 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / February 2007Days of the idiot behind the wheel are numbered
From The Times | February 19, 2007 | Mark Henderson in San Francisco Cars are not the most dangerous things on the road; drivers are, a group of scientists says. They believe that there are so many idiots behind the wheel that we would all be safer if cars were driven by robots. Artificial intelligence, they claim, is safer than no intelligence at all - a trait which the average motorist is apt to detect in many other road users. Technology will have advanced so much in the next 25 years that by 2030 cars controlled by artificial intelligence will be a desirable reality and a great improvement on those guided by humans, Sebastian Thrun, of Stanford University in California, told the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). <> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article1403715.ece ----- - gpsman > From The Times | February 19, 2007 | Mark Henderson in San Francisco > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > They believe that there are so many idiots behind the wheel that we > would all be safer if cars were driven by robots. Oh Lord ! May God preserve us from fanciful fools. Graham On Feb 19, 4:36 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > From The Times | February 19, 2007 | Mark Henderson in San Francisco > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Graham Until the technology corrects the tendency to direct drivers the wrong way down one-way streets or into a ditch where a road is removed, this is a disaster waiting to happen. Reminds me of an old song title: "She Blinded Me with Science." > > > From The Times | February 19, 2007 | Mark Henderson in San Francisco > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Reminds me of an old song title: "She Blinded Me with Science." If lorry drivers can tear their eyes away from the satellite navigation system while approaching the village of Exton, they could well save themselves hours of trouble. There at the side of the road are the first signs in the country specifically warning them to ignore the satnav. Owing to a fault in the electronic information system, many drivers are sent through the Hampshire hamlet only to find the lane narrows to 6ft and they get stuck. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=4369 83&in_page_id=1770 Graham Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Eeyore said in rec.autos.driving: > There at the side of the road are the first signs in the country specifically > warning them to ignore the satnav. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > stuck. > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=4369 83&in_page_id=1770 Even with out the satnav warning, the first part of that sign, "NO WIDE VEHICLES," should be clear enough to a trucker who is paying attention to the road. Yeah, yeah, I know I'm dreaming.....  Signaturenecromancer Criminal Coddler. And Proud of it, Man!! > Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Eeyore said in > rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Yeah, yeah, I know I'm dreaming..... One particular road that I know well has an old railroad viaduct that is shorter than the modern ones. It's just a two lane road at that point and shouldn't have any semis or large trucks on it anwayway. This road has signs warning of the height restriction repeatedly starting miles before hand. Several places to turn south to the road with the high clearance underpass. Yet frequently trucks are getting stuck, RVs get stuck..... Some of the less stupid see that they won't fit a few yards before it and avoid damaging the vehicle until they try to turn around on the narrow two lane road with ditches to each side. Then they end up stuck in one of the ditches. I've seen more than one semi truck stuck in the ditch before the underpass. Somehow I don't think the computer controls are going to factor these sort of things in. After all, it was computer generated driving instructions that sent that family down a closed road in winter... > Somehow I don't think the computer controls are going to factor these > sort of things in. They'll have to before they're accepted. I followed the DARPA challenge and it was very interesting how the different teams approached the many different obstacles they faced (including not knowing the route they would be required to navigate ahead of time and absolutely no markers to help guide them). We're a long way from autonomous cars, but we'll get there eventually. Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Fred G. Mackey said in rec.autos.driving: > We're a long way from autonomous cars, but we'll get there eventually. IMO, the first thing that is needed will be to improve the accuracy of GPS (referring to the consumer grade GPS systems here) or what ever is used to determine position before you will convince me to turn over the control to a computer. SignatureAunt Judy demonstrates its lack of understanding of the concept of "</killfile>," and "<killfile>," and what a "thread," is: "Now that takes nerve. You claim to killfile me TWICE in the same thread and you expect people to take you seriously???" Ref: http://tinyurl.com/r5qp9 necromancer <55_sux@worldofnecromancer_nospam_noway.org> said in rec.autos.driving: >Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Fred G. Mackey >said in rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >used to determine position before you will convince me to turn over the >control to a computer. Not necessarily. Did you know that they buried magnets in the pavement of the I-15 toll lanes in San Diego County (CA)? That's where they have been running tests with conga lines of self-driving cars. The cars are equipped with sensors that can detect the buried magnets (and therefore the edges of the lanes). There are other (better) ways to navigate than GPS. SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! > > Somehow I don't think the computer controls are going to factor these > > sort of things in. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > We're a long way from autonomous cars, but we'll get there eventually. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_(Asimov) It's worth a read. Graham >>>Somehow I don't think the computer controls are going to factor these >>>sort of things in. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > It's worth a read. I'm sure Asimov's story is worth reading - unfortunately, the wikipedia page has a spoiler warning on it, so I won't read the wikipedia version. > Graham > >>>Somehow I don't think the computer controls are going to factor these > >>>sort of things in. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I'm sure Asimov's story is worth reading - unfortunately, the wikipedia > page has a spoiler warning on it, so I won't read the wikipedia version. Very wise. Graham > We're a long way from autonomous cars, but we'll get there eventually. I think I'll keep my old car just in case... maybe even put the points back in. > Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Eeyore said in > rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Even with out the satnav warning, No, you misunderstood. The satnav is telling them to take the 6ft wide road. > the first part of that sign, "NO WIDE VEHICLES," should be clear enough to a trucker who is paying > attention to the road. The sign was introduced to deal with the problem. Before, I suppose you'd think most ppl could see it was unsuitable for trucks. But..... > Yeah, yeah, I know I'm dreaming..... See above. Graham Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Eeyore said in rec.autos.driving: > > Even with out the satnav warning, > > No, you misunderstood. The satnav is telling them to take the 6ft wide road. I was referring to the warning message on the sign to not use the satnav directions. Signaturenecromancer Deadly Psychopath. And Proud of it, Man!! > Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Eeyore said in > rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I was referring to the warning message on the sign to not use the satnav > directions. Ah ! Ok, got it now. It was me who misunderstood you. I confess it puzzled me. Graham On Feb 19, 3:27 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Eeyore said in > > rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Graham But back to the proposal. Suppose 10,000 of these amazing vehiles qere tp appear overnight. Or maybe even make it a million - even with trained drivers. What would happen when they mixed in with the millions of our standard cars and drivers? Suppose > But back to the proposal. > Suppose 10,000 of these amazing vehiles qere tp appear overnight. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > cars and drivers? > Suppose This is mere conjecture on my part, but I think initially the cars could be put on "autopilot" and any interference from the human driver would turn control back to the human - that's touching the pedals or taking control of the wheel. In fact, it's already been demonstrated back in the '90s sometime. "RALPH (Rapidly Adapting Lateral Position Handler) steered the Navlab for 98.2% of a trip from Washington, DC to San Diego, CA, a distance of over 2800 miles. When augmented with a millimeter wave radar for sensing obstacles, the system can detect vehicles ahead and automatically change lanes when appropriate." http://www.ri.cmu.edu/people/pomerleau_dean.html Don't worry, it doesn't run on Windows. Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Fred G. Mackey said in rec.autos.driving: > This is mere conjecture on my part, but I think initially the cars could > be put on "autopilot" and any interference from the human driver would [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Don't worry, it doesn't run on Windows. Good thing. Something like that running windows could give the term, "blue screen of death," a whole new meaning. Maybe we couls customise one running in windows for SADDAM's car?? ;) Signature-- Loco Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend (a.k.a. SADDAM) admits to being a deadly speeder, psychopath and criminal coddler: "> Have you ever driven a car faster than the legal speed limit? Yes, but never deliberately. In fact i got a speeding ticket about 5 years ago for doing 41 in a 25. I just about kicked the cops teeth in cause i was sure he was lying. No way the SL on this wide open stretch could be 25, i thought." Pride of America (c.k.a. Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend/ laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE/Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are Murderers (SADDAM)), 10/3/2002 Message-ID: <3c1753f7.0210030916.7b6f5dff@posting.google.com> http://tinyurl.com/5u4wg Proof that POA is LBMHB/lbVH/SADDAM: See the following: http://tinyurl.com/ahphj > "RALPH (Rapidly Adapting Lateral Position Handler) steered the Navlab > for 98.2% of a trip from Washington, DC to San Diego, CA, a distance of > over 2800 miles. When augmented with a millimeter wave radar for sensing > obstacles, the system can detect vehicles ahead and automatically change > lanes when appropriate." So it drove like the morons on the road who don't predict but just drive along mindlessly until something is in their path, then slow and stay there for awhile before making a decision what to do before changing lanes.... >>"RALPH (Rapidly Adapting Lateral Position Handler) steered the Navlab >>for 98.2% of a trip from Washington, DC to San Diego, CA, a distance of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > there for awhile before making a decision what to do before changing > lanes.... Actually, from what I read about it, it drove a lot better than most of the morons on the road already. As I said before, we're a long way from autonomous cars for the general public. You are not making a mistake by hanging on to your "old car". It may not even happen in our lifetime. > On Feb 19, 4:36 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Reminds me of an old song title: "She Blinded Me with Science." IMO,banning automatic transmissions would be more effective at removing the "idiots" from the roads,and much safer than depending on some autopilot.(Windows-based?? Horrors!) (I would exclude handicapped from that ban.) SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> said in rec.autos.driving: >> Cars are not the most dangerous things on the road; drivers are, a >> group of scientists says. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >May God preserve us from fanciful fools. The article is absolutely right. The ONLY solution to traffic congestion and the dangers caused by incompetent and/or MFFY drivers is to take the steering wheel out of their hands and turn it over to something with no ego. Already there are robots that can ride a skateboard, auto-pilots that can fly and land an airplane, and there's a new (IIRC) Lexus that can parallel-park itself better than most humans. We might even see this in our own lifetimes; even if we don't, it is inevitable. SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> said in > rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > a new (IIRC) Lexus that can parallel-park itself better than most > humans. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dKPkL2oto0 Graham > From The Times | February 19, 2007 | Mark Henderson in San Francisco > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > They believe that there are so many idiots behind the wheel that we > would all be safer if cars were driven by robots. From what I have read, automated system can't even keep trains from wrecking. Imagine how much harder it will be for them to control millions of independent vehicles and non-defined pathways. On the other hand, it will make it easier for the CIA to eliminate people they don't like. Ed |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.