1. UberPeople.NET - Independent community of rideshare drivers. It's FREE to be a person and enjoy all the benefits of membership. Sign-up HERE!

Featured You can't stop self-driving cars. Nor should you want to.

Discussion in 'Autonomous' started by tomatopaste, Aug 4, 2017.

  1. DevaX

    DevaX New Member

    Lewes Beach, Delaware
    Tomato, you are a part of the problem with the working poor. Soon, humans will no longer be necessary, except for a few to keep the machines and blowjobs coming. You disgust me.
    tohunt4me likes this.
  2. wb6vpm

    wb6vpm Active Member

    Riverside, CA
    No, if it requires a driver, that is a driver assistance system. If it is driverless, then it is autonomous. Your arguments sound a lot like the arguments against the horseless carriage that happened back in the early 20th century.
    tomatopaste likes this.
  3. tohunt4me

    tohunt4me Well-Known Member

    new orleans , la.
    I admire the Amish.
    They may have the Right Idea.

    If i were a younger man, i would go to them and ask to be taught their ways in exchange for work.

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Aug 13, 2017
  4. Oscar Levant

    Oscar Levant Well-Known Member

    A fine and dandy in theory. I'll believe it when I see it, but until then, it's fantasy.

    There is a big difference, and that difference is why your analogy doesn't work, and the difference is this:

    With a car, as with the horse, you are still steering/driving the thing, and, as such, you trust your ability to drive. This doesn't hold true with the driverless car.

    Just because it's "high tech" doesn't mean its' necessarily going to be viable. The entire DC industry is operating on a grand assumption:

    That they can be safe enough, ( without the assistance of computerizing the roads, street lights and signs ) and the grand assumption that people will want them.

    Only one or two percent of all patents actually become commercially viable.
  5. Mido toyota

    Mido toyota Active Member

    Uber failed on the lease exchange and they are talking about big losses ,I wonder it is going to be when they own a fleet !!!!?
    tohunt4me and backstreets-trans like this.

  6. canyon

    canyon Active Member

    I'm not here to be a well known member, I'm here to tell the truth and call it what it is. If you don't like it block me sweet heart.
  7. swingset

    swingset Well-Known Member

    Columbus, Ohio
    Here's the 900lb gorilla of driverless car obstaclaes:

    1. Liability. No one has a solution for this. 100% of all accidents, deaths and injuries falls directly on the maker. That's never the case with normal transportation, and it's unprecedented. It can, and probably will, crush companies to get this going. Anyone got an answer that will precede the incidents? Yep, thought so.

    2. Infrastructure and accuracy. It's nearly impossible to get non-point-to-point accurate systems of navigation because the mapping and address data is often voluntarily built, changes faster than the computers will have access to it, and no one has an answer for this. It's not just coordinates. Any of us should know the difficulty/impassibility of this by heart, we deal with it every day. The best navigation systems, combined, aren't even close to being accurate enough for a self-driving Uber to work reliably.

    3. For something like a self-driving Uber, you have radically change (for the better) the customers. They are too stupid, lazy, entitled to find their car as it sits passively where it thinks they should be. Imagine 200 white UberJohnnyCabs showing up to a crowded event where pedestrians are dumping out into the street finding pax and vice versa. I'd pay per view that cluster just for laughs.

    4. Even if it works, would YOU want to ride in the back of an UberJohnnyCab? Can you imagine the rolling health hazard in that back seat? Crap, puke, jizz and trash. People will be shooting up, screwing, and letting their animals have their way with it. Whoever gets paid to clean the fleet car at the end of the night will need a Hazmat suit.

    5. For Uber to replace us, they'd need about 200,000 cars at the minimum. Do you realize the cost, logistics, complexity and control something like that would take? Verses just running the app and a few greenlight hubs? As it stands now, they've shifted almost the entire operating expense onto us, which is a brilliant model. Putting 100% back on the company is lunacy, frankly. With, honestly, nothing to gain from it except more risk, liability and operating costs based on a HUNCH that people want that. Most I talk to would not be cool getting in the back of one. I wouldn't.
    elelegido likes this.
  8. Trebor

    Trebor Well-Known Member

  9. 123dragon

    123dragon Member

    Washington DC
    They have them in my neighborhood already.


    Its come to my house a few times through Caviar. Someone follows behind it, they refuse to accept tips.
  10. Wil_Iam_Fuber'd

    Wil_Iam_Fuber'd Well-Known Member

    I agree with this sentiment, but ,"the human mind can't be hacked"? Seriously, you believe this? The human mind is ridiculously easy to hack. How else can one explain Religion or Republicans??:D
    wb6vpm and empresstabitha like this.
  11. Spotscat

    Spotscat Well-Known Member

    Columbia, Missouri
    Actually, truth be told, none of this matters anyway.

    When Skynet goes active, we're all screwed!

  12. Baby Cakes

    Baby Cakes Active Member

    CGI has improved quite a bit, I almost believed that!
  13. Uberdriverlasvegas

    Uberdriverlasvegas Well-Known Member

    Las Vegas, NV
  14. elelegido

    elelegido Well-Known Member

    Self flying planes already exist, as do self-piloting ships. Assuming you are talking about why there are no pilotless passenger planes or pilotless ships, it's because of (a) government regulations and (b) no consumer demand. I can't think of too many people who would want to get on a plane that flies at 39,000 feet and 550 mph with no pilot in it. And they don't want just one pilot in the plane; they want two.

    Self driving cars are here already, but driverless cars are still quite a way off technically. But what happens if, like pilotless commercial jets, there is little consumer demand for them? In x years' time, when driverless cars are finally developed, tested, approved and legalized, maybe people won't want a machine driving them.

    It's pretty interesting. We trust driverless trains (airport monorails, London's DLR railway) in low speed, isolated and controlled environments, but trusting a machine in the chaos of a city street or freeway is another matter altogether.
  15. tomatopaste

    tomatopaste Well-Known Member

    salt lake, utah
    Really? GM already has 100 self driving cars for their employees to use anywhere they want to go in San Francisco.


    Should we follow Cuba's utopian model instead?

    Kind of a general statement there Nemy. What specifically do you take issue with? I'm happy to defend everything I've said. Please make your argument.

    And this would be the wife they assign you. Grrrrrrrrrr.
    At least you won't need Viagra
  16. elelegido

    elelegido Well-Known Member

    Not quite sure why you insist on posting responses that are not relevant to what I posted. Google making some self-driving cars available for employee use does not address, in any way, my point that there is no target date for driverless cars from manufacturers.

    From your article,

    Cruise's test fleet of Chevy Bolts run 16 hours each day around most of San Francisco and has already given more than a 1,000 rides. A test driver is present to oversee the vehicle's operation and guarantee safety.
  17. tomatopaste

    tomatopaste Well-Known Member

    salt lake, utah
    Yes ma'am. Sorry

    I'm guessing you'll sign up for the latter.

    GM, not Google. Google/Waymo has their own testing going on with volunteers from the public in Phoenix. This is how you bring a new product to market. You create a beta version then test the hell out of it to find bugs.
  18. elelegido

    elelegido Well-Known Member

    I stand corrected; your article is about GM, not Google. Still doesn't change the fact that no company has released a believable target date for driverless cars
    Correct. And?
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2017
  19. tomatopaste

    tomatopaste Well-Known Member

    salt lake, utah
    You realize 'well-know' members pull the ladies, right?
  20. Archie Pelago

    Archie Pelago New Member

    Burnley, UK
    So two problems there.
    1) You've already conceded that it's not trillions. You're now claiming billions.
    2) You are only considering fatalities. And yet there are many, many more collisions than that, all of which we want to avoid.
    3) You're also not considering adhering to the rules of the road. They can and do measure how likely it is for a autonomous cars to run a red light etc against a human driver. A car that breaks the rules of the road less often, by mistake or deliberately is safer in that regard.

    There really is a lot to measure and compare in the region of millions of road miles. And we definately don't need to wait for trillions.

    As a reminder a trillion is 1,000,000,000,000 miles. A million million.
    All US traffic added together only manages 3 trillion in a year. (And comes to 35,000 deaths)

    There are some here saying that driverless cars (i.e. Level 5 automation) will not be here in our lifetimes.
    And there are some saying that driverless taxis will be here soon, and will put vast numbers of drivers out of work.

    They're both wrong. The truth lies somewhere between those extremes.
    Spotscat likes this.

Share This Page