Then post a link.
Much of the push toward self-driving cars has been underwritten by the hope that they will save lives by getting involved in fewer crashes with fewer injuries and deaths than human-driven cars. But so far, most comparisons be tween human drivers and automated vehicles have been at best uneven, and at worst, unfair.
No they would have made far more but not human ones.
I might not, but the car will detect in non-visible ways.
You *know* that?
Too dangerous to crash a Tesla into something solid. They burst into flames too easily. ;-)
With computers controlling cars instead of f****it humans, we should see a lot less crashes in the first place.
Mind you, who would want to be given a lift everywhere? I for one enjoy driving. Don't most people? If two of you are going somewhere, don't you prefer to be the driver?
We should if the cars work properly amd there's no f****it humans about. But that's a long way off. The death of a tesla 'driver' was because the tesla computer told the fuckw it human to take control and the human said to himself I'm a f*ck witted dr iver I've brought a driverless car so drive me. What the fuctwit didn't rea lise was that it is NOT a driverless car it's an assisted driverless car.
I doubt that in London, I know people who would like to give up driving but public transport is just too expensive and inconvient for them.
Never.
Surely not? A basic Tesla is RWD, and we already know you think only FWD is safe. Or are you admitting any old computer can drive far better than you?
Any computer can drive better than any human.
No, they're already better than us.
So human error, not computer error.
I'd still prefer to be in control of the vehicle that's stuck in a queue rather than just be sat in the passenger seat.
You're most unusual.
That's due to f***ed up government legislation and nothing else.
"The statistics measuring how many crashes occur are hard to argue with: More than 90 percent of car crashes in the U.S. are thought to involve some form of driver error. Eliminating this error would, in two years, save as many people as the country lost in all of the Vietnam War."
Mind you then he spouts this bullshit:
"To an automated vision system, a bus shelter full of people might appear quite similar to an uninhabited corn field. Indeed, deciding what action to take in an emergency is difficult for humans, but drivers have sacrificed themselves for the greater good of others."
What driver would sacrifice themselves? That's the main problem with automated cars - would it avoid killing two pedestrians and instead kill it's owner? I don't want to own that car.
But we can teach computers from their mistakes.
It isnt any old computer and it is unlikely to be hooning around like the average teenager does.
Or a normal cardboard box?
Possibly they already knew what would happen based on real accident reports?
The car insurance industry is now warning that the public shouldn't rely on the bullshit advertising that these autonomous systems make driving safer because in real life they often fail? At all times driver intervention may be required!
Its a bit like the idea that one driver can control, say, 10 trucks in convoy down a motorway. It may be technically possible but is it desirable when these convoys start blocking other drivers exit from motorways and/or the convoy pulls out to overtake slower moving traffic.
Is this before or after Microsoft issue the critical updates to fix all the bugs they find every month?
Doesn't take too much imagination to guess what will happen when the hackers get started on driverless cars.
Not a lot if they aren't connected to the net. Like most important things aren't connected to the net.
Next you will be saying smart meters can be hacked and made to explode.
Many cars come with in-built 4G today.
Somewhat uselessly, I can check how much fuel I have left, whether doors/windows/sunroof/boot/bonnet are closed, where the car is, and even unlock it remotely.
It receives traffic data for the satnav and can get map updates over the air instead of via SD card. The dashboard is basically a full blown dual-monitor PC.
how does that connect to the network?
Who pays the monthly subscription?
I had rather assumed that all this was done by connecting to your phone when you were in the car (and therefore was dependent upon your data plan)
but if you can connect to it when you are not in the car, that can't be how it works
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.