on this very flat and very danger-less pavement.
Nope, driverless cars are much smarter than that.
??? what do you even mean by that
There are so many things that have a 0.000000001% or so chance you'll encounter them on any given journey though that an automated car needs to be able to handle or potentially kill several people; kind of a tricky barrier to cross and prove reliably that you've crossed
They don't need to be prefect, they just need to be better then humans, and they already are. Humans still have all of those problems you mentioned, maybe they shouldn't drive.
What are better than humans? Self-driving cars? That's outright false.
It's interesting that Asimov predicted driverless cars in his Sally short story..
can i buy one of these at stop&shop?
Technology keeps on accelerating. Can't wait for the near future.
Lol, driving joke :D
Still waiting for this.
you are probably completely correct
great perspective
I just want to tell my car to go fill up the tank with petrol, and perhaps drive itself through the car wash. That's why I want an autonomous vehicle.
To be fair, the Locomotive Act of 1865 was actually rarely enforced even at the time, because even people of its day saw the act as ridiculous, as silly.
By the time it was abolished there were still less than 50 cars in the country so it was pretty much not used at all.
they had driver-less vehicles back in the 1800 they were called horses
luis ramos I was riding a horse once, and in the way back, I didn't do anything and it walked straight to the barn and into it's stall
That cray
I have a question. What's the science behind restarting or rebooting a device to fix certain problems? I mean you did the exact thing the first time and it had a problem. What's doing it again going to achieve technically speaking.
Any computer can become corrupt either spontaneously or over a long period, when you reboot it the memory gets wiped and it has to reinitialise itself. Modern operating systems are self correcting, hence why Windows 10 does not crash as often as Windows Vista might have, but any complex system is open to unforeseen consequences of a user's actions or a connected device and so the longer they are running (uptime) the further their configuration changes from boot and the more likely a crash or other unpredictable event.
Most systems will reboot routinely in order to never run too far from it's base settings and become corrupt. In a biological sense we do the same when we sleep, except that is more of an extended shutdown for maintenance rather than a quick reboot. :D
More news about this autonomous shuttle: navya-technology.com/?lang=en - twitter.com/navyatechnology
You're wrong about the Google car. It drives in all types of weather, in all conditions and had been extensively tested. Our government made them add a steering wheel and "alert human driver".
They can also drive at road speeds and aren't limited to predefined routes like that one appears to be.
Does any one wonder if he is wearing his red t-shirt under all that gear?
theoatmeal.com/blog/google_self_driving_car Google's newest versions of driverless cars do not have a backup driving system. And they do not have a steering wheel. They also operate on public roads (max 25mph) with other cars, motorcycles and bicyclists. Without fluorescent signs.
Fifty? Try 10. Technological acceptance and growth increases at an exponential rate and everyone my age is just the sort of lazy which wants these things.
I'd...say 50 is closer. xkcd.com/678/
Nah, just got to wait for the transportation industry to realize this means they don't need to hire drivers (and thus pay ~ 1/3rd of their business costs) and lobby up a storm.
IceMetalPunk figured out how to effectively disable me, just send me a link of xkcd, and ill sit there reading it for ever.
+Meep “the” Changeling In 10, we might see this replace the tram. Especially in big congested cities like London. Roads could become like slow rail-lines.
don't you hate it when you forget your camera somewhere?
at least the finder mailed the film (:
You forgot your camera!!
Noxious emissions and a real chance of failing catastrophically? Sounds like not much has changed with modern cars then, except they bamboozled enough people into using them that they became the default mode for urban planning for a century and that became so ingrained nobody thinks to even question whether letting neverending parades of two tone metal bricks blast through residential areas and city centres at 30mph is actually a good idea.
Long story short; history repeats itself
Wouldn't it be nice to drive your car to the pub and on the way back home turn on the autopilot and sleep on the back seat ? :D
Another one shot shoot. Did you do it in one take?
You know he uses a teleprompter to read the words? He said so in one of his videos.
Now get them to walk the foot tunnel. It's better than the cablecar, anyway.
google self driving cars don't need backup drivers anymore. I think their latest (test)model didn't even have a wheel.
Yeah but California made a specific law requiring the ones which operate on public roads have the ability to be driven manually because old people are flaming idiots and little more then fearful tools.
Kyle Rhulain I think in Belgium the reverse is happening, that it will be forbidden to have a steering wheel. To avoid a mess with insurance, people driving manual blaming accidents on the auto-pilot.
samramdebest The car could just save the current mode it is in to the on board computer...
These are great for people with DUIs. The kids dont have to blow in the breathalyzer anymore
Which begs the question, why such people are permited to drive at all?
Why would the police let the children take the breathalyser test in the place of their parent.
Kyle Netherwood
He's talking about alcoholics who by court order have breathalyzer so installed in their cars. The car won't work unless you pass the breathalyzer. I'd rather revoke their driving privileges.
Driverless cars seem like a good idea but when you have gawd awful conditions to drive in, I doubt they'll be any good. My guess is an auto-pilot like in modern aircraft will the top tier for long distance bound trucks and cars.
+omegafolf The autopiloted commercial aircraft today is probably the best analogy for what "driverless cars" will become once the technology is mature enough - or at the very least, that's the example the legal system will draw from in making laws about "driverless cars".
I know this isn't really totally transferable, but we hear a lot about airplane accidents having "pilot error" causing 70% of all accidents (including those accidents where poor design was a MAJOR contributor to the error). Of course the natural assumption is, "Get the idiot pilot out of the cockpit". But I wonder about a statistic that I have never seen and I wonder if it is even recorded: How often does the pilot save the day? Everything from the pilot noticing something and resolving it before it even becomes an issue to correctly dealing with a full blown emergency.
Who here thinks a computer could have dealt with the emergency US Airways flight 1549?
An additional note here. Airbus designers have deliberately designed a computer program that prevents the pilot from restarting a badly damaged engine even if that engine CAN still run with reduced thrust because doing so will lead to more damage and more expense.
I don't know if, Sullenburger had been flying a Boeing if he could have restarted the engines and gotten enough thrust to make it back to a runway, but in the 1980's (I think) A Boeing 747 flew into a volcanic ash cloud couching all four engines to fail. After flying back into clear air (and at very low altitude) the flight crew was able to restart all four engines. Though they were badly damaged they provided just enough thrust for the plane to make a safe emergency landing.
Volcanic clouds are invisible on radar. Should this same thing happen to an A380 (and it will happen sooner or later) and there is no runway withing glide distance. Well just hope Sullenburger is your pilot.
+Eric Taylor Autopilot malfunctions happen all the time. In fact, a substantial number of crashes have been caused by autopilots. Autopilots failing is more common than the human failing. For example Air Inter Flight 148 a properly functioning autopilot decided an emergency existed when one did not and flew the aircraft into a mountain. A failed sensor on Turkish Airlines Flight 1951 caused the autopilot to stall the aircraft. Etc.
Also worth noting is that ash and birds cause completely different problems. Birds physically damage an engine while ash basically doesn't.
JLDoctorWho
Volcanic ash certainly does cause engine damage. When volcanic ash (which is made of very small particles of rock) enters the turban engine it is melted inside the combustion chamber. The now liquid rock coats the inside of the engine with glass which greatly reduces the trust the engine can provide.
The engine MIGHT still run (if you are very lucky) and it MIGHT provide some thrust if you're lucky. But it defenatly damages the engine.
As to bird strike, turban engine designs are tested for their resilience to bird strike damage. The engines must continue to provide a cretin percentage of it full power thrust (not including afterburners) this my contention that the engines should have still worked.
Maybe the engines were completely wrecked, but it's something we may never know.
Eric Taylor Please refer to my use of the word "basically." The engine damage caused by ash is not catastrophic. It basically just makes the engine dirty.
On the other hand bird strikes do cause catastrophic damage and it is a well established fact in the industry that bird strikes cause more damage than the engine manufacturers claim it should. The geese impacted by the airbus where both bigger than the required test and more numerous.
JLDoctorWho
I think you need to look up what volcanic ash does to engines. It does a hell of a lot more than make them dirty.
As I stated, I don't know if the crew could have restarted the engines if it had been a Boeing. They were in the water before they completed the restart checklist.
My point is that Airbus engineers consider pilots too stupid to not run a damaged engine even if that engine can supply some thrust.
My point applies much more to the volcanic ash disaster than this one.
However pilots have been able to run engines even after bird strikes on Boeing aircraft, even Geese.
Eric Taylor "I think you need to look up what volcanic ash does to engines. It does a hell of a lot more than make them dirty."
It really doesn't. What happens is that the ash solidifies into goop inside the engine however the major components of the engine are undamaged. This basically means the engine is dirty but mechanically intact. That is why restart was so easy once the ash cooled and some of it broke away.
" However pilots have been able to run engines even after bird strikes on Boeing aircraft, even Geese."
You can't compare all bird strikes just like you can't compare all missile strikes or all bullet impacts. Sully's engines each ingested multiple birds. Two or three birds are much worse than one bird.
Society evolves... the singularity must be near!
Yes, this is cool but the arguments in comparison with other technologies like the google car are just silly. Is he saying that this car works in heavy rain and snow? Is he also saying that the google car wont work in heavy rain and snow at similar speeds? I believe the limitations to the google car are that it can't deal with those conditions at road speeds. I'm pretty sure it can handle those conditions and still outpace this "car".
Tesla genuinely drives itself now too!
No, only level 4. But Tesla can't do level 5 autonomous yet.
1 000 000 people a year is 2 people a minute.
I think autonomous cars only have a chance in hell on interstates and public transportation. People enjoy driving themselves too much for it to take over the rest, and they will resist it, if not totally a defensive reaction to save their control.
I hope you're not suggesting that it could take anywhere near 50 years for self-driving cars to become common. I'd guess 10.
"1,000,000 people must die every year for our car dependent world to work." Made me shudder
How do we tackle the problem with mutliple driverless vehicles? They need to communicate in some way. But how should they do that? Will there be a secure way of communication that would be safe enough to use so cars could not be taken over remotely?
But here's the thing: we don't necessarily need the cars to communicate with each other. Think about it: do you talk to the drivers of other cars around you while driving? No. You may honk a horn or flash a turn signal, but that's about it usually. Driverless cars would work just as well if they look for those signals rather than trying to communicate with every vehicle in their vicinity. Better than humans, most likely.
There are a couple of universities already working on localised vehicle networks. Each car broadcasts it position, speed and direction along with anything like warning about sudden changes of speed and direction. Each car's computer can then build a map about what the cars around it are doing. They react to the information rather than driven by it, so can't be taken over.
This is a good solution as it means the car spends less time processing radar / lidar scanning of the area, speeding up the car's reaction time.
The cars still have autonomous control and radar / lidar, so if data received from other car's broadcast conflicts with it's own sensors, it will assume the broadcast info is corrupted and ignore it.
Personally I don't think driverless cars will be the norm any time soon, but rather the tech being developed will be used to make driving safer by implementing collision avoidance systems.
seigeengine
I don't understand your last comment. The systems that I have read about that are being developed by universities work by a simple system that each car broadcasts basic info over a short range. Any listening cars in range parse that info into a position in relation to itself. The idea being that if a driver suddenly veers out of their lane, the offending car reports the change of direction faster than you can react. Your car is made aware and can apply the brakes avoiding a collision.
If you are suggesting that someone would drive along with a car set to broadcast fake speed / direction data. The car's other proximity systems would throw up the inconsistency and ignore the fake broadcast as corrupted data.
Each car listens out for a burst of data containing an ID, a location, direction, velocity and status of indicator lights or activation of brakes. Even if you wanted to hack the system by broadcasting dozens of fake car signals from non existent cars. Your own car would figure that the spurious cars didn't exist. I don't know how else you could influence my car with yours.
I see what you are saying. I'm guessing the developers of the systems are thinking that having both systems is better than just one. Building in some redundancy?
Google cars actually drive on roads though, and the only reason for human intervention is should the car fail. Early tech that can kill people requires a person standing behind it. It looked like, to me, that the demo of that car was one that moves slowly and does little. It can drive in the rain because it's not dealing with the sort of rain a regular car would.
I wouldn't even begin to call this little thing comparable to the google car.
All for it. But "People of the future will look condescendingly on us" is not an argument.
Well here in 2022 you certainly did call out Tesla for driver assist that thing they can't call self driving anymore.
If I wanted a driverless vehicle, I'd use the bus or train. I like driving please don't take it away from me.
By all means add collision avoidance systems to make it safer, but let me drive my car.
...and the world will get duller and duller....
**CAUTION SLOW MOVING VEHICLE**
These driverless cars are a menace to us, the human race. Driving slowly, carefully, without emotional engagement and using only cold algorithms. What purpose is driving if one cannot feel the freeling of speeding along at 80 miles per hour (or 160 kilometers p/h for you Germans out there) in the suburbs, wave goodbye at children safely playing on the road, and enjoy the power given to use by our engineers?
Since when have machines been better than humans at ANYTHING routine? Never. Do not forget the broken voting machines with the half-punctured holes, or the many accidents in the industrial revolution where machines consumed poor, dutiful infants. No, driving is an art, it cannot be done by machine. To turn my morning drive to work into a schedule, to force me along the same path as if there is no better, to insist I do not drive half-asleep to wake myself to the sound of welcoming horns and panicked pedestrians, to have the GALL to insist I share this moment of wonder at modern science, it is APPALLING.
Not to mention their ruthless reaction times cause hasty decisions, supported not the human time to take a moment to think things through, but merely to act on stimuli. Only a human can truly grasp a sudden, pending impact, for machines are too slow and heartless to do so.
I say, vote yes on Article 9, forbidden automated transport from public spaces. Preserve the many jobs held by our drivers and avoid cold machines from murdering pedestrians just to save their own mechanical bodies.
Vote YES, save yourself and your families from machines taking jobs and lives from your fellow man. It is your DUTY to keep the roads in OUR hands. This is America, and I want the privilege, no, the RIGHT to drive MY car MY way.
Sponsored by the automotive, insurance and medical industry, we know better than anyone the risks of driving.
Already, I couldn't help but giggle. I'm a mile from writing "A Modest Proposal", but I had a chuckle at this, and I hope someone else does too! ^o^
If you are talking about America, no one could give a shit.
Watching RUclips it's a ironic writing, although a very long one. I mean he even reference edgar allan poe's "A Modest Proposal" witch is basically a seriously written paper on solving hunger and homelessness by eating infants if i'm not mistaken.
Karl Blixt Dude, it was written by Jonathan Swift, not Poe.
Fuck, it was written 80 years before Poe was even BORN.
It was, however, about eating babies. It's PlagueOfGripes approved, despite being satirical.
Sapphire Crook m bad, was like 3 years we went through this stuff in school, so i must have mixed them up.
Karl Blixt Nah, I'm not too upset. History can be a jumble mess with how little it comes up in daily life.
I'm excited for driverless cars, primarily for the life-saving, but also the potential fuel savings (cars could be programmed to drive optimally for hills, stoplights, and overall traffic volume, as well as the potential to have trains of multiple cars drafting each other on the highway which would easily improve fuel efficiency by at least 25%, probably more).
no, the alternative is building more livable cities and public transport infrastructure and trains
Tom! You left your camera in the car!
Humans Need Not Apply anyone?
+
Meanwhile 7 years later tesla still doesn't work.
All new technology threatens previously established norms. Just look at the world we live in, full of wants, unfulfilled needs, inefficient systems, unbalanced distribution of resources all of which could be solved with the technology we have today. Currently known, tried and tested tech isn't properly implemented because it would destroy the established economic system and those reliant on it's imbalance.
Automated mineral extraction and refinement
Automated production
Unmanned distribution
If a Government decided to implement all this with taxpayers money most companies would become obsolete as peoples needs are met, then as wants are met the rest would fall. There would be no one needing to buy products and no one paid to make products, automation is inevitable but to what extent its allowed is anouther thing.
That's what they say about every new generation of technology.
It isn't so much about every new generation of technology. We have reached a level that would allow these things to become a reality, but our whole global economic system is still based on the "natural" way of doing things. Wasteful, inefficient, survival of the fittest/most cunning/most devious/most ruthless ect ect.
Like nature out economic system is based on iteration rather than innovation. We change what we already have or know and try to make it work as everything around us changes. patching holes and adding to the existing. This means economic systems (money/resources) are always playing catch up to fit with how society and tech changes things. It's why we see things getting increasingly messed up. Wars, famine, waste, economic crashes, unemployment ect. More goes up, with the rest being spread wider among more.
You can't take tax payer money when there is no one in the working class other then in maintenance.
But you can make everything free but the want for work would disappear as... Why work if you can have everything for free?
But you can make everything free but the want for work would disappear as... Why work if you can have everything for free?
*people of the future, looking back at our dumb self-driving golf carts plastered in high-vis markings and warnings:* That's so sad, Alexa play _Despacito_
I get so annoyed by hysterical idiots complaining about these and not acknowledging the sheer amount of life that will be saved. Thanks for a reasoned view!
IIRC the last news report on driverless car was about the issues the programmers face regarding which life to make the car save - if there's a tragic choice between victims, who do you kill? IIRC surveys had been conducted among people to see if they preferred to save a child over an adult etc. And of course, they still need to solve the problem of the computer mistaking a person for bright light which, I believe, was the cause of one fatality.
Well, I the biggest obstacles for driver-less cars is just software engineering (basically programming time) and fear (both individual and "fear" in the sense that there are legal obstacles). In a way, the fear is extremely justified, in that any driver-less car actually could fail catastrophically. A bug in the software could most certainly lead to people dying, so it's not a completely unjustified fear holding back a technological development (as has been the case with many other things). However, the point I want to make here is that it would be unreasonable to be afraid of driver-less cars until you can ensure that they don't get into accidents. All driver-less cars need to be, safety-wise, to be completely justified is safer than human drivers... which is very far away from the flawless programming that I've seen many people demanding as a prerequisite for driver-less cars.
You're worried about a driverless car malfunctioning and making dangerous mistakes. Why aren't you worried about the many more bad decisions and dangerous mistakes humans make behind the wheel all the time? After spending my entire teenage and adult life programming computers, and much of it learning about psychology, I can tell you that a well-programmed computer will almost never make mistakes, and a poorly-programmed one will still make fewer mistakes than the average human being. Humans are terrible at...well, very many things, despite the usual idea that we're good at most things.
(For examples... a computer may have an error in sensor input one out of every ten thousand or so readings, and correct for it in software 90% of those times. Meanwhile, humans have a very long list of perceptual biases, analogous to sensory malfunction, which we very rarely correct for. A computer may have a strange combination of inputs and make an odd, incorrect decision. A human does exactly the same thing when something unexpected occurs. A human may have a bad day and make decisions based on emotion rather than the sensible decision, overlook the consequences. A computer...well, never does that. If told to analyze the consequences before deciding, it will do that the same way every single time. It doesn't have bad days. It doesn't have emotions to cloud the analysis.)
I think I must've misphrased something, because there seems to have been some sort of misunderstanding there. That was pretty much exactly what I was saying. What I've seen in previous instances of this discussion is that people are worried about the errors that will occur and my point, and yours, is that that doesn't matter, because driver-less cars don't have to be flawless to be a valid option. They just need to be safer than human drivers and that's very much achievable. We're agreeing with each other.
Shaeress
Oh, whoops. No, that issue is all my fault, sorry. I guess I got so used to the opposing silliness in comments that I stopped reading your comment halfway and missed the "however" clause >_< . I'm sorry!
Haha! No worries, man. The whole reason I wrote my comment was because I, too, assumed people held the opinions we both countered.
Don't tell me you filmed this today!! I was in North greenwich today O.O
I love technology. And I'm completely cool with the idea of autonomous cars driving us around in the future.
But I also enjoy driving. So I don't really know how to feel about this.
2:00 bye bye camera...
It's cute, but it operates in a constrained environment. It doesn't have to make "go/no go" and "continue/no continue" decisions. It doesn't have to make the "captaincy" judgment calls that (as of this writing) only humans do well.
They should make one powered on alcohol.
Like a Russian taxi cab?
This one is powered by electricity, there's no reason to downgrade the thing.
@@SherrifOfNottingham woosh
I hope autonomous cars will mark the end of car ownership. Totally don't like the concept of being required to have a metric ton of steel do nothing 99% of the time just to get to where I want to.
is it only me or you always sound like exhausted
It only needs a steering wheel that's not hooked up to anything so little children can pretend to be driving.
It's cool enough, but didn't they close a cycle lane for these vehicles?
...surely driverless vehicles are safer around cyclists than humans, human's get emotional, and distracted.
PaintTheFuture not just cyclists, kill all humans!
Seriously though, these driverless cars are probably 3 or 4 times less likely to kill cyclists (or anyone) than human operated cars.
Driverless vehicles are safer around pedestrians than cyclists...
Ovenman940 yeah, but trying to make driveless bicycles would be silly.
This discussion is very funny and pointless for someone from the netherlands
Are you.... are you implying that cyclists aren't humans? :p Cyclists don't have emotions or get distracted? :p
You know that if it has a massive lithium-ion battery it could burn like a massive hoverboard.
If it has a full tank of gasoline / petrol it could burn massively! Even worse if the tank is partially full it could explode!
@@acmefixer1 that's a hollywood myth
Cars don't really explode
WTF this guy is talking about. without telling us the tech behind that shit
How quaint.