Comments on: Google driverless car hits bus, stokes controversy

By: Steffen

Steffen — Wed, 23 Mar 2016 21:21:53 +0000

Humans don’t follow rules literally because they have judgement and discretion. Humans are constantly weighing between different imperfect, complex and ambiguous circumstances and are pretty good at it. Software cannot do this and probably never will. Sure, computers can be better than some dumber humans and if we stupidize people enough, computers will seem quite competent. The question is: Why do we want to replace humans with computers in the first place? Are we short of drivers and assembly line workers? Um, not really. So what is this goal about? If people don’t want to drive, they can take public transit. Don’t like public transit? Make your govt fund it better.

By: Standing Fast

Standing Fast — Sat, 12 Mar 2016 19:41:48 +0000

In reply to Standing Fast. But, your question about assuming that driverless cars having passengers. Perhaps this assumption is not a valid one. If they can be programmed to take people places, they can be programmed to take things places without a passenger.

By: Standing Fast

Standing Fast — Sat, 12 Mar 2016 19:37:45 +0000

In reply to Ann Marie.

Thank you. I was wondering the same thing myself.
From what I’ve read, the driverless cars come in two models: one with an option for a human passenger to take control at their discretion and one without that option.
Apparently, tests show the first option doesn’t work very well because while the auto-pilot is functioning, the human passenger is probably not watching the road, so manufacturers prefer the second option.
Problem is that in California, people are more likely to go for driverless cars with the first option than the second. It is a kind of Catch-22.

By: Ann Marie

Ann Marie — Sat, 12 Mar 2016 02:53:13 +0000

In reply to Standing Fast.

Am I correct in assuming that driverless cars will have passengers?
If the primary selling point of a driverless car is that you have a taxi without having to pay – does the owner of the driverless car have the option of either taking or not taking the wheel?
If yes to the above, then it’s another technology putting people out of work.
We have people from the third world flooding the country – what are they going to do in a society that requires more and more specialized knowledge to survive?

By: desmond

desmond — Sat, 05 Mar 2016 13:29:06 +0000

This is a great way to track people’s travels. Great leaders like Newsom can break from barnyard play time, and check his political rivals. Baa, Oink…..

By: Bill - San Jose

Bill - San Jose — Sat, 05 Mar 2016 02:22:54 +0000

This is still a wonderful technology. Hey, I was in a car when an abrupt stop occurred. The car made the stop, not the driver.

Next topic about stupid people continuing to be stupid.

// let’s revive the term party with driverless cars taking home drunk Americans //

By: Standing Fast

Standing Fast — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 19:10:31 +0000

Um.
As P.T. Barnum once said, “There’s a sucker born every minute.”
I thought the main argument in favor of driverless cars was their superior safety over cars driven by mere mortals.
If anyone thinks that an acceptable standard for the safety of driverless cars is that they are no more dangerous than vehicles driven by human beings, they’ve missed the point.
We’re being told by proponents of these idiot-machines that they will save lives, make the air cleaner, waste less fuel, and so on.
I don’t think so.
Makes me wonder if the driverless-car promoters are having us on–after all, if we go for it they stand to make a lot of money at our expense.
If I was in the automobile insurance business, I wouldn’t insure a driverless car for the same reason that if I was in the home insurance business, I wouldn’t insure a house built on hillsides, in flood plains or beach-front properties.
The real world does not operate according to the imaginary laws of science-fiction.