4 ms·

> Driverless cars? Is the driving of a car the real problem, or even a problem? Really?! You don't see the advantages of a self-driving car? What about taking

by adwn 10y ago

> Driverless cars? Is the driving of a car the real problem, or even a problem? Really?! You don't see the advantages of a self-driving car? What about taking a nap, reading, or watching a movie while you drive to work? What about having a couple of drinks and getting home safely? What about being dropped off in the middle of the city right at the front door, and your car looks for a parking spot, maybe 10 blocks away? What about the potential for vastly reduced risk of accidents? What about cars that communicate with each other to improve merging, thereby avoiding congestion? You really don't see the value in this? A self-driving car that handles traffic situations at least as well as a human is the holy grail of personal transport. You couldn't have picked a worse example. > Driverless cars [...] the technology has long been created. No, that is completely wrong. If it weren't, driverless cars would already fill the streets.

baccheion 10y ago
> Really?! You don't see the advantages of a self-driving car? I see advantages. My point is that they aren't enough to make the technology groundbreaking. The only thing left is the cool factor. It would be cool to not have to worry about driving as much (it can be an annoyance), but only those who have to deal with major amounts of traffic or long commutes would really notice (and what they really want is something to shorten the commute, not make it more bearable). Even a long bus/train ride, though you're not driving, is still annoying, as it's potentially cutting hours out of the day. > A self-driving car that handles traffic situations at least as well as a human is the holy grail of personal transport. You couldn't have picked a worse example. No need for cars is the holy grail of personal transport. If you want to do something major in this regard, then invent teleportation or something. But wait-- that idea is too far out, eh, not practical enough? > No, that is completely wrong. If it weren't, driverless cars would already fill the streets. The technology has been in existence for at least 5-10 years. Many fine details (recognizing addresses, versus driving to a set location) maybe haven't been worked out, but the core of it has long been done.

by adwn 10y ago

baccheion 10y ago

> Really?! You don't see the advantages of a self-driving car? I see advantages. My point is that they aren't enough to make the technology groundbreaking. The only thing left is the cool factor. It would be cool to not have to worry about driving as much (it can be an annoyance), but only those who have to deal with major amounts of traffic or long commutes would really notice (and what they really want is something to shorten the commute, not make it more bearable). Even a long bus/train ride, though you're not driving, is still annoying, as it's potentially cutting hours out of the day. > A self-driving car that handles traffic situations at least as well as a human is the holy grail of personal transport. You couldn't have picked a worse example. No need for cars is the holy grail of personal transport. If you want to do something major in this regard, then invent teleportation or something. But wait-- that idea is too far out, eh, not practical enough? > No, that is completely wrong. If it weren't, driverless cars would already fill the streets. The technology has been in existence for at least 5-10 years. Many fine details (recognizing addresses, versus driving to a set location) maybe haven't been worked out, but the core of it has long been done.