menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events Topic
Topic: Vedder shifts his fire onto parking services
Page: 11 of 12
mail
person
rpbobcat
3/22/2018 7:30 AM
They were talking about the recent pedestrian accident on the news this morning.

The car in question did have a human "back-up" driver.

Apparently, he was "looking down" , and looked up,right before the car hit the pedestrian.
mail
OhioCatFan
3/22/2018 10:08 AM
This technology clearly no where near ready for prime time. The emphasis in the expression artificial intelligence is still on the word artificial.
mail
person
rpbobcat
3/22/2018 10:36 AM
I wondered,when the radio said the driver was "looking down",if it involved a "smart" phone ?
Last Edited: 3/22/2018 10:37:36 AM by rpbobcat
mail
OhioCatFan
3/22/2018 10:49 PM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
I wondered,when the radio said the driver was "looking down",if it involved a "smart" phone ?
Couldn't see the cellphone on the video, but it certainly looked like he was probably looking at a phone. But the major point to me was that the computer algorithm is certainly flawed. The human backup guy, of course, should have been alert and acted to prevent the accident. As I've said many times, I'm all for computer-assisted cars; I'm fearful about the concept of computer-driven cars. My new hybrid has every computer safety feature known to man, but I drive it, not some computer robot!
Last Edited: 3/22/2018 10:50:37 PM by OhioCatFan
mail
person
rpbobcat
3/23/2018 6:43 AM
According to an article in today's The Record,experts who saw the video of the accident said the vehicle's radar and laser sensors should have picked up the pedestrian and the vehicle's computers should have "braked" it to avoid hitting the pedestrian.
mail
DelBobcat
3/23/2018 11:32 AM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
I wondered,when the radio said the driver was "looking down",if it involved a "smart" phone ?
Couldn't see the cellphone on the video, but it certainly looked like he was probably looking at a phone. But the major point to me was that the computer algorithm is certainly flawed. The human backup guy, of course, should have been alert and acted to prevent the accident. As I've said many times, I'm all for computer-assisted cars; I'm fearful about the concept of computer-driven cars. My new hybrid has every computer safety feature known to man, but I drive it, not some computer robot!
I'm curious at what point would you be comfortable with self-driving cars? Do you have a zero tolerance policy for pedestrian deaths? And if so, why are you okay with human drivers? After all, human drivers kill 6,000 pedestrians per year. If that number dropped to 2,000 because of self-driving cars would that be a success in your eyes?
mail
person
rpbobcat
3/23/2018 12:38 PM
DelBobcat wrote:expand_more
I wondered,when the radio said the driver was "looking down",if it involved a "smart" phone ?
Couldn't see the cellphone on the video, but it certainly looked like he was probably looking at a phone. But the major point to me was that the computer algorithm is certainly flawed. The human backup guy, of course, should have been alert and acted to prevent the accident. As I've said many times, I'm all for computer-assisted cars; I'm fearful about the concept of computer-driven cars. My new hybrid has every computer safety feature known to man, but I drive it, not some computer robot!
I'm curious at what point would you be comfortable with self-driving cars? Do you have a zero tolerance policy for pedestrian deaths? And if so, why are you okay with human drivers? After all, human drivers kill 6,000 pedestrians per year. If that number dropped to 2,000 because of self-driving cars would that be a success in your eyes?
Let me start out by saying that I'm a little younger then OCF.

I won't speak for him.

But I think whether or not you'll ever be comfortable with a self driving car is generational.

Self driving cars may evolve to a point where they have a measure of acceptance from the public.

That acceptance will increase over time,just like other "radical technologies" that are now,for better or worse, "mainstream".

Personally,I don't think I'll ever feel comfortable with a self driving car.

I've said it before,and I'll say it again.

You can have my steering wheel,when you pry it from my cold dead hands.
mail
OhioCatFan
3/23/2018 2:08 PM
DelBobcat wrote:expand_more
I wondered,when the radio said the driver was "looking down",if it involved a "smart" phone ?
Couldn't see the cellphone on the video, but it certainly looked like he was probably looking at a phone. But the major point to me was that the computer algorithm is certainly flawed. The human backup guy, of course, should have been alert and acted to prevent the accident. As I've said many times, I'm all for computer-assisted cars; I'm fearful about the concept of computer-driven cars. My new hybrid has every computer safety feature known to man, but I drive it, not some computer robot!
I'm curious at what point would you be comfortable with self-driving cars? Do you have a zero tolerance policy for pedestrian deaths? And if so, why are you okay with human drivers? After all, human drivers kill 6,000 pedestrians per year. If that number dropped to 2,000 because of self-driving cars would that be a success in your eyes?
You are assuming that self-driving cars will do a better job and cause fewer deaths than human-driven cars. At least for now, I don't accept that assumption.
mail
OhioCatFan
3/23/2018 2:11 PM
Let me add that I expect the advent of computer-assisted cars, with all the new safety features, to dramatically reduce the number of deaths from human-driven cars over the next few years.
mail
person
BillyTheCat
3/25/2018 8:04 PM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
This technology clearly no where near ready for prime time. The emphasis in the expression artificial intelligence is still on the word artificial.
Glad that no cars with drivers have never hit anyone, especially when the person hit ignores traffic laws.
mail
person
rpbobcat
3/26/2018 6:39 AM
BTC's comment on "traffic laws" got me thinking.

I presume self-driving cars will be programmed to follow traffic laws,like speed limits.

So,if I'm in a self driving car on an empty road and the sign says 50 mph,the car does 50mph.

I'm sure no one here has a "heavy foot".
But self driving cars will mean that,for drivers like me who do sometimes go faster then the speed limit, your trip,without traffic, will take longer.
mail
person
Deciduous Forest Cat
3/26/2018 10:25 AM
I would imagine such things will be programmable by the owner.
mail
person
rpbobcat
3/26/2018 11:59 AM
Deciduous Forest Cat wrote:expand_more
I would imagine such things will be programmable by the owner.
I'm not sure how it would work.
Having a device that could be programmed to "break the law" opens up all kinds of liability questions.
mail
person
Deciduous Forest Cat
3/26/2018 2:01 PM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
I would imagine such things will be programmable by the owner.
I'm not sure how it would work.
Having a device that could be programmed to "break the law" opens up all kinds of liability questions.
You mean like every time I set my cruise control? Why do the automakers allow that to happen? Why don't all cars have 70 mph limiters on them?
mail
person
rpbobcat
3/26/2018 3:41 PM
Deciduous Forest Cat wrote:expand_more
I would imagine such things will be programmable by the owner.
I'm not sure how it would work.
Having a device that could be programmed to "break the law" opens up all kinds of liability questions.
You mean like every time I set my cruise control? Why do the automakers allow that to happen? Why don't all cars have 70 mph limiters on them?
According to an atty friend of mine,the issue is the potential liability when the car is programmed to do the driving,not you.

At one time there was a push to put governors on cars to limit speed.

I also don't know if a car's "black box" can be used to prove speeding,especially in an accident.
mail
DelBobcat
3/26/2018 10:01 PM
Deciduous Forest Cat wrote:expand_more
I would imagine such things will be programmable by the owner.
Additionally, two things:

1. Speed limits will be higher since human error is no longer an issue.

2. Traffic congestion, which is caused mostly by inefficient behavior on humans' part, will no longer be an issue so everyone will get everywhere faster anyway. No more worries about slow left lane drivers, no more dealing with people that don't know how to zipper merge or who block traffic lanes because they don't want people to "skip" to the front of the line, no more people following too closely and braking abruptly, etc. All those behaviors are what cause traffic congestion.
mail
OhioCatFan
3/26/2018 11:26 PM
DelBobcat wrote:expand_more
I would imagine such things will be programmable by the owner.
Additionally, two things:

1. Speed limits will be higher since human error is no longer an issue.

2. Traffic congestion, which is caused mostly by inefficient behavior on humans' part, will no longer be an issue so everyone will get everywhere faster anyway. No more worries about slow left lane drivers, no more dealing with people that don't know how to zipper merge or who block traffic lanes because they don't want people to "skip" to the front of the line, no more people following too closely and braking abruptly, etc. All those behaviors are what cause traffic congestion.
The Millennium in the Morning! And, everyone will live happily ever after . . .
mail
OhioCatFan
3/26/2018 11:27 PM
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
This technology clearly no where near ready for prime time. The emphasis in the expression artificial intelligence is still on the word artificial.
Glad that no cars with drivers have never hit anyone, especially when the person hit ignores traffic laws.
So? This proves what?
mail
person
rpbobcat
3/27/2018 6:41 AM
DelBobcat wrote:expand_more
I would imagine such things will be programmable by the owner.
Additionally, two things:

1. Speed limits will be higher since human error is no longer an issue.

2. Traffic congestion, which is caused mostly by inefficient behavior on humans' part, will no longer be an issue so everyone will get everywhere faster anyway. No more worries about slow left lane drivers, no more dealing with people that don't know how to zipper merge or who block traffic lanes because they don't want people to "skip" to the front of the line, no more people following too closely and braking abruptly, etc. All those behaviors are what cause traffic congestion.
But,this supposed utopia can only happen if all vehicles are self driving.
mail
person
Deciduous Forest Cat
3/27/2018 10:17 AM
Frankly I think the self-driving thing is fools gold. It's taking the focus off of making public transportation more accessible and more efficient as a people mover. Meanwhile, it doesn't matter if the cars are electric or gas, our highways will continue to expand, require more infrastructure dollars, more upkeep, more tolls...meanwhile, more runoff, more pollution. It won't be long until everything is blacktop.
mail
person
rpbobcat
3/27/2018 10:32 AM
Deciduous Forest Cat wrote:expand_more
more runoff, more pollution. It won't be long until everything is blacktop.
Actually no,at least in New Jersey.

Even if we increase impervious area,we have to reduce the amount of runoff from what currently exists.
It called "storm water management".

As far as pollution,we also have to include a Water Quality System to remove 80% of the Total Suspended Solids from the runoff.

We also have to "recharge" Groundwater,so we replenish the aquifer.
mail
DelBobcat
3/28/2018 12:32 PM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
more runoff, more pollution. It won't be long until everything is blacktop.
Actually no,at least in New Jersey.

Even if we increase impervious area,we have to reduce the amount of runoff from what currently exists.
It called "storm water management".

As far as pollution,we also have to include a Water Quality System to remove 80% of the Total Suspended Solids from the runoff.

We also have to "recharge" Groundwater,so we replenish the aquifer.
We both know that stormwater management facilities often fail. I think we have made worlds of progress in this regard but we're still operating on a lot of faulty assumptions when it comes to the science and practice of stormwater management.
mail
DelBobcat
3/28/2018 12:46 PM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
I would imagine such things will be programmable by the owner.
Additionally, two things:

1. Speed limits will be higher since human error is no longer an issue.

2. Traffic congestion, which is caused mostly by inefficient behavior on humans' part, will no longer be an issue so everyone will get everywhere faster anyway. No more worries about slow left lane drivers, no more dealing with people that don't know how to zipper merge or who block traffic lanes because they don't want people to "skip" to the front of the line, no more people following too closely and braking abruptly, etc. All those behaviors are what cause traffic congestion.
But,this supposed utopia can only happen if all vehicles are self driving.
True. And I don't actually think that it'll be a utopia. I think there are plenty of issues with self-driving cars. But I think two things are apparent:

1. They will eventually be much safer than human driven cars.

2. They move us very much toward a world where congestion is a thing of the past.

Now there are all kinds of concerns like the fact that they could lead to even more sprawling development patterns, we'll need more places to store them, they may supplant more sustainable modes of transportation, etc. But I do think the two points above will be solid benefits.
Last Edited: 3/28/2018 12:46:50 PM by DelBobcat
mail
The Optimist
3/28/2018 2:07 PM
This is a video of the events leading up to the fatal collision of an Uber self-driving car in Arizona.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtTB8hTgHbM

Normal humans have no chance to avoid this type of accident. No one can see that coming. Loading up a car with various sensors is the best chance to help prevent fluke collisions like that.
mail
person
Deciduous Forest Cat
3/28/2018 2:11 PM
DelBobcat wrote:expand_more
I would imagine such things will be programmable by the owner.
Additionally, two things:

1. Speed limits will be higher since human error is no longer an issue.

2. Traffic congestion, which is caused mostly by inefficient behavior on humans' part, will no longer be an issue so everyone will get everywhere faster anyway. No more worries about slow left lane drivers, no more dealing with people that don't know how to zipper merge or who block traffic lanes because they don't want people to "skip" to the front of the line, no more people following too closely and braking abruptly, etc. All those behaviors are what cause traffic congestion.
But,this supposed utopia can only happen if all vehicles are self driving.
True. And I don't actually think that it'll be a utopia. I think there are plenty of issues with self-driving cars. But I think two things are apparent:

1. They will eventually be much safer than human driven cars.

2. They move us very much toward a world where congestion is a thing of the past.

Now there are all kinds of concerns like the fact that they could lead to even more sprawling development patterns, we'll need more places to store them, they may supplant more sustainable modes of transportation, etc. But I do think the two points above will be solid benefits.
"2. They move us very much toward a world where congestion is a thing of the past."
----
I believe that this is a fantasyland view of things. We can't currently keep up infrastructure-wise with the population and traffic growth (but let's give billionaires and millionaires tax cuts) and it's going to get much worse before the advent of self-driving cars dominating traffic becomes a reality. Does anyone think that in our lifetimes all traffic will be automated? Congestion will happen any time there is more traffic than road. Accidents might be reduced and it might reduce road rage since you can just look at your phone and let google do the work, but that's about it.
Showing Messages: 251 - 275 of 300
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_backward
chevron_forward
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)