ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags cars

View Poll Results: Driverless cars will become mandatory by 2050
Yes they will 30 22.39%
No they won't 64 47.76%
It will take longer 22 16.42%
Your poll options suck 36 26.87%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 134. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Old 25th March 2017, 06:31 PM   #321
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by Sideroxylon View Post
They didnt "dump" the program though did they. And you continue to be disengious here. Is this a high-school debate or a discussion of an emerging technology?
I don't work for Uber, but the article says they suspended the program because of the crash. Seems reasonable to me. That's kind of the point of doing experiments - to find out if an idea is good or not so good. If auto-autos aren't such a good idea, if they don't live up to the hype, then that's the way it is.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2017, 06:33 PM   #322
newyorkguy
Philosopher
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 9,201
Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
...I got a google search for ya... "driverless cars traffic jams think tank" ...
Okay, what do the thinkers think? What I found was, many of them are thinking about how driverless cars will affect future traffic congestion, especially in densely populated areas. One researcher says, "That is the great unknown." Some researchers think the convenience of a car that drives itself may push demand to the point where traffic congestion becomes worse. Others think that the efficiencies possible with self-driving vehicles will work against that. That the number of vehicles out there will decrease. This is from PC Magazine last month:
Quote:
A report from the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute supports these findings. The report concludes that the adoption of autonomous vehicles would reduce the number of cars owned by the average U.S. household from just over two to one vehicle per household. According to the report, one-vehicle households will be made possible because self-driving vehicles will use a "return-to-home" mode after they drop one household member at work so other household members can use the family self-driving car to be shuttled to errands and activities. Link
As the technology develops we will learn more. And whether you're pro or con, one fact seems certain. The technology will continue to develop.
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2017, 06:38 PM   #323
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 18,144
If I'm a tourist in a town that's new for me I want to drive slow on Main Street to check out the shops and cafes and such. I may stop from time to time and drive some more. It's safe and legal but it can create a traffic jam behind me. That's simply what happens on busy main streets with lots to see.

Does that end with driverless cars?
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2017, 06:40 PM   #324
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 18,345
Traffic jams composed of agents (driverless autos) obeying defined rules seem problems highly amenable to solution by mathematical models.
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman
Sideroxylon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2017, 06:42 PM   #325
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 18,345
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
If I'm a tourist in a town that's new for me I want to drive slow on Main Street to check out the shops and cafes and such. I may stop from time to time and drive some more. It's safe and legal but it can create a traffic jam behind me. That's simply what happens on busy main streets with lots to see.

Does that end with driverless cars?
It might. You could envisage a system would not allow you to dawdle if it was going to back up traffic.
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman
Sideroxylon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2017, 06:46 PM   #326
newyorkguy
Philosopher
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 9,201
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
...I may stop from time to time and drive some more. It's safe and legal but it can create a traffic jam behind me. ...
I would think it's neither safe nor legal.
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2017, 06:47 PM   #327
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 18,144
Originally Posted by Sideroxylon View Post
It might. You could envisage a system would not allow you to dawdle if it was going to back up traffic.
Our culture will not stand for these machines preventing such freedoms and pleasures. It's science fiction to expect future people to act like emotionless robots on blind missions.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2017, 06:49 PM   #328
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 18,144
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
I would think it's neither safe nor legal.
Think about the traffic in Times Square. Stop and go. Gawking tourists. Safe and legal. It happens everywhere.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2017, 06:56 PM   #329
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 18,345
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Our culture will not stand for these machines preventing such freedoms and pleasures. It's science fiction to expect people to act like emotionless robots on blind missions.
Today's world with its intrusions to freedoms and impositions on human behaviour is science fiction to my childhood self.

The new problems introduced by technolgy can sometimes also be solved by it. In your example, the passegners could disembark from their vehicle while it goes off to park. Or more efficently, we dont own the vehicle and it goes off in search of a new passenger.
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman
Sideroxylon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2017, 07:24 PM   #330
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 18,144
Originally Posted by Sideroxylon View Post
Today's world with its intrusions to freedoms and impositions on human behaviour is science fiction to my childhood self.

The new problems introduced by technolgy can sometimes also be solved by it. In your example, the passegners could disembark from their vehicle while it goes off to park. Or more efficently, we dont own the vehicle and it goes off in search of a new passenger.
I know what you mean. But we could cruise Main Street at our leisure in the days of horse and buggy, in your childhood, and also now. That experience is unchanged over a very long time. I can't envision people forfeiting that.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2017, 10:36 PM   #331
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 18,345
I can imagine people forfeiting slowing in a way that greatly impacts the journeys of others. I can also imagine dynamic smart routing systems that accomodate tourists wanting a look at sights like Times Square while allowing local workers and residents good access.
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman

Last edited by Sideroxylon; 25th March 2017 at 11:12 PM.
Sideroxylon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2017, 10:54 PM   #332
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 56,376
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
I don't work for Uber, but the article says they suspended the program because of the crash. Seems reasonable to me. That's kind of the point of doing experiments - to find out if an idea is good or not so good. If auto-autos aren't such a good idea, if they don't live up to the hype, then that's the way it is.
The thing is, one crash is not and should not be sufficient to scrap the entire idea and never work on developing it.

I fully believe that robot cars are inevitable. They will happen. I think that they will happen sooner rather than later, because people want them to. One crash is a setback, and a problem, but it's not an insoluble problem by any means, nor will it set the industry back very far.

We're in the development and testing stage of this technology right now. This is how it is supposed to work. You test it under controlled conditions, so that you can tell what is going wrong and fix it. You don't stop at the first setback.
__________________
Read my fantasy novel for free!
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2017, 11:14 PM   #333
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 18,345
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Our culture will not stand for these machines preventing such freedoms and pleasures. It's science fiction to expect future people to act like emotionless robots on blind missions.
Our culture will fade away like all those of generations before us.
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman
Sideroxylon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2017, 11:37 PM   #334
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 56,376
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
I know what you mean. But we could cruise Main Street at our leisure in the days of horse and buggy, in your childhood, and also now. That experience is unchanged over a very long time. I can't envision people forfeiting that.
That's a failure of your vision, not of the technology.
__________________
Read my fantasy novel for free!
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2017, 07:04 AM   #335
Distracted1
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 2,038
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Yes, that is correct. And they are having an investigation because of a crash. And the crash happened when the car was in auto-drive mode.

I only referenced it because I heard somewhere that this technology was supposed to be safe and prevent crashes.
Did you read somewhere that the tech will eliminate accidents as well?

Surely you recognize the logic issue involved.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2017, 07:31 AM   #336
Distracted1
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 2,038
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
I know what you mean. But we could cruise Main Street at our leisure in the days of horse and buggy, in your childhood, and also now. That experience is unchanged over a very long time. I can't envision people forfeiting that.
I am sure the "Main Street businesses" appreciate the interest as well- else why have a storefront display at all?

In Philly there are designated bus, and bicycle, lanes intended to allow traffic to flow more smoothly through congested areas. They do little to help, however, because they are often ignored by drivers who think they have a need to get where they are going that transcends the designation.
It is not difficult to imagine designated "browser" or "tourist" lanes that allow people to take a more leisurely drive through commercial or historic districts ( added benefit- the driver need not divide his attention between sightseeing and operating the car ). If violating the lane designation is not possible ( except, perhaps, in emergency situations ) it seems likely that some compromise could be achieved between those who wish to sightsee, and those who wish to get through an area unimpeeded by sightseers.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2017, 09:12 AM   #337
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 17,060
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
I know what you mean. But we could cruise Main Street at our leisure in the days of horse and buggy, in your childhood, and also now. That experience is unchanged over a very long time. I can't envision people forfeiting that.
Driverless cars will enhance that experience. When driving, you have to slow down to look at the windows, not because you need more time to look at the windows, but because you are doing two things at once. You have to look, and drive.

Passengers can still see lots of things when in cars driven by fully attentive drivers. In the future, everyone will be a passenger.
__________________
See you in 2018, maybe.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2017, 09:18 AM   #338
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 18,144
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Driverless cars will enhance that experience. When driving, you have to slow down to look at the windows, not because you need more time to look at the windows, but because you are doing two things at once. You have to look, and drive.

Passengers can still see lots of things when in cars driven by fully attentive drivers. In the future, everyone will be a passenger.
I guess that could work but as a "passenger tourist in a driverless car" I would want to tell the car my spontaneous intentions such as slow down, speed up, stop, honk the horn, find parking now, no wait I changed my mind, go back where we just were, etc.

It's like I want to drive the car myself instead of constantly barking orders at it.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2017, 10:31 AM   #339
Distracted1
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 2,038
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
I guess that could work but as a "passenger tourist in a driverless car" I would want to tell the car my spontaneous intentions such as slow down, speed up, stop, honk the horn, find parking now, no wait I changed my mind, go back where we just were, etc.

It's like I want to drive the car myself instead of constantly barking orders at it.
Sorry, but from your description of your behavior in traffic, you sound like part of the problem.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2017, 02:57 PM   #340
newyorkguy
Philosopher
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 9,201
The ironic part of the Uber accident commented on (and linked to) previously is, it sounds like the human driver was at fault.
Quote:
The accident occurred when the driver of a second vehicle "failed to yield" to the Uber vehicle while making a turn, said Josie Montenegro, a spokeswoman for the Tempe Police Department.
Maybe this points out why driverless cars should be mandatory. You don't get the full benefit of the technology when you blend ultra-logical vehicles, virtually guaranteed to obey traffic laws, with human drivers. Presumably if the "second vehicle" had been self-driving, it would not have "failed to yield."

How would it be possible to program a self-driving car to anticipate when a human driver is about to do something stupid or reckless? That's why there are so many accidents. Human drivers are highly unpredictable.
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2017, 05:20 PM   #341
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 18,144
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
Human drivers are highly unpredictable.
This can't literally be true. If so, everyone would be smashing into everyone else all the time.

Driving around works because other drivers actually are predictable to an extent that it is highly workable.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2017, 06:54 PM   #342
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 56,376
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
I guess that could work but as a "passenger tourist in a driverless car" I would want to tell the car my spontaneous intentions such as slow down, speed up, stop, honk the horn, find parking now, no wait I changed my mind, go back where we just were, etc.

It's like I want to drive the car myself instead of constantly barking orders at it.
What makes you think that you won't be able to do that?

I've seen this argument a lot. It seems that some people enjoy just driving around randomly, taking turns on a whim, changing their minds about where they want to go every couple of minutes. And for some obscure reason they think that they won't be able to do that in a robot car.

For a start, yeah, you'll be able to do that if you really want to. Second, it will be easier for you to do that, since you'll just need to speak your instructions and your car will take care of the actual doing for you.

Today, if you whiz past a sign for something interesting and want to go back and check it out, you have to indicate, pull over safely, wait for a gap in the traffic so that you can turn around, perform a safe u-turn, accelerate into the traffic going in the opposite direction, and keep an eye out for the turn that you missed. Alternatively, you need to find a new route that will bring you back to the turn-off. Robot cars will be able to do all of that automagically when you say "Hey car, take me to the Cheese Museum!"

In fact, most people decide where they want to go, then drive there. They don't randomly change their minds all the time. Yet that seems to be a common objection to robot cars.

Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
This can't literally be true. If so, everyone would be smashing into everyone else all the time.
Everyone is smashing into everyone else all of the time. More often than they should, anyway.

Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Driving around works because other drivers actually are predictable to an extent that it is highly workable.
And yet, people smash into each other all the time! And they do so because people think that they know better than the road rules. They love their "freedom" so much that they feel that they can ignore the rules whenever they want to. Traffic is safe only when people scrupulously follow the rules. Robot cars will be incapable of ignoring the rules.
__________________
Read my fantasy novel for free!
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2017, 07:45 PM   #343
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
(much snipped)

And yet, people smash into each other all the time! And they do so because people think that they know better than the road rules. They love their "freedom" so much that they feel that they can ignore the rules whenever they want to. Traffic is safe only when people scrupulously follow the rules. Robot cars will be incapable of ignoring the rules.
Sure they will, just buy the latest Ukrainian hack.

That raises another issue: who sets the rules? Oh, I know, some benevolent entity we get to dream up along with our dream of autonomous cars.

Look. If this idea appeals, just take the bus or ride the subway. Many people do.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2017, 08:00 PM   #344
Noztradamus
Illuminator
 
Noztradamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,632
Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
.We all know that sheep herds are a major cause of traffic jams in real people's lives... laughing my ass off
It's a metaphor for a SJW protest.
__________________
The Australian Family Association's John Morrissey was aghast when he learned Jessica Watson was bidding to become the youngest person to sail round the world alone, unaided and without stopping.
Noztradamus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2017, 08:28 PM   #345
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 56,376
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
That raises another issue: who sets the rules? Oh, I know, some benevolent entity we get to dream up along with our dream of autonomous cars.
Who sets the road rules today? You seem to be suggessting that there is some kind of autocratic motoring dictator who decides what's what. In fact, most road rules were developed decades ago, modified and tweaked over time, and subject to revision based on evidence. That won't change. What makes you think that there'll be one person in charge of the whole thing?

Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Look. If this idea appeals, just take the bus or ride the subway. Many people do.
Indeed. But buses and subways don't go door-to-door. They only go from and to specific places. They're not always particularly friendly to the disabled, and can be very crowded and in some places and at some times dangerous.

Imagine this: You want to go to the mall to do some shopping. You call up an app on your phone. Within five minutes, a robot car pulls up to your front door. You get in and say "take me to the mall". It's clean, because it spends downtime at the depot for maintenance every day. It takes you quickly and safely to the mall, stopping at your preferred entrance. You do your shopping, and when you finish you decide to have a few beers at the pub. When you're done, you call up the app again and a robot car comes and picks you up. You load your shopping and say "take me home". It knows where your home is because you already set that in the app. This one is a little dirty because it's had a few passengers since the last time it was at the depot, so you make a report in the app. Once it drops you off, it goes straight back to the depot for cleaning. You're billed directly via the app.

Contrast this to the following: You want to go to the mall to do some shopping. You make sure you have enough money in your travel card, then head out your front door. The bus stop is ten minutes walk away. You wait in the rain for the bus to arrive. When it does, it's crowded. You swipe your travel card - you have to do it three times before it registers. You move onto the bus and the only two seats available are either next to an enormously fat man with questionable personal hygiene or next to a punk-haird girl of about sixteen who looks like she'll shiv you if you accidentally brush against her. You decide to stand. The bus takes twenty minutes to get to the mall because it has a route to follow, and drops you off at an interchange that's ten minutes walk from the store you want. When you've done your shopping, you realise that you've got another twenty minute bus trip home, plus ten minutes walk at either end which you now have to do with your shopping.

Personally, I prefer the former scenario.
__________________
Read my fantasy novel for free!
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2017, 11:05 PM   #346
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 79,254
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Sure they will, just buy the latest Ukrainian hack.

That raises another issue: who sets the rules? Oh, I know, some benevolent entity we get to dream up along with our dream of autonomous cars.

Look. If this idea appeals, just take the bus or ride the subway. Many people do.
The same group that currently sets the rules, and why would we need a new group?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2017, 12:38 AM   #347
Delvo
الشيطان الأبيض
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 7,042
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Sure they will, just buy the latest Ukrainian hack.
And these cars will be equipped to receive transmissions and obey them and/or rewrite their software based on them, why?

Originally Posted by marplots View Post
If this idea appeals, just take the bus or ride the subway.
Wow, I don't often see people assert something simultaneously so dishonest and so mindlessly irrelevant that it requires its own new fallacy type, but: argument from false alternative. I haven't seen an example quite so flamboyantly wrongly wrong since that thread where people were talking about how a certain dentist treated his employees and some anti-employee character claimed that if the employees don't like it they're free to just become dentists and run their own dentistry businesses however they want to.

You know perfectly well that the options you just pretended we all could choose instead don't exist for most people. You also know perfectly well that even if they did, they still wouldn't serve the equivalent purpose, in several different ways. These things are so obvious that not only is there no way you could possibly not have known them, but you also must have gone into that ridiculous sentence knowing that we all already knew you know them, and knowing that we would know that you know that we know that you know them. What could possibly have been the purpose of saying it anyway?

And if self-driving cars are really such a bad thing, then why do their opponents still never muster a single argument against them that isn't that kind of ludicrously pathetic jabbering?
Delvo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2017, 04:44 AM   #348
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 17,494
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post

In the future, everyone will be a passenger.
What a frightening idea
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2017, 05:07 AM   #349
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
And these cars will be equipped to receive transmissions and obey them and/or rewrite their software based on them, why?
Why do they do it with iPhones? It's a thing.

Quote:
Wow, I don't often see people assert something simultaneously so dishonest and so mindlessly irrelevant that it requires its own new fallacy type, but: argument from false alternative. I haven't seen an example quite so flamboyantly wrongly wrong since that thread where people were talking about how a certain dentist treated his employees and some anti-employee character claimed that if the employees don't like it they're free to just become dentists and run their own dentistry businesses however they want to.
OK, I get you aren't interested in any counter-narrative; no need to get upset.

Quote:
You know perfectly well that the options you just pretended we all could choose instead don't exist for most people. You also know perfectly well that even if they did, they still wouldn't serve the equivalent purpose, in several different ways. These things are so obvious that not only is there no way you could possibly not have known them, but you also must have gone into that ridiculous sentence knowing that we all already knew you know them, and knowing that we would know that you know that we know that you know them. What could possibly have been the purpose of saying it anyway?
That's exactly the point. Multiple solutions for multiple needs. Except... and here's the deal killer... I'm told that to reap the real benefits of the auto-auto, we have to eliminate human-driven vehicles. Why? Because of the networking opportunities.

Quote:
And if self-driving cars are really such a bad thing, then why do their opponents still never muster a single argument against them that isn't that kind of ludicrously pathetic jabbering?
Is this where the mass transit lobby went? A little sidestep from more buses or a new train line into this exciting new idea? I get it, I truly do. We oversold robotics to an entire generation and maybe here's the breakout idea. Except it isn't. Even in the most controlled environments, short of having fixed tracks, you don't see auto-autos. Not at Disneyland, not at your local golf course, senior citizen trailer park, or the mall. What you end up with instead is the Roomba - a device that steers by crashing into things.

Self driving cars aren't a "bad thing." What they are is a novelty item some people find really cool. And there are applications - a self-driving tractor out plowing the fields comes to mind. Just don't overplay the hand, the burden of proof is on those who are promoting the idea. The rest of us have something that works for us already.

You know what else would be cool? Moving sidewalks. Make that happen please.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2017, 08:20 AM   #350
Disbelief
Master Poster
 
Disbelief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,430
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
1. How much will the driverless car cost me? Can regular cars be converted to driverless, or do all regular cars have to be scrapped?
Way too early to put a cost to this, as the first ones rolling out are going to be owned and insured by manufacturers and use technology that is extremely expensive. Depends on how quickly costs come down to make them marketable to majority of people. It may just be a shift in transportation away from ownership and into the ride sharing and ride hailing services, so different areas might have different strategies.

If the technology takes off, you should be able to convert to driverless, considering this is how the start ups have been doing it. Not sure if there are legal ramifications since the car was not subjected to actual crash tests to see if they meet the legal requirements, but that might be mitigated by computer modeling.

I do have real world experience with some of this, though I would not by any stretch claim to be an expert.
__________________
Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same?

Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman
Disbelief is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2017, 08:29 AM   #351
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 79,254
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
...snip...

Is this where the mass transit lobby went? A little sidestep from more buses or a new train line into this exciting new idea? I get it, I truly do. We oversold robotics to an entire generation and maybe here's the breakout idea. Except it isn't. Even in the most controlled environments, short of having fixed tracks, you don't see auto-autos.

...snip...
I've been a few factories in which they have autonomous and not on rails robots moving stuff around. Fun to step in front of them and cause them to stop and try to get around you. Quite uncanny, almost eerie to see flocking like behavior or them linking up in a convoy and then splitting out. I'll see if I can get hold of any videos and share them here.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2017, 08:35 PM   #352
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 56,376
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
What a frightening idea
What frightens you about this idea?
__________________
Read my fantasy novel for free!
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2017, 03:38 AM   #353
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 17,494
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
What frightens you about this idea?

Existential, I'm not articulate enough to elaborate.
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2017, 04:23 AM   #354
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 18,345
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
Existential, I'm not articulate enough to elaborate.
It will be fine, even joyous, to ride though our dystopian future cities.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman
Sideroxylon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2017, 07:16 AM   #355
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
But that wasn't actually the question. The question was what the cars will cost. It is, of course, quite possible that when you tally up the cost of the car, the cost of the insurance, the cost of your own health insurance, tax benefits, and whatnot, the overall cost will be less. But not all those costs are distributed in ways that are the same, and the theoretical cost saving depends on the degree to which we can trust the insurance companies to pass their savings on, governments to pass their savings on, and so forth.
I've always assumed it was against the law to defraud people with false liability numbers and price gouge but I come from the north country.
Quote:
And, of course, not all those costs are evenly distributed, nor are they all paid at the same time. Having driven for over 50 years without an accident, my insurance rates are relatively low. Overall, the savings might be very great indeed, but not necessarily for everyone.
I hope you can console yourself out of being sad about missing out on all the savings, maybe think about 33 000 people a year not dying? That's how I get through that particular political frustration, personally.
Quote:
Saved time from traffic jams is a non issue for the rural driver.
Yeah but farmers worry about their daughters driving with stoned and drunk douche**** boyfriends that might get them killed so they have a stake. Farmers could also save money by buying into a shared trucking company like uber where auto trucks just show up and they fill them and go wherever they want to keep their costs down. A farmer could schedule one for the middle of the night so that the prices are down just like uber.
Quote:
A poor person who pays little or no income tax will not see the same kind of saving
Wrong wrong wrong... wait... quadruple wrong. Shared driverless cars, in the age where we can print cars, will be cheaper than public transit by an order of magnitude one day, and it will enable people better mobility giving them more economic and spiritual opportunities, i dunno try googling driverless cars less than public transit or maybe just doing your due diligence and google your own argument before you try this with ole joey mcgee!

Quote:
as a richer person who pays for the social services that accidents strain. The saving may be very real in the general sense, but it's cold comfort if it comes in the form of a car so expensive you cannot buy one.
The costs are overexaggerated and there is much taking the piss over the analysts projecting low numbers but the car sharing thing solves all of this. Only a few people really want to control the car, most just want to be safe. And they just want a clean car. They don't care, there will be so many of them parked all over the place that you can just say, "Computer, get a car in the driveway,and by the time you have walked out your door and your door locks behind you the car will already be there and no one will give a **** about any of our petty antiquated style of debate and the detail we put into it


Quote:
Who actually knows?
Only God.

Last edited by Joey McGee; 28th March 2017 at 07:18 AM.
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2017, 07:25 AM   #356
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
Mandatory just solves all of the emotional, logistical, and political problems forever, like an injection painful at first, and people will claim it irreparably did something to the fabric of space and time, but will endure. Like Roe vs. Wade. or the fact that Pluto will never be a *********** planet again.... or the fact that no one will ever be a better comedian than Dave Chappelle.

Last edited by Joey McGee; 28th March 2017 at 07:26 AM.
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2017, 07:39 AM   #357
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
Nope. A real one. Registered PE, mechanical.
2050 is a long time away is it not? Do you have arguments against the consensus that it is possible at that time?
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2017, 07:44 AM   #358
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 14,365
Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
Mandatory just solves all of the emotional, logistical, and political problems forever, like an injection painful at first, and people will claim it irreparably did something to the fabric of space and time, but will endure. Like Roe vs. Wade. or the fact that Pluto will never be a *********** planet again.... or the fact that no one will ever be a better comedian than Dave Chappelle.
Mandatory will never work.

Make them good enough that people want them and they will take off. If they aren't that good, making them mandatory won't help. See Tesla vs all previous electric cars.
__________________
I once proposed a fun ban.

Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2017, 07:47 AM   #359
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Driverless cars are exactly like driven cars when it comes to being unable to drive through another car, a pedestrian or an object. Therefore, there absolutely will be spontaneous and unexpected traffic jams that occur with driverless cars.

The driverless car will stop because it cannot proceed and more driverless cars will stop behind that one and so on. That's a traffic jam, Joey.
Well I think we can chalk this up to a lack of imagination... first of all, merging rules and hesitations and am I gonna let this guy in or not, none of that happens, merging and everything is done at maximum speed, tailgating isn't illegal it's how they do business, speed limits are gone, every pedestrian crossing will be an automated crosswalk when the foot hits the curb, it's on again. These cars are going to fly and only get faster. Might have to block out the windows when you take grandma out just like you put horse blinders on but this is how it is going to work, I'm just telling you at this point, I don't care if you believe me really... honestly... this is probably the one issue I just think it's funny if you don't get it by now... we can have reasonable disagreements about almost everything else.

Quote:
You will even have traffic jams for "gapers" who are drivers slowing down to look at something interesting. People riding in these cars will force it to slow down so they can look at something going on, or look at, or look for anything that can be imagined. That forces following cars to slow down as well.
LOL what kind of self-respecting technocrat would allow rubbernecking into the software? LOL
Quote:
I can imagine computer networked cars reducing some slowdowns and jams, but they cannot be eliminated.
You clearly don't realize how serious some people are about transit and what they are willing to sell to the public to get there.
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2017, 07:51 AM   #360
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
Mandatory will never work.

Make them good enough that people want them and they will take off. If they aren't that good, making them mandatory won't help. See Tesla vs all previous electric cars.
That's crap there will always be some *********** crazy person on meth out there on the roads screwing up traffic no matter how well your sales pitch or product is, you're not living in the real world man, in 100 years those mass murderers are going to be making mini atom bombs in their basements this whole worrying about controlling access to public resources is gonna seem so quaint...
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:23 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.