Google Car Hits Bus.

BattleCorp wrote: »

Anybody who thinks we won't have driverless cars in the future is away with the fairies. It's going to happen. Maybe not 2020, but it will happen in my lifetime, that's for sure.

They were saying the same 30 years ago.

storker wrote: »

Won't they still require owners?

Yes, but if the car is completely autonomous, it removes a lot of stumbling blocks. In essence the reason private vehicles exist is convenience. The convenience of having a vehicle available for use, 24/7.

What if you had a taxi service that you could call and there would be a taxi there within five minutes, day or night, any time of the year? You wouldn't really need your own car.

You can't, right? Because it would mean having lots of drivers sitting in vehicles waiting for calls, with lots of downtime. But autonomous vehicles don't have drivers. They mean you can use your vehicle fleet more efficiently - you can have all of your vehicles on standby, 24/7.

How many times do you run out the door with zero notice? I'd say once or twice a year. So if you can press a button on an app, and five minutes later there is a vehicle ready and waiting to take you to your destination, that's practically all of your journeys covered.

That just can't be achieved with private vehicles or taxi services. Does that sound a little less convenient than having your own car outside your door? Yep.

However, when you consider the cost of your own vehicle - cash price + yearly insurance + fuel + maintenance - then the deciding factor between having it outside your door and having it five minutes away is merely a matter of price.

Think about how much you spend on fuel, maintenance and insurance. Now imagine you are signed up to an autonomous vehicle service that charges you €80/month, all-in. Clean, serviced, working cars available on request and at your door in five minutes, guaranteed.

Would you really rather spend €15k upfront and €200/month for the convenience of those extra five minutes? Most people won't. They will adapt.

ken wrote: »

I was all for driverless cars till Jeremy Clarkson spoke about them on top gear. He said "At some stage your car will make a conscience decision to kill you. Imagine the scenario. Your driverless car is heading towards a group of people. If it hits them loads will die but you'll live. If the car diverts its course it'll hit a wall and you'll die. The car will take the option that causes the least damage and your screwed"

That's not word for word but as close as I remember.

Autonomous cars won't get themselves into that situation because they won't drive like Jeremy Clarkson. How many times have you been in a scenario where it's a choice between hitting a group of people in the middle of the road, or a brick wall? Never. So why would autonomous vehicles be getting into these scenarios all the time?

Jeremy's good with the jokes, not so good with the thinking.

Does anyone here have a passion for cars and driving? If so what are your thoughts on self driving vehicles?

ken wrote: »

I was all for driverless cars till Jeremy Clarkson spoke about them on top gear. He said "At some stage your car will make a conscience decision to kill you. Imagine the scenario. Your driverless car is heading towards a group of people. If it hits them loads will die but you'll live. If the car diverts its course it'll hit a wall and you'll die. The car will take the option that causes the least damage and your screwed"

That's not word for word but as close as I remember.

What would Clarkson know about it?

Why would a driver-less car be driving towards a group of people?

Planes fly mostly automatically and have been flown into buildings by people not computers.

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Does anyone here have a passion for cars and driving? If so what are your thoughts on self driving vehicles?

Yeah, I really enjoy driving.

But not as much as I'd enjoy safer roads, being driven home from the pub and lower driving costs.

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Two million miles in testing. Where the car is in pristine condition, the maps and GPS data are fully up to date and the roads are exactly how they should be.

I have no doubt there will be autonomous vehicles on high volume corridors sometime in the future, but I can't see the infrastructure and the hardware catching up with the technology on a widespread basis any time soon

Accurate mapping isn't that important really, it's used for navigation rather than real-time steering. GPS maps out what's happening, but the steering and decision making is handled in real-time. Software can handle road closures, layout changes, sign changes, etc.

I've heard a lot of that, "it can only drive in perfect conditions" stuff going around, but that's actually pretty short-sighted. The kind of issues faced by inclement conditions can be overcome in a matter of months and a year or two, rather than a decade or two.

Unlike 1986, we're at a point now where the technologies have all sufficiently converged to make the entire thing viable.

Here's a good video on it. Skip to 7:45*, this is where you will see how the vehicles process data and react to actual stimuli in real time: https://www.ted.com/talks/chris_urmson_how_a_driverless_car_sees_the_road?language=en

Or, if you just want a short GIF: http://imgur.com/AsdcLec

These things are way, way further along than many people seem to be aware. They're not just glorified trains following a GPS trace down the road. They are actually self-driving.

And the rate at which they "learn" to drive is exponential because they share the data between all vehicles. Imagine if your driving experience didn't just consist of the mileage that you do, but all of the accumulated mileage and experienced that your friends and family have too. You'd literally be ten times the driver you are now.

Perhaps it's because they've been talked about since the 1960s that people are skeptical, but I think everyone seems unaware of how advanced the technology actually is now. It's not some ridiculous grey box rolling around a test track in Nevada. They're actual production vehicles driving around real streets in real conditions. And not getting into accidents.

*Though if you have the time, the first 7 minutes discusses why going from "manual drive" to "driver assist" to "automated drive" doesn't work in real terms and won't happen in any major way.

BattleCorp wrote: »

The technology for them wasn't around 30 years ago. It is around now. Google cars have driven over two million miles so far.

The technology is here and it's only going to improve. These cars are here to stay.

FFS, there was a robot tractor ploughing at the ploughing championships in cork in 1977 not many of them around yet.

Sam Kade wrote: »

FFS, there was a robot tractor ploughing at the ploughing championships in cork in 1977 not many of them around yet.

There are loads of them around now, they're actually in production use. And taking off in a big way.

Primarily because mapping out a ploughing pattern in a field and executing it is dead simple.

Sam Kade wrote: »

Not very affordable to the average farmer though. Even if driverless cars become available how long before they completely take over.

Most technology is typically very expensive when it first releases.
Considering that the now bog standard Nokia phone once cost upward for €400 for a large, under-powered "mobile" phone that often required a charger to be carried with it, and now the same basic technology can be bought in a shop for about €20.

Driverless cars won't be cheap on release, and much like the Tesla Electric cars, the price will drop with time. Tesla recently announced a new car coming this for year for just €35k, which is staggering considering the original model cost upward of €150k when it came out.

Deleted User wrote: »

Love driving but can't wait for these to be common. Having lived with some of the most dangerous roads in the world for the last few years, just give me safety and a relaxing ride to work.

The roads are not dangerous it's the fools driving on them that are dangerous.