3 ms·
No, it just requires the sea change of having every vehicle on the road talk with each other. That would fix this particular problem quite nicely. It's not a p
by vinceguidry 9y ago
No, it just requires the sea change of having every vehicle on the road talk with each other. That would fix this particular problem quite nicely.
It's not a panacea of course.
- croon 9y agoWhat about cars breaking down that stop communicating?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- vinceguidry 9y agoWell, obviously the system would have to still use radar, it can't just assume that everything on the road is communicating. But it would fix the firetruck problem pretty neatly, as professional vehicles will be required to stay maintained.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y agoYou mean for the system to work every vehicle which might have to stop in the road will have to be upgraded? Doesn't seem feasible.
- jclardy 9y agoThe cars around that car are still communicating. So the car next to it sees a drastic speed drop and tells everyone else. Also say the cars regularly ping each other for updates, then one car that was in sight and is still in sight disappears doesn't respond, then it gets flagged as a possible hazard.
- mantas 9y agoWhat if 2 cars fail to communicate and can't flag each other?
- rebuilder 9y agoYou'll have an accident. But we have accidents already. The question is, what failure rate will we tolerate from autonomous vehicles?
- ksk 9y agoIt should be Zero. Computers don't make mistakes is the entire reason anyone would even consider letting an automated car pickup their kids.
- sliken 9y agoI disagree and I have a kid. I'd be happy to let an automated car pick up my kid if it was demonstrated to be safer than I'd likely be. Car related deaths are fairly common, I can't see any rational reason to not switch to autonomous driving as soon as they are statistically likely to save lives. Do you really want a large (35,000 a year or so in the USA) people to die every year until autonomous cars are perfect? Not to mention nothing is ever perfect.
- mantas 9y agoIt's a trust issue. Doing your best and working towards safety is one thing. Putting 100% trust to autonomous thing is a different thing. If you know it's 100% safe, than it's rather easy to do. But if it's 98% safe.. It's pretty much gambling. You know it may fail and you have no chance to influence it. Sit back and hope you're not the (un)lucky one.
- throw7 9y agoAgreed. We won't ever get autonomous systems. I don't think that should even be a goal for production cars. We'll get roads/areas retrofit with signals to help cars and I think some type of coordination signals/beacon locally between cars.
- Symmetry 9y agoWe really want to be able to have cars avoid obstacles on the road whether or not those obstacles are cars or not. And given how infrequently firetrucks are replaced we shouldn't expect that even if every new vehicle had this technology it wouldn't have made a difference anytime soon. And given the inherent security vulnerabilities of the technology, I'd expect that it would be a net negative to road safety by the time it had any substantial impact compared to the general progress of self driving cars getting better.