More companies are trying to bring self-driving cars to the masses than ever before, but a truly autonomous vehicle still doesn’t exist. It’s not clear if, or when, our …
Blogs
Why Don’t We Have Self-Driving Cars Yet?
15
Jan
Jan
More companies are trying to bring self-driving cars to the masses than ever before, but a truly autonomous vehicle still doesn’t exist. It’s not clear if, or when, our …
You know what I hate about the normal cars in this day in age the sensors so why I keep going with that sort of innovation making a car that works only on sensors because sensors go bad… overtime and sensors are expensive to fix! I say no self driving car is worth it.
Who let that guy from Navigant make those outrageous statements.
Why do we want driverless cars
I do not want to use one
Too slow
I want to be in control at all times every time …
I enjoy driving I don't want to be driven by anyone or thing .
I want to get to work or to other destination quickly and safe .
I so not want to be forced to purchase driverless cars .
Good for people who can't drive yes agree …but not for me .
Not interested
Sorry
Self-driving vehicles are in a dangerous stage. They must coexist with manually operated vehicles. Thus, they are just another vehicle to contend with. When industry networks all the full self-driving vehicles so that they can "communicate" with each regarding destinations, then it will be practical to mandate this type of vehicle is the only one authorized on the road.
Since self-driving vehicles don't use gasoline or diesel fuel, states will have to establish a system to collect fees for streets and highways to offset the loss of tax revenue from the sale of gasoline and diesel fuels. It is assumed that the cost to produce gasoline for motorcycles will be too great to sustain and motorcycles will no longer be viable.
When the time comes, the government will establish a date when all gasoline and diesel powered vehicles will be banned from the road. There are many other sectors that will be greatly affected by self-driving vehicles. I'm glad that I won't be around when these things come to pass.
And this is how the US slowly loses it's tech advantage to less developed countries.
People getting killed and there's accident? As if there's no accident or people killed with human drivers😂. Elderly drivers are most dangerous
alcoholics can drive safely with an autonomous car. We don’t need to worry to much about them with this technology.
Sam Abuelsamid is not only unqualified to comment on any of this but also a promoter of backwards thinking. With more people like him, we would have been 20 years behind the current tech.
the only reason we dont have driverless cars is legal.. no one wants to get sued into oblivion when one crash happens the liability issues always come to light. Wake up.
Because I don't want ok one
This is 10 to 15 years down the road and I don't see people trusting driverless cars with their lives just to save a few bucks.
What is the purpose of self driving cars?
Why Don’t We Have Self-Driving Cars Yet? lazy people…
With due respect, Is Sam Abuelsamid qualified enough to comprehend self driving car software? he is a mechanical engineer who worked on electric control systems, no software background .
Its already bad enough that we are tracked everywhere we go via our phones and our cars. I see it as an infringement on our privacy already that cars are hooked up to wifi and the internet. Now imagine if they start putting self driving cars on the road and you wanted to go somewhere but since the company providing the self driving service to your car doesn't like where you want to go, it could refuse to take you there. Kind of like the way social media is restricting free speech. You can throw your phone out but you can't disconnect these modern cars from the internet and self driving ones are just another way to take away our freedoms!
EZwA
TRIKY ROBOT CAR POLITICS: (the liabiliT vs sAfT cNundrum)
lStlE – wAmO(gUgL rObot) & Ubr & lyft, R curNtLE doOn lIk 30-40% in stock $vLU(on a pRLL, ofcoOrs Bcaz thA’r all the sAm dRn compNE) & therz a rEsN. I dOnt C NE clevr wA RoOnd this 5th rObot problM I had mNtioned, ruflE sPkng it’s lIk this, IF the rObot cRz get lEgZlIzd & it Bcoms, 4XMpl – that there R 5000000 rObot cRz(from all rObot compNEs in tOtl, gUgL lIklE Bng the qEn), drIVng 20 hrs pr dA, that comes to 100,000,000 drIVng hrs pr dA.. Or 7000 complEt hUmN lIftIms of drIVng tIm pr dA.. but in NE EvNt, agN roughlE sPkng – at this 100,000,000 drIVng hrs pr day rate, evRE 10000 drIVng-hrs(for rObots that's 10000 tIms a dA) there comes up from the wigLEnS of lIf as unprEdictabl az the wethr.. a sitUAtion in which N accidNt is NcumbNt & ther is UsULE a chOEc BtwEn brAkng the rUls & puTng other non-at-fault drIvrs at a 1 in 20 risk of BEng injurd or worse(& the drIvR or rObot cR-compNE Bng guilT & lEgLE at fault), OR, stAyEng lEgL, bt at a +90% chNc of crashing in2 hUevr botched up, etc., & the drIvR or rObot-compNE Bing innocNt of lEgL-lIabiliT. sO thN 10,000 tIms pr dA, the rObot cRz must B prOgrMd 2 Ithr hav tOtal of +9000 crashes where thA R lEgLE innocNt, & hav the lEst at fault accidNts BUT the mOst actUL accidNts on the rOdz-(2/3 of tIm wud B w/their rObot cR pSNgrs in cR-), OR, brAk the law for the sAfer 2 hUmNiT Ovr-all-rout puTng roughlE 500 other inocNT drIvrs or pSNgrs-(agN, including their Own pSNgrz roughly 2/3 of thOs tIms) in N(at rObot cR compNE-falt) injurE or f8LiT incidNt.. pr dA… verE tuff chOEc..
SHORT STORE SHORT, THIS MATH MENSZ.. ROBOT COMPNEZ WILL HAVE TO CHUZ BTWEN HAVNG MOST AVOIDABL (YET LEGALLY XONERATED) ACCIDENTS(LIK 9000-9500 pr dA) ON THE ROD?, OR HAVNG 500 AT FAULT ACCIDENTS ON THE ROD, DAILY – AGN, I DO NOT C NE SLICK WA ROUND THIS. IT MEANZ, UNTL THA CN GET A KILLR GUD SAMARITN(literLE) LAW PAST, WHERE THA R LEGALLY ALLOWED TO HAVE MAB SEVERAL HUNDRED, BY PROPABILITY DECISION, AT FAULT & EZELY AVOIDABL ACCIDNTS/FATALITZ(incluDng 2/3 w/their own pSNgrz).. PR DA, WITHOUT LEGAL OR POLITICAL BLAME.. ALL-ROBOT COMPNEZ(inclUDng gUgL & ther4 Ubr & lyft), R UNTL FRTHR NOTICE, SCRUWD. QUITE TRIKY ROBOT CUNUNDRUM INDEED, A NATIONAL/WORLD YD PERMIT FOR LEGAL DELIBERATE SACRIFICING OF HUMAN LIFE AT ROBOT COMPANES DISCRETION – (WITH THE SUPPOSED AIM OF GRATR OVERALL ROD SAFTEY.. BUT STILL A LEGAL HOMICIDE PERMIT) OR THE MOST ACCIDENTS DAILY.. THAT GOOD SAMARITAN CALQLATED CASUALTY OF THE IMPERFECTION OF THE STREETS, HOMOCIDE-PERMIT IS PROBLE GONNA TAK QUIET A YYYyyLlll TO GET PASST FOR OBVIOUS REASONS & THE PUBLIC ALSO PROBLE WONT TAKE TO WELL TO ROBOTS HAVING MOST ACCIDENTS ON THE ROAD-ITHER.. BECAZ NITHR rings all 2 wL 2 the gNRL public ear.. sO then, this is the cunundrum Ppl, its Bng trapd BtwEn 2 verE politicLE unplezNt optians.. QIt EZ 2 C inDd, Y king apL is siTng bak & w8tng.. & tesla?, AI compUters lrNng from thEz Ppl drIvrs?, I’m gSCng mOst Ppl tAk the hUmAn sAfer bt hIer lEgL lIabiliT risk chOEc.. at 5000000 cRs, 1000000 of thM, Bng public subleted tes3 cabs 4 XMpL? that wud OnlE B 2000x pr dA, which is 100 rebL oOtlaw accidNts pr dA, mA wL actULE B sAVng lIves Overall.. bt the mathmaticLE clUlS public will still complAn fR mOr thN sA thNQ(IF thEz actULE sAv lIvs).. sO Ither wA U STILL nEd the stinkN homocIde permit. EVEN FOR ELON THE GR8– THE DMMNN POLITICAL SOCIALOGICL CUNUNDRUM IS STILL DRRRN THERE✋️☹️
The guy who says Tesla is behind because of the hardware is an idiot. It's NOT the hardware, it's exactly what that one lady said it was, the algorithms.
Why would you want to give up the freedom of mobility with a self driving car. Self driving cars are the first step to limiting your movement. Think of all the laws and rules that will naturally come with self driving cars. People are so dam ignorant, they are just asking to be controlled.
Most consumers wont own them bc they are expensive… what a conservative view. Once the tech is there, it will not be more expensive than a current car.
Yeah automation! Great! Finally corporate America is able to get rid of that disturbing and annoying human factor to further increase their revenue!
Why don’t we ask our creator to design a better human. We need to improve the architecture of the species for the sake of the species itself.
CNBC: Why don't we have self-driving cars yet?
Tesla: Am I a joke to you?
No one asked.
Most cars are already self-driving, the issue is it’s because people are on their phones.
I got a question about driverless cars if i could… When you go camping with your wife and kids and an axe murdering maniac approaches your family. After you all run and jump in the car for an escape is the car gona know to run him down? Or does the axe murderer just have to stand in front of the car and make it stop? 😯
Honestly guys, cool idea. Impressive how far along things are with self driving vehicles. But the reality is, down the road when they pass laws that state while traveling in a self driving vehicle you must have an individual with a valid drivers license at the controls, (brakes, accelerator, and steering in case of an emergency, its gona be all for nothing and pointless. Lets face it, most peoples day to day driving is back and forth to work, grociery store, ect. 20 mins this way, 20 mins that way…. Kinda pointless really.
Apparently having humans test sht isn’t right but animal testing is? Fk humans!
I review the crucial AI problems that need to be solved for full self-driving cars to become a reality. They are 1) intuitive physics (including causal reasoning,) 2) intuitive psychology, and 3) multi-step reasoning and planning. The article is here:
https://www.bobblum.com/ESSAYS/COMPSCI/self-driving-cars.html
The sensor suite needs to achieve pixel level RGB-depth (range) at least comparable to human binocular vision (stereopsis) including minimal degradation in bad weather.
This will not be achieved by Tesla, Cruise, or Aurora (or anyone else) for several more years (such that the car can drive autonomously in heavy traffic and bad weather.) Nonetheless, I look forward to exciting progress and gradual widespread rollout of Level 4.
Did she just say people are being killed???
the real reason is these things can be hacked. if they can be hacked, then they can be dangerous.
Because their too busy trying to build self driving semis. Theirs no money in a self driving car.
Ok Since most of the Population in US is in the cities and alot of the cities have high crime rate. You want to tell me that you will send cars that are new and technological and worth alot of money through poor neighborhoods without a driver? who is going to insure and invest in that type of business?
I think Today's trend is that anything that resembles technology and future gets attention on stock market level
It is sad that geeks that are abandoning human society are being rewarded rather than hard working family men
We don’t want self driving cars
How the cars stopped burglary or car jacking ?
Glorified matrix multiplication and a smorgasbord of hacks. To call AI is 'stupid' is too generous.
Only lazy fat people want self driving cars in the first place. Drive yourself fatties
When I was 16, the last thing on Earth I wanted was a self driving car. I wanted a '66 G-T-O, with a 389 & Tri-power. 4 speed transmission & positraction rear end.
If you want to ride in the back seat, get your Mom to drive you around.
HAL, why are you driving towards that bridge abutment?
Don't worry about it, Dave.
Can a self driving car drive on the pch, offroad, go through construction zones, make u-turns, go through a McDonald's drive thru, park in a parking lot, stop at the railroad tracks? I would "love" to know.
First, Sam Abuelamid is right – nobody asked us in Chandler, AZ if we wanted to be in the experiment. That should be criminal. Second, I don't need driverless cars in the first place, and don't want them. I like to drive! And as was said in this video, people plus safety assist technologies may be safer than anything these companies can come up with.
Oh, that evil Tesla. How nice that everybody else is so careful. 😉
Ok see their big problem is that they don't share the same infrastructure you need nodes and sensors on the traffic lights and street lamps.