It seems stories of "Senior Citizens" causing huge accidents are becoming more and more commonplace. It's interesting that some politicians want to curtail the driving rights of young drivers while doing nothing about elderly drivers who "confuse" the gas and brake pedals. This wouldn't have anything to do with the fact seniors vote in high numbers while teenagers can't vote, wouldn't it? No, of course not! :rolleyes:
Anyway, I've decided to create a thread where we can examine how older drivers are becoming an increasing threat to our safety. Let's start with this article I came across in a British news website.
(http://www.edp24.co.uk/polopoly_fs/xxx_01_reversing_accident_1_912177!image/1881269164.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_490/1881269164.jpg)
http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/woman_left_shaken_by_freak_car_parking_accident_in_dereham_1_912176
It's yet another tale of an old biddy who can't tell the difference between the accelerator and the brake. Do you think her licence will get pulled by the authorities? Like hell it will. If a young driver did this, they would face accusations of being "reckless" and "irresponsible". But when Myrte from the Bridge Club wreaks havoc from behind the wheel, she's given a free pass.
I've seen a senior citizen accident happen before my very eyes. An oldster in a Volvo S60 mistook the gas pedal for the brake (I'm assuming) because he FLEW into a new Dodge Ram (irony) at high speed. The Ram was pushed backwards and hit a Ranger behind it, which continued roling 20 ft into the parking lot behind it. Very loud and dramatic accident.
The Volvo was TOTALED (the engine looked like it dropped from its mounts, the intercooler was crushed, etc.), the truck was hugely messed up, the RAM looked mildly mangled.
Menaces!!
Dude, you aren't young. :lol:
Aside from old people driving too slow or their reflexes being slower than mine, I haven't seen any bad elderly crashes. :huh:
I've seen many old people accelerating no faster than their prostate-choked morning pees and acting like the center turn lane might be lava. Or maybe it isn't. No! Yes! Wait I'm not turning here.
They aren't helping kill off Buick's stereotype either.
Quote from: Secret Chimp on June 14, 2011, 12:40:12 PM
I've seen many old people accelerating no faster than their prostate-choked morning pees and acting like the center turn lane might be lava. Or maybe it isn't. No! Yes! Wait I'm not turning here.
They aren't helping kill off Buick's stereotype either.
I see more old people in Camries and Scion xA's and xB's, and other small CUV's than Buicks.
And in Ohio I saw at least half a dozen Windstars every single day and I see maybe one a month out here. I'm talking OLD PEOPLE, not people who are old. Hunched over tiny feeble wobbly people.
Driving early '90s Cadillac STSes with 5000 miles on the odo.
As soon as you see these tail lights you know you're in for fun!
(http://static.cargurus.com/images/site/2008/05/18/19/47/1995_buick_lesabre_custom-pic-59073-tmb.jpeg)
It's drifting into your lane!! Aghhhhh!
(http://www.motorgen.com/pic/data/533/565_1995CadillacSTS_01.jpg)
About 15 years ago, I was working at another car dealer and as I walked out the service drive for lunch, and old geyser got in his 1970 Ford station wagon. The car had 390 badges. Anyway, the old guy was backing out of his spot and hit the gas instead of the brake. Dude, the rear tires on that old heap freaking lit up! :lol: Floored in reverse, with squealing, smoking tires, the car luckily plowed into a cinder block wall and stopped. The old farts foot fell off the gas in the collision, I guess. He was relatively unhurt and had to pay for the telephone booth he ran over and to re-do the messed up wall.
Christ, I hope I never get that bad.
Most senior citizens I see here drive Porsches, Ferraris, Aston Martins, Toyota Camrys, Honda Accords, Lamborghinis and other exotics. :lol:
I saw another one where the guy plowed into a concrete wall of paint shop in Seattle and KEPT ON ACCELERATING into the wall, for about 20 seconds, while an employee was shouting NO NO NO NO NO
Quote from: Laconian on June 14, 2011, 01:28:53 PM
I saw another one where the guy plowed into a concrete wall of paint shop in Seattle and KEPT ON ACCELERATING into the wall, for about 20 seconds, while an employee was shouting NO NO NO NO NO
Dude, it was the gas pedal! Don't blame the elderly for something that is beyond their control! :lol:
(http://cdn3.openclutch.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/article_main/images/blog/951-police-forced-stop-self-acceleration-toyota-video/951-2254-police-forced-stop-self-acceleration-toyota-video.png)
"Ralph Parker (Age 93) of Pinellas Park drove for 3 miles Wednesday night after striking a 52-year-old pedestrian with his gold 2002 Chevrolet Malibu, severing the man's right leg, police said.
A toll taker on the Sunshine Skyway saw the body stuck through Parker's windshield and notified police.
Charges were not likely to be filed, because Parker did not appear to know what had happened."
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/5135962/detail.html
:facepalm:
Quote from: Laconian on June 14, 2011, 01:28:53 PM
I saw another one where the guy plowed into a concrete wall of paint shop in Seattle and KEPT ON ACCELERATING into the wall, for about 20 seconds, while an employee was shouting NO NO NO NO NO
That's standard for pedal misapplication, as the driver thought from the beginning they had their foot on the brake.
Quote from: ifcar on June 14, 2011, 01:49:28 PM
That's standard for pedal misapplication, as the driver thought from the beginning they had their foot on the brake.
People are smart.
(http://media.trb.com/media/photo/2011-04/277975240-25152938.jpg)
"LA MESA, Calif. -- A 92-year-old woman was thrown from a car and killed Monday when her husband, also 92, lost control of the vehicle and drove onto a sidewalk, police said."
http://www.fox5sandiego.com/news/kswb-elderly-driver-crashes-elderly-driver-kills-pedestrian-on-sidewalk-police-say-20110425,0,5912741.story
Although the article makes no mention of it, I'll bet she wasn't wearing her seatbelt.
From a lawyer's website
Statistics Teenage Car Accidents:
The number 1 one killer of teenagers is car crashes
Around 6,000 teenage drivers are killed in auto accidents each year.
Teen Drivers ages 16 to 19 have death rates four times that of a driver age 25-29 years of age.
? Automobile accidents are the top killer among teenagers
? Drivers between the ages of 15 and 20 cause over $40 billion in damages per the NHSTA
? In 2005, 23% of teenagers killed were under the influence of drugs or alcohol
? You?re more likely to get in an accident at 16 than at any other age
? Accident rates for 16 to 19 year olds is higher at those ages than any other group
? Teens are 3 times more likely to get in an accident after 9:00pm daily
? Teens are more likely to be partof an accident when they have passengers than without
? Males between 16 and 19 are 1.5 times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than females within the same age group.
? Teens have the lowest use of seatbelt rate
New drivers are not very good drivers! News at 11!
I'd wager that many of those accidents are unavoidable - if we raised the age to 20, we'd have newbies on the road, albeit slightly older/more mature ones. If we want to keep allowing allow people to enter the ranks of the licensed, then we will need to suffer the mistakes of the newbies. Old people getting into wrecks, though -- that's totally different.
From the Center for Disease Control
Teen Drivers: Fact Sheet
Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for U.S. teens, accounting for more than one in three deaths in this age group.
In 2009, eight teens ages 16 to 19 died every day from motor vehicle injuries. Per mile driven, teen drivers ages 16 to 19 are four times more likely than older drivers to crash. Fortunately, teen motor vehicle crashes are preventable, and proven strategies can improve the safety of young drivers on the road.
How big is the problem?
In 2009, about 3,000 teens in the United States aged 15?19 were killed and more than 350,000 were treated in emergency departments for injuries suffered in motor-vehicle crashes.
Young people ages 15-24 represent only 14% of the U.S. population. However, they account for 30% ($19 billion) of the total costs of motor vehicle injuries among males and 28% ($7 billion) of the total costs of motor vehicle injuries among females.
In 2006, the motor vehicle death rate for male drivers and passengers ages 15 to 19 was almost two times that of their female counterparts.
Who is most at risk?
The risk of motor vehicle crashes is higher among 16- to 19-year-olds than among any other age group. In fact, per mile driven, teen drivers ages 16 to 19 are four times more likely than older drivers to crash.
Among teen drivers, those at especially high risk for motor vehicle crashes are:
Males: In 2006, the motor vehicle death rate for male drivers and passengers ages 15 to 19 was almost two times that of their female counterparts.
Teens driving with teen passengers: The presence of teen passengers increases the crash risk of unsupervised teen drivers. This risk increases with the number of teen passengers.
Newly licensed teens: Crash risk is particularly high during the first year that teenagers are eligible to drive.
What factors put teen drivers at risk?
Teens are more likely than older drivers to underestimate dangerous situations or not be able to recognize hazardous situations.
Teens are more likely than older drivers to speed and allow shorter headways (the distance from the front of one vehicle to the front of the next). The presence of male teenage passengers increases the likelihood of this risky driving behavior.
Among male drivers between 15 and 20 years of age who were involved in fatal crashes in 2005, 37% were speeding at the time of the crash and 26% had been drinking.
Compared with other age groups, teens have the lowest rate of seat belt use. In 2005, 10% of high school students reported they rarely or never wear seat belts when riding with someone else.
Male high school students (12.5%) were more likely than female students (7.8%) to rarely or never wear seat belts.10 Compared with other age groups, teens have the lowest rate of seat belt use.
African-American students (12%) and Hispanic students (13%) were more likely than white students (10.1%) to rarely or never wear seat belts.
At all levels of blood alcohol concentration (BAC), the risk of involvement in a motor vehicle crash is greater for teens than for older drivers.10
In 2008, 25% of drivers ages 15 to 20 who died in motor vehicle crashes had a BAC of 0.08 g/dl or higher.
In a national survey conducted in 2007, nearly three out of ten teens reported that, within the previous month, they had ridden with a driver who had been drinking alcohol. One in ten reported having driven after drinking alcohol within the same one-month period.
In 2008, nearly three out of every four teen drivers killed in motor vehicle crashes after drinking and driving were not wearing a seat belt.
In 2008, half of teen deaths from motor vehicle crashes occurred between 3 p.m. and midnight and 56% occurred on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday.10
Again, how much is that because of their age, and how much of that is because of inexperience?
Quote from: Laconian on June 14, 2011, 02:19:42 PM
New drivers are not very good drivers! News at 11!
I'd wager that many of those accidents are unavoidable - if we raised the age to 20, we'd have newbies on the road, albeit slightly older/more mature ones. If we want to keep allowing allow people to enter the ranks of the licensed, then we will need to suffer the mistakes of the newbies. Old people getting into wrecks, though -- that's totally different.
Yeah because they're old, right.
See the below post which describes why teens are such crappy drivers, including me when I was a teen.
Quote from: Laconian on June 14, 2011, 02:22:33 PM
Again, how much is that because of their age, and how much of that is because of inexperience?
Dead is dead, injured is injured. The point is young drivers suck worse than old ones, and generally a small number of older drivers cause the kind of spectacular accidents you see on the news but from the statistics a large percentage of young drivers suck at it.
Quote from: Laconian on June 14, 2011, 01:09:44 PM
It's drifting into your lane!! Aghhhhh!
(http://www.motorgen.com/pic/data/533/565_1995CadillacSTS_01.jpg)
:clap:
It's the double-standard that is applied to young versus old drivers that really pisses me off. All people are supposed to be treated equally in the eyes of the law, and yet that is seldom the case.
Remember the then 86-year-old driver who killed 10 people (including a two-year-old infant) when, driving his geezer-spec 1992 Buick LeSabre, he ploughed through a Farmer's Market in Santa Monica, California in 2003? Now, anyone else who kills 10 people would certainly be thrown in prison for the rest of their lives, right? Well, not this "respectable senior citizen". Despite showing no remorse for his actions, George R. Weller was given probation, otherwise known as a slap on the wrist.
Not bad for a mass-murderer!
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/us/21sentence.html
Quote from: Madman on June 14, 2011, 02:36:21 PM
It's the double-standard that is applied to young versus old drivers that really pisses me off. All people are supposed to be treated equally in the eyes of the law, and yet that is seldom the case.
Remember the then 86-year-old driver who killed 10 people (including a two-year-old infant) when, driving his geezer-spec 1992 Buick LeSabre, he ploughed through a Farmer's Market in Santa Monica, California in 2003? Now, anyone else who kills 10 people would certainly be thrown in prison for the rest of their lives, right? Well, not this "respectable senior citizen". Despite showing no remorse for his actions, George R. Weller was given probation, otherwise known as a slap on the wrist.
Not bad for a mass-murderer!
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/us/21sentence.html
That's just not true. Many people of all ages avoid jail time for accidents. You usually need to be demonstrating pretty gross negligence to go to jail over a car accident, and being old is not gross negligence.
From my own personal purely unscientific personal experience. My wife & I have seen HUGE declines in our respective sets of parents as they have moved into their 80s. They just cannot process information as fast. So if they are in a complicated traffic situation, it is overwhelming.
My Dad, 83, has always been a pretty good driver, and he still has all his marbles. Luckily this means he recognizes his reaction time decline and avoids driving now in all but optimal conditions. He won't drive at night & he avoids bad weather and rush hours.
My mother-in-law on the other hand, 82, has always been a horrible driver and is beginning to go a bit batty (forgetfulness, irrationality etc). Her bad driving traits are exaggerated in her old age - she does not know what half the buttons in her car are for.
She's the one we worry about, but I don't think either is in the position they were ten years ago to deal with emergencies.
Having seen this in our parents, I fully understand why gas pedals get mistaken for brake pedals. The "unintended acceleration" crusades against auto manufacturers over recent decades have regrettably obscured this issue.
"A judge has warned about the rising threat of dangerous elderly drivers after an 89-year-old motorist with dementia was blamed for a crash in which a motorcyclist died.
Retired farmer Albert Bradley had ignored pleas from his family to stop driving amid concerns of his poor health, Hull Crown Court was told.
Their fears were realised when he collided with motorcyclist Brian Emmerson, 44, who died a month later from his injuries.
But after admitting careless driving, Bradley, now 90 and suffering from a "dementing condition", escaped with a ?500 fine and a 10-year driving ban."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-443721/Elderly-driver-dementia-kills-biker.html
So, ignore warnings from your family that your driving skills are inadequate then kill an innocent person and get nothing but a fine and a stern warning not to do it again? Justice served! :rolleyes:
Key Word: "Dementia".
There should be a cut-off for driving when you get to a certain age. The problem is trying to figure out what age that would or should be.
Recently, we had an elderly guy pull out of his drive way and hit by a motorcyclist. The motorcyclist didn't survive.
We've also had six people under the age of 21 die in car accidents, single car accidents in the past two months. The latest, this afternoon, was a seventeen-year-old girl who pulled into the path of a tractor-trailer. Last night, it was a teen who crashed his SUV into a tree and the SUV exploded. He was going too fast. Two weeks ago, a teen was bailed out of jail (DUI) by his best friend and eight hours later, the guy crashed his car, killing the guy who had just bailed him out of jail. Last month it was a 19-year-old, who crashed his car and killed an 18-year-old passenger, and critically injured two other passengers. I can't remember the others.
Old people have dementia, young people have stupidity. The end result is the same. Someone ends up dead.
I think we need stricter standards for issuing licenses in the first place and for keeping them later on in life. Most state driving tests might as well be "can you not hit other cars while driving in a straight line"
Quote from: Secret Chimp on June 14, 2011, 04:05:40 PM
I think we need stricter standards for issuing licenses in the first place and for keeping them later on in life. Most state driving tests might as well be "can you not hit other cars while driving in a straight line"
A simple visual mental acuity & reaction time test maybe? We're going to assume they know the rules of the road after 60 years of driving.
Quote from: Morris Minor on June 14, 2011, 05:05:25 PM
A simple visual mental acuity & reaction time test maybe? We're going to assume they know the rules of the road after 60 years of driving.
Yep. Geico released their test results recently. Elderly, well "older" drivers passed the test in overwhelming numbers. Young people and women, didn't test as well. Men did really well.
Quote from: Secret Chimp on June 14, 2011, 04:05:40 PM
I think we need stricter standards for issuing licenses in the first place and for keeping them later on in life. Most state driving tests might as well be "can you not hit other cars while driving in a straight line"
Best post in the thread.
I passes a geezer the other day in a Corvette with a handicap tag, thought that was funny. Anyways I wouldn't count on the government changing any laws for older drivers since they are the ones most likely to vote.
Quote from: Mustangfan2003 on June 15, 2011, 09:50:40 AM
I passes a geezer the other day in a Corvette with a handicap tag, thought that was funny. Anyways I wouldn't count on the government changing any laws for older drivers since they are the ones most likely to vote.
Exactly. Driving standards will never be improved because.....
A. It costs money. Better training, stricter standards and a more comprehensive driving test will require funds that states aren't willing to spend.
And.....
B. The AARP will cry "discrimination" and lobby/threat politicians into voting against any such measures or risk losing the Gertitol vote.
All we need to do then is give them special dedicated "seniors-only" polling stations, open between 11:pm and 4:00am the next day, accessed via unlit and unsigned roads.
Elizabeth Jane Baldick, 84, drives car into Sears.
"The Nissan Maxima passed shopping carts and took out a cash register and shelving before stopping against a support beam near the barbecue grills."
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2006-10-10/news/MCFBRIEFS10_5_1_barbara-jones-orlando-regional-medical-orlando-police
"Elizabeth Grimes, a widow who had lived on Meaders Lane for 50 years, had backed out of her driveway, across her lawn and off the curb. Her 1994 Mercury Grand Marquis then hit the curb across the street, Prager recalls, before Grimes mistook the gas pedal for the brake and "took off with a jackrabbit start." Six blocks away, Grimes drove through a red light. The car slammed into Katie Bolka, a 17-year-old high school junior who was driving to school to take an algebra test. Five days later, Bolka died."
"During his deposition of Grimes, the Bolka family's attorney, Peter Malouf, asked Grimes whether she understood that she had crashed into a young girl's car and killed her. "I'm aware of that very sad story, yes," Grimes said. "Sure I did it. I'm terribly sorry. But I did it." Malouf asked whether there was anything she would like to say to the family. "What is there to say to people who have been hurt?" Grimes said. "That's best left alone, I think." :facepalm:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-05-02-older-drivers-usat1a_N.htm
"An 89-year-old Manassas woman was Killed in an accident while making a U-turn on Interstate 66."
A U-turn on an interstate? What a GREAT idea! :facepalm:
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/local/elderly-driver-killed-in-accident-making-u-turn-on-interstate-66-122811
For those who say teens are more dangerous behind the wheel than the elderly, this study disagrees.
Elderly Drivers Cause More Deadly Crashes than Teens, says a Carnegie Mellon University study,
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/usa/Elderly-Drivers-Cause-More-Deadly-Crashes-than-Teens-129298768.html
"Gary Gordon, 71, was killed when his westbound gold Cadillac Deville crossed into the eastbound lane and struck a Kia minivan head-on, according to Lorain County Coroner Stephen Evans."
http://morningjournal.com/articles/2011/12/28/news/mj5486389.txt
Another one who can't tell the difference between gas and brake.
"Elderly driver crashes into Clearwater Post Office"
http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/region_north_pinellas/clearwater/police-elderly-driver-crashes-into-clearwater-post-office
"An elderly man driving the wrong way on the highway was killed in a fiery head-on collision tonight on the Northeastside, Indiana State Police said. Robert Alford Brown, 89, Noblesville, died in the accident, according to a news release from Sgt. Rich Myers of the State Police. Witnesses to the crash said the Buick was being operated with no lights on and was headed north in the southbound collector lanes."
http://www.indystar.com/article/20111215/LOCAL18/112150423/Wrong-way-driver-killed-in-head-on-crash-on-Northeastside?odyssey=tab|mostpopular|text|FRONTPAGE
My 85 year old grandmother is still an excellent driver. Follows traffic rules and regulations just like everyone else. She had an accident about a year ago when a truck of Mexicans pulled out in front of her and she hit them. Minimal damage to her LeSabre, and no damage to their truck. Plus, none of them spoke English and they didn't have insurance.
"Margaret Lazor, 86, of Wilmington, Del., initially drove her Buick Century station wagon the wrong way on Route 322 in Upper Chichester before entering southbound I-95 and heading north about noon Oct. 28."
http://www.delcotimes.com/articles/2010/11/04/news/doc4cd2e7e430347744809735.txt
Quote from: CJ on December 28, 2011, 05:26:28 PM
My 85 year old grandmother is still an excellent driver. Follows traffic rules and regulations just like everyone else. She had an accident about a year ago when a truck of Mexicans pulled out in front of her and she hit them. Minimal damage to her LeSabre, and no damage to their truck. Plus, none of them spoke English and they didn't have insurance.
Typical. :facepalm:
Quote from: ifcar on June 14, 2011, 02:43:19 PM
That's just not true. Many people of all ages avoid jail time for accidents. You usually need to be demonstrating pretty gross negligence to go to jail over a car accident, and being old is not gross negligence.
Plowing through a crowded market in a car at a high rate of speed doesn't demonstrate gross negligence?
I've seen a kid get locked up for years because he was doing double the speed limit on a residential street, lost control of his WRX, and killed a woman and her child.
HOUSTON (KTRK) -- A driver crashed a sports utility vehicle into a west Houston restaurant Wednesday evening.
It happened just before 8pm at James Coney Island in the 700 block of Town & Country Blvd. at Town & Country Village off Beltway 8.
According to investigators, a teen-aged driver was going to park outside the restaurant, but he driver hit the gas pedal instead of the brake.
The SUV took out a large window and a corner of the restaurant.
Officials said no one was injured in the accident.
SPRINGTOWN, TX -- Two teens have died and two others were seriously injured when a pickup truck they were riding in crashed into a mobile home in Parker County.
Authorities say the accident occurred just after midnight Thursday in Springtown, about 30 miles northwest of Fort Worth.
Department of Public Safety Trooper Lonny Haschel says the truck slammed through several concrete fence posts and rural mail boxes before hitting a mobile home that caught fire. The three people inside the house escaped unharmed.
An 18-year-old man and 14-year-old girl died inside the burning truck while two others were hospitalized. A 15-year-old boy was flown to a Dallas hospital and a 13-year-old girl was taken to one in Fort Worth. Their names were not immediately released.
Police say speed may have been a factor.
Quote from: Tave on December 29, 2011, 12:41:59 AM
Plowing through a crowded market in a car at a high rate of speed doesn't demonstrate gross negligence?
I've seen a kid get locked up for years because he was doing double the speed limit on a residential street, lost control of his WRX, and killed a woman and her child.
There are times where someone faces a prison sentence and times where they don't.
And don't confuse the result of an accident with its cause.
Almost ran over a grandma today who was crossing the street despite the pedestrian signal lamps showing a red man. The bitch even got mad at me and still crossed the road causing a car-horn havoc on the other side.
Now imagine if grandma here was driving a car... :facepalm:
Quote from: cawimmer430 on December 29, 2011, 07:08:13 AM
Almost ran over a grandma today who was crossing the street despite the pedestrian signal lamps showing a red man. The bitch even got mad at me and still crossed the road causing a car-horn havoc on the other side.
Now imagine if grandma here was driving a car... :facepalm:
Yeah, like no one under the age of 30 ever j-walked. :rolleyes:
Quote from: MiataJohn on December 29, 2011, 08:20:32 AM
Yeah, like no one under the age of 30 ever j-walked. :rolleyes:
I jaywalk all the time (except when little kids are around) as some pedestrian lights take about two minutes to change to green.
Problem here was that the pedestrian lamp had been red for quite some time now and yet she still has to cross. She was dressed in black to. If this had happened at night I might have not even seen her...
I think this "Who's worst, teenagers or geezers?" argument is pointless. Teenagers are poor drivers whose abilities are improving with age. Geezers are poor drivers whose abilities are in decline. (My gut feeling is that the accident rate per million miles driven is higher for octogenarians than for teens).
For teens I think their cars should carry "New Driver" L-plates or something similar.
For the elderly, perhaps we should have annual mental acuity & reaction time tests, beginning at age 80.
I'm not sure the statistics support the first part of your agrument, but I'd support mtougher licensing standards and stronger testing for those over 70.
Sorry for the crappy formatting
Table 1114. Licensed Drivers and Number in Accidents by Age: 2009
[211,000 represents 211,000,000]
Age group Licensed drivers Drivers in accidents Accident rates per number of drivers
Fatal All
Number (1,000) Percent Number Percent Number Percent Fatal All
Total 211,000 100.0 48,000 100.0 16,500 100.0 23 8
19 years old and under 10,326 4.9 3,900 8.1 2,020 12.2 38 20
..Under 16 years old 658 0.3 200 0.4 250 1.5 (\3) (\3)
..16 years old 1,311 0.6 500 1.0 300 1.8 38 23
..17 years old 2,145 1.0 700 1.5 420 2.5 33 20
..18 years old 2,854 1.4 1,200 2.5 530 3.2 42 19
..19 years old 3,358 1.6 1,300 2.7 520 3.1 39 15
20 to 24 years old 17,465 8.3 6,300 13.1 2,480 15.0 36 14
..20 years old 3,404 1.6 1,400 2.9 500 3.0 41 15
..21 years old 3,447 1.6 1,400 2.9 490 3.0 41 14
..22 years old 3,444 1.6 1,200 2.5 470 2.8 35 14
..23 years old 3,551 1.7 1,200 2.5 620 3.7 34 17
..24 years old 3,619 1.7 1,100 2.3 400 2.4 30 11
25 to 34 years old 36,694 17.4 8,800 18.3 3,270 9.8 24 9
35 to 44 years old 38,424 18.2 7,500 15.6 2,910 17.6 20 8
45 to 54 years old 41,921 19.9 8,300 17.3 2,750 16.7 20 7
55 to 64 years old 33,271 15.8 5,900 12.3 1,710 10.4 18 5
65 to 74 years old 19,135 9.1 3,500 7.3 820 5.0 18 4
75 years old and over 13,764 6.5 3,800 7.9 540 3.3 28 4
FOOTNOTES:
\1 Per 100,000 licensed drivers.
\2 Per 100 licensed drivers.
\3 Rates for drivers under age 16 are substantially overstated due to the high proportion of unlicensed drivers involved.
Source: National Safety Council, Itasca, IL, Injury Facts, annual (copyright).
For more information:
http://www.nsc.org/
Internet release date: 09/30/2011
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/declining-car-risk-for-older-drivers/
is also interesting.
Here:
(http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x163/fairalbion/12s1114.png)
That looks like older people are by far the best drivers.
Austin, Texas: Mary Lee Fine, an 86-year-old motorist, lost control of her car and drove into a swimming pool.
Link to story, with video of crash!: http://news.sky.com/home/strange-news/article/16101580
"PALM COAST, FLORIDA (Where else? :lol: ) -- The woman who crashed into the Publix on Belle Terre Parkway was charged with careless driving Tuesday as the Florida Highway Patrol released a video showing her car shattering glass doors as it crashed into the supermarket and plowed through shoppers.
"When you see the video you realize it's a miracle no one got killed," FHP Capt. Jerry Crews said.
Ten Palm Coast residents were injured when 76-year-old Thelma Wagenhoffer's 2004 Toyota Camry "accelerated rapidly as it crossed the parking lot" and crashed into the Publix, the FHP said.
The car careened through the store for 40 to 50 feet -- at least, Crews said."
http://www.news-journalonline.com/news/local/flagler/2012/04/18/woman-charged-in-palm-coast-publix-crash.html
77-year-old Scottish driver backs his car down an embankment and into a stream while attempting to park.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-18237374
(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/60536000/jpg/_60536487_boxedcopy.jpg)
Also a candidate for the Bad Parking Hall of Shame! :tounge:
Teen Driver Falls Asleep, Causes Fiery Crash
http://www.10news.com/news/31065772/detail.html
Teen driver killed in rollover crash on Interstate 99 work zone
http://www.wjactv.com/news/news/teen-driver-killed-rollover-crash-interstate-99-wo/nPFdf/
Teen driver dies in two-vehicle crash
http://www.nvdaily.com/news/2012/05/teen-driver-dies-in-two-vehicle-crash.php
Have I struck a nerve or are you just being a contrarian for the sake of it? :lol:
Mr. Riley, 91, and his wife, Rose, 93, both died Thursday when the station wagon he was driving suddenly accelerated and struck a tree at North 34th Street and Burke Avenue North. (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2018246438_rileyobit20m.html)
Side note - the esteemed Mr. Riley brought the abomination that was school busing (i.e., putting rich kids in poor schools) to Seattle that led to white flight that left the city with one of the highest private school attendances in the nation.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 30, 2012, 12:48:35 PM
Mr. Riley, 91, and his wife, Rose, 93, both died Thursday when the station wagon he was driving suddenly accelerated and struck a tree at North 34th Street and Burke Avenue North. (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2018246438_rileyobit20m.html)
Side note - the esteemed Mr. Riley brought the abomination that was school busing (i.e., putting rich kids in poor schools) to Seattle that led to white flight that left the city with one of the highest private school attendances in the nation.
Do you have to turn EVERYTHING into a political rant?
Quote from: Madman on May 30, 2012, 01:02:01 PM
Do you have to turn EVERYTHING into a political rant?
That's not a political ranting.
I found a big boarded-up area in the entrance of my favorite pet store.
Elderly driver drove her Expedition clear through the wall and about 20 feet into the store. She mistook the pedals. :facepalm:
Nobody hurt, but wow, what a disaster.
Also posted in the Bad Parking Hall of Shame......
(http://www.trbimg.com/img-4fe3833c/turbine/chi-caroncar-20120621/600)
"A 74-year-old driver was shaken but uninjured after he drove his BMW SUV through a heavy wire barrier in a Loop garage and landed on two cars a floor below, authorities said."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-suv-crashes-through-parking-garage-barriers-ends-up-on-top-of-2-other-cars-20120621,0,3915433.story
"Louise Ericksen, 72, of Baudette was traveling southbound on Minnesota Highway 72 in Beltrami County, about six miles north of Blackduck , just before 10:30 a.m. when the car crossed the centerline and went into the east ditch.
While driving on the slope of the ditch, the car struck a no-passing sign with its driver?s side rear-door area, breaking the door window. According to the Patrol report, passenger Kendall Erickson, 15, of Baudette, was sleeping in the rear seat and as the car bounced along rough terrain in the ditch, she was ejected out the broken window."
Oh, the story gets better. That's because the aged driver continued down the road as is nothing abnormal had happened and didn't even notice her passenger had been thrown from the car! :facepalm:
http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/237011/
Maine State Trooper Douglas Cropper had to use his police cruiser to stop 88-year-old Kenneth Gill from driving the wrong way on Interstate 295 after Gill failed to notice the officer's signal to stop his car.
http://www.pressherald.com/news/maine-State-police-video-cruiser-wrong-way-intercept.html
(http://media.pressherald.com/images/300*252/Cropper.jpg)
God that fucking video. Literally nothing happens until the last two seconds.
(http://c.o0bc.com/rf/image_539o215/Boston/2011-2020/Wires/2012/08/30/Boston.com/APOnlineImages/2012-08-29/4df6dd7a7127b018190f6a706700e674.jpg)
"LOS ANGELES (AP) ? Preston Carter, a 100-year-old man backed his car on to a sidewalk and hit 11 people, including nine children, across from an elementary school in South Los Angeles just after classes had ended Wednesday, authorities said."
http://www.boston.com/news/education/2012/08/30/police-year-old-driver-hits-near-school/Z4BOTjawDmbEu2VzA32OIK/story.html
Driving a powder-blue Cadillac with a vinyl roof, too. What a surprise!
That made the news en France!
A teenage girl was mown down by an elderly motorist days after he refused to surrender his driving licence to police despite failing an eyesight test.
Cassie McCord, 16, was on her way to college when 87-year-old Colin Horsfall's car ploughed into her.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2086179/Colin-Horsfall-87-killed-Cassie-McCord-16-days-refusing-surrender-licence.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2086179/Colin-Horsfall-87-killed-Cassie-McCord-16-days-refusing-surrender-licence.html)
I still dont understand the aversion to self driving cars. I know everyone online is a driving god, but I don't think it would be difficult to make a car that could drive w/o mowing down kindergarteners. The Google cars seem to have managed to do OK so far in this regard.
http://youtu.be/hskBGTk38lA (http://youtu.be/hskBGTk38lA)
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 30, 2013, 09:54:23 AM
I still dont understand the aversion to self driving cars. I know everyone online is a driving god, but I don't think it would be difficult to make a car that could drive w/o mowing down kindergarteners. The Google cars seem to have managed to do OK so far in this regard.
We've gone round and round on this, so no sense in reiterating the whole thing. But to sum it up, computers are stupid.
Quote from: Raza on June 04, 2013, 09:35:54 AM
We've gone round and round on this, so no sense in reiterating the whole thing. But to sum it up, computers are stupid.
Well yes they're stupid. But they are less stupid than we are, in the sense that they are more reliable, predictable and consistent. These qualities lend themselves to high stakes non-complex tasks like transporting people from place to place.
Computers don't start lobbying groups like AARP to defend themselves when they under threat of becoming obsolete and being replaced.
Quote from: Morris Minor on June 04, 2013, 10:12:35 AM
Well yes they're stupid. But they are less stupid than we are, in the sense that they are more reliable, predictable and consistent. These qualities lend themselves to high stakes non-complex tasks like transporting people from place to place.
No, they're not. They're exactly as stupid as people are, without the ability to react instinctively or creatively.
Quote from: Raza on June 04, 2013, 10:48:05 AM
No, they're not. They're exactly as stupid as people are, without the ability to react instinctively or creatively.
A computer can't get drunk, take its eyes off the road to text a friend, fall asleep because it drove too far for too long, try to eat a cheeseburger while shifting, etc... All examples of incredibly stupid and alarmingly common driving behavior of your everyday average human being.
Most accidents are caused by distracted driving, not uncreative drivers faced with a difficult situation.
Quote from: Tave on June 04, 2013, 12:47:35 PM
A computer can't get drunk, take its eyes off the road to text a friend, fall asleep because it drove too far for too long, try to eat a cheeseburger while shifting, etc... All examples of incredibly stupid and alarmingly common driving behavior of your everyday average human being.
Most accidents are caused by distracted driving, not uncreative drivers faced with a difficult situation.
This is what I wanted to avoid. This round and round.
Giving me examples of people breaking the law or doing otherwise unsafe things is not an argument for computers, it's an argument for better drivers. I don't drink and drive. I don't drive distracted. Therefore I don't want a computer making decisions for me when I am more capable of making those decisions.
Quote from: Tave on June 04, 2013, 12:47:35 PM
A computer can't get drunk, take its eyes off the road to text a friend, fall asleep because it drove too far for too long, try to eat a cheeseburger while shifting, etc... All examples of incredibly stupid and alarmingly common driving behavior of your everyday average human being.
Most accidents are caused by distracted driving, not uncreative drivers faced with a difficult situation.
Computers crashes, freezes, over heats and who knows what else can happen. We've had that happen with our desktops, laptops, tablets, phones, you don't think this won't happen while on the road? And now what?
Quote from: NomisR on June 04, 2013, 01:25:15 PM
Computers crashes, freezes, over heats and who knows what else can happen. We've had that happen with our desktops, laptops, tablets, phones, you don't think this won't happen while on the road? And now what?
That's not a concern. Imperfect humans will always create perfect machines. Crashes, freezes, hacking, et al, wouldn't be a problem.
Quote from: Raza on June 04, 2013, 01:28:42 PM
That's not a concern. Imperfect humans will always create perfect machines. Crashes, freezes, hacking, et al, wouldn't be a problem.
There are a lot of things computers don't do that humans do. Computers may not be perfect, but I trust a computer more than say, a drunkard, a blind old lady, an inexperienced FB addicted teen, a meth addict. Like I said, we know you are a driving deity, and are always in control, and could take a minute off a Nurburgring lap in a GT-R from its own computer controlled time. But you are not who society would benefit from replacing with a computer.
Quote from: Raza on June 04, 2013, 01:28:42 PM
That's not a concern. Imperfect humans will always create perfect machines. Crashes, freezes, hacking, et al, wouldn't be a problem.
I think the bigger issue is that manual driving will become illegal.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on June 04, 2013, 08:53:53 PM
I think the bigger issue is that manual driving will become illegal.
At least in towns and in parking lots. I can imagine that there may be a time in the future where we drive into a parking lot and computers take over and park the car automatically.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on June 04, 2013, 08:53:53 PM
I think the bigger issue is that manual driving will become illegal.
Or that when manual driving becomes necessary, the skills that people used to have would have diminished to the point of nonexistence.
If you want better driving, get better drivers. Don't sidestep the issue and inevitably make the problem worse.
American driving is partially due to a lack of training but mainly cultural. There is no driver's ed course that will convince people that driving safety & skill are more important than getting hammered, or checking Facebook, or swallowing one's pride to acknowledge that they are too old to be behind the wheel of a car. You could make DUI a capitol offense, people will still drive drunk
I would rather have the people who don't give a shit about driving or anyone's safety NOT be behind the wheel of a car at all than waste time, money and effort trying to project my values on them. The "driver's training" argument is moot, driver's training is not the problem. Driving in most of the US is easy as hell, it doesn't exactly require a 4 year degree to do. There's 8 year olds who understand car dynamics better than the avg US driver. Traffic lights etc are not that hard to figure out. The problem is American driving culture for which there is no simple fix.
If this happens, I'd like to see a two tiered driver's licensing system that allows for top tiered drivers to have the option to drive the car themselves. The cell phone drunks can be in the bottom tier being chauffeured around in their HAL powered cars.
Quote from: Northlands on June 05, 2013, 08:16:42 AM
If this happens, I'd like to see a two tiered driver's licensing system that allows for top tiered drivers to have the option to drive the car themselves. The cell phone drunks can be in the bottom tier being chauffeured around in their HAL powered cars.
Yeah, if that happens--and those idiots get their own roads, so I don't have to worry about computer viruses or Fuckface McAssDouche trying to fix his own computer car--then I'm fine with it.
Quote from: Raza on June 05, 2013, 08:32:23 AM
Yeah, if that happens--and those idiots get their own roads, so I don't have to worry about computer viruses or Fuckface McAssDouche trying to fix his own computer car--then I'm fine with it.
Whens the last time you heard of a car crashing because of a computer, let alone a computer VIRUS? :ugh:
You give American drivers way too much credit. It would not be hard to make a computer that drives better than the avg American.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 05, 2013, 07:42:38 AM
American driving is partially due to a lack of training but mainly cultural. There is no driver's ed course that will convince people that driving safety & skill are more important than getting hammered, or checking Facebook, or swallowing one's pride to acknowledge that they are too old to be behind the wheel of a car. You could make DUI a capitol offense, people will still drive drunk
I would rather have the people who don't give a shit about driving or anyone's safety NOT be behind the wheel of a car at all than waste time, money and effort trying to project my values on them. The "driver's training" argument is moot, driver's training is not the problem. Driving in most of the US is easy as hell, it doesn't exactly require a 4 year degree to do. There's 8 year olds who understand car dynamics better than the avg US driver. Traffic lights etc are not that hard to figure out. The problem is American driving culture for which there is no simple fix.
Here's what our driver's education looks like.
Hand the kid a DMV manual, study it, take the test to make sure they know the rule.
Put the same kid behind the wheels after they've passed the test knowing the rules and hand the the keys and have them drive around the block. This is to ensure they can apply these rules properly.
THAT'S IT!
There's no education to any of this, no teaching people how to actually drive. There's nobody teaching driver's proper usage of brakes or control of the car, body rolls, racing lines, whatever, it's just get in and go, and just follow the rules. That's the problem.
Driver's training? It's laughable. It's dumbed down so much just like everything else in our society today, it's catering to the lowest common denominator.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 05, 2013, 01:00:58 PM
Whens the last time you heard of a car crashing because of a computer, let alone a computer VIRUS? :ugh:
You give American drivers way too much credit. It would not be hard to make a computer that drives better than the avg American.
Because computers aren't driving cars today. But you have to remember that if computers do drive cars, not only do we have to deal with computers even today we have to deal with occassional crashes, lockups, freezes and what not on top of that, viruses and so forth, they would all need a wide variety of sensors. And with the sensors, it means that the individual owners pretty much have to maintain it which I don't think a lot would actually do so.. and then people would probably find ways to screw with the sensors which would probably mess with things even more.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 05, 2013, 01:00:58 PM
Whens the last time you heard of a car crashing because of a computer, let alone a computer VIRUS? :ugh:
Well, every time a company comes out with a computer controlled braking system, the car crashes. Happened with Mercedes and it happened with Volvo when they both debuted their radar braking systems.
As for viruses, you're talking about fully automated cars, which mean that they're going to need far more computing than is currently necessary. That means OSs, probably internet connectivity, et al; it's not unreasonable to think that car computer viruses could become a problem in the future.
Quote from: NomisR on June 05, 2013, 01:16:52 PM
Because computers aren't driving cars today. But you have to remember that if computers do drive cars, not only do we have to deal with computers even today we have to deal with occassional crashes, lockups, freezes and what not on top of that, viruses and so forth, they would all need a wide variety of sensors. And with the sensors, it means that the individual owners pretty much have to maintain it which I don't think a lot would actually do so.. and then people would probably find ways to screw with the sensors which would probably mess with things even more.
No, no one has ever modified a car to the point it was unsafe and then continued to drive it.
Quote from: NomisR on June 05, 2013, 01:05:06 PM
Here's what our driver's education looks like.
Hand the kid a DMV manual, study it, take the test to make sure they know the rule.
Put the same kid behind the wheels after they've passed the test knowing the rules and hand the the keys and have them drive around the block. This is to ensure they can apply these rules properly.
THAT'S IT!
There's no education to any of this, no teaching people how to actually drive. There's nobody teaching driver's proper usage of brakes or control of the car, body rolls, racing lines, whatever, it's just get in and go, and just follow the rules. That's the problem.
Driver's training? It's laughable. It's dumbed down so much just like everything else in our society today, it's catering to the lowest common denominator.
You guys are looking at the wrong metrics. You are using race driver metrics to analyze street drivers. My wife doesnt know understeer from a J-turn, but shes a better driver than me... why??? She won't hit 100 MPH on an open stretch for the fuck of it, or go weaving in and out of lanes in traffic etc. The only important measure of how good a driver someone is on the road is how SAFE they drive. In the US that is pretty easy. Stay in your lane, check your mirrors, maintain good distance, don't speed, pay attention to the road & your car
You can teach a kid driving dynamics and all that horseshit, but none of that is gonna stop him from acting a fool with his friends. None of that is gonna stop him from driving drunk. None of that is gonna stop him from sending stupid corny FB messages to his GF 10 mins away on a curvy 2 lane road. I agree that driver's ed sucks but as far as safety on the road driver's ed is not the problem. If you want people to drive better you have to make driving important. Good luck doing that in a country that votes more for American Idol than political candidates
Quote from: Raza on June 05, 2013, 01:21:01 PM
Well, every time a company comes out with a computer controlled braking system, the car crashes. Happened with Mercedes and it happened with Volvo when they both debuted their radar braking systems.
And they fixed them, and got the green light to release them to the public. I've asked you before dozens of times but can you point to a system like that to having caused any accidents in the public realm?
Quote from: Raza on June 05, 2013, 01:21:01 PMAs for viruses, you're talking about fully automated cars, which mean that they're going to need far more computing than is currently necessary. That means OSs, probably internet connectivity, et al; it's not unreasonable to think that car computer viruses could become a problem in the future.
Lot of ifs and speculation here. News flash, the tech is already out there. The Google cars don't use an "OS" and they aren't controlled "by the internet". A luxury car today has vehicle dynamics controls that can accelerate, brake, turn the steering wheel, as well as scan the road for other cars, obstacles and landmarks. Integrate those systems with traffic devices and GPS, the car can drive itself no problem. And the electronics controlling these things are way more robust/redundant/foolproof than a damn Windows PC... another fallacy you keep touting as fact.
Look I enjoy driving and don't want a fully automated automotive landscape. But you are being dishonest in your assessments of the frailty & failure rates of life safety grade computers, and the attentiveness & focus of the avg driver. We have reached a point where computers can and ARE robust enough to SAFELY replace average, let alone the worst drivers on American roads, and to where the issues of safety on American roads go beyond driver's training or safety technology. Americans, particularly the young and old, either don't give a shit about driving safely, or lack the physical ability to drive safely. Replacing these drivers with computers would be an upgrade, PERIOD.
Quote from: Raza on June 05, 2013, 01:21:01 PM
Well, every time a company comes out with a computer controlled braking system, the car crashes. Happened with Mercedes and it happened with Volvo when they both debuted their radar braking systems.
O and there have been "computer controlled braking systems" since the early days of ABS. Most vehicle stability control systems control the individual brakes... with computers. But don't let your illogical clinging to autonomy get in the way of facts. Note, nobody has even said or implied that YOU should lose your ability to drive.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 05, 2013, 01:32:40 PM
You guys are looking at the wrong metrics. You are using race driver metrics to analyze street drivers. My wife doesnt know understeer from a J-turn, but shes a better driver than me... why??? She won't hit 100 MPH on an open stretch for the fuck of it, or go weaving in and out of lanes in traffic etc. The only important measure of how good a driver someone is on the road is how SAFE they drive. In the US that is pretty easy. Stay in your lane, check your mirrors, maintain good distance, don't speed, pay attention to the road & your car
You can teach a kid driving dynamics and all that horseshit, but none of that is gonna stop him from acting a fool with his friends. None of that is gonna stop him from driving drunk. None of that is gonna stop him from sending stupid corny FB messages to his GF 10 mins away on a curvy 2 lane road. I agree that driver's ed sucks but as far as safety on the road driver's ed is not the problem. If you want people to drive better you have to make driving important. Good luck doing that in a country that votes more for American Idol than political candidates
It's not about race car driving but actually driving properly.
Here's what I see a lot of the times on the road. You have a red light up ahead with cars stopped. The car in front of you would step too hard on their brakes so they stop way too short of where they originally intended to stop. And after they stopped, they realized that there's still a car's length between him and the car in front of him so he rolls forward. How many times have you seen that happen when proper usage of brakes means you know how fast you're going, where you want to stop, and step on your brakes a certain amount and you stop exactly at where you want. No need to modulate your brakes or slam on your brakes, and it makes it easy for others to drive behind you and your passengers won't be puking when they get out. Hey, I can do it.. and I don't think I'm the best driver out there so if I can, others should be able to too.
And then you have asshats, stepping on the brakes in corners where there's no need to do it because.. ohhhhh they're scared.. fuck..
And you realize that our speed limit used to be higher before the whole 55 save lives crap in cars that stops longer and are less safe than today? Because traffic engineers engineered our roads to go at faster speeds, but our politicians deem those speeds to be dangerous. Our speed limits today is not about safety but simply a political tool... that's it.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 05, 2013, 01:46:09 PM
O and there have been "computer controlled braking systems" since the early days of ABS. Most vehicle stability control systems control the individual brakes... with computers. But don't let your illogical clinging to autonomy get in the way of facts. Note, nobody has even said or implied that YOU should lose your ability to drive.
You're resting your argument on an omitted adjective. "Fully". There.
And there's really the liability issue of accidents. So who would be responsible if a fully automated car gets into a crash? The owner or the manufacturer?
I think just because of this, the chances of 100% automated cars is not really likely because too much liability is placed on the manufacturers. The drivers will at least retain enough control to control the cars in an event of an emergency.
The Google automated cars have logged hundred of thousands of miles with zero accidents in auto mode. A couple have crashed, but it was when they were all being controlled manually :huh:
And that's with the unpredictable, terrible human drivers all around them. You put other computer controlled cars out there, and it'll be even easier for automated cars to navigate.
Quote from: MrH on June 05, 2013, 02:14:47 PM
The Google automated cars have logged hundred of thousands of miles with zero accidents in auto mode. A couple have crashed, but it was when they were all being controlled manually :huh:
And that's with the unpredictable, terrible human drivers all around them. You put other computer controlled cars out there, and it'll be even easier for automated cars to navigate.
Make something idiot-proof, and they will build a better idiot
Stupid people crash Toyotas because they get their carpet stuck on the gas pedal and you're expecting auto cars to work retail?
You'll have consumers probably getting the sensors so dirty that it won't work properly or simply mess it up somehow... and who'll be liable? It's not engineers running these things keeping them in 100% working condition.
Quote from: NomisR on June 05, 2013, 02:55:58 PM
Make something idiot-proof, and they will build a better idiot
:golfclap:
Quote from: NomisR on June 05, 2013, 02:55:58 PM
Make something idiot-proof, and they will build a better idiot
Stupid people crash Toyotas because they get their carpet stuck on the gas pedal and you're expecting auto cars to work retail?
You'll have consumers probably getting the sensors so dirty that it won't work properly or simply mess it up somehow... and who'll be liable? It's not engineers running these things keeping them in 100% working condition.
There are already these systems in place... for the millionth time can you or Raza point to an example of any of the hundreds of millions of cars w/computer controlled dynamic systems causing accidents?
Even your hypothetical scenario is goofy. "Dirty sensors"? Again have "dirty sensors" caused any accidents up to this point? And how can a "better idiot" be a danger in a car they have on complete autopilot????
Maybe we should have driver's training/tests like they have in Germany?
Also, if the cell phone / facebooking while driving crowd is so intent on playing with their toys instead of driving... why drive? Plenty of buses around to take out there.
Quote from: Northlands on June 05, 2013, 07:04:55 PM
Maybe we should have driver's training/tests like they have in Germany?
Also, if the cell phone / facebooking while driving crowd is so intent on playing with their toys instead of driving... why drive? Plenty of buses around to take out there.
It costs thousands of dollars to get a driver's license in Germany on account of all of the required tests and training. With the relative lack of public transportation in much of the country, particularly poorer and more rural areas, that just isn't practical.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 05, 2013, 06:36:01 PM
There are already these systems in place... for the millionth time can you or Raza point to an example of any of the hundreds of millions of cars w/computer controlled dynamic systems causing accidents?
Even your hypothetical scenario is goofy. "Dirty sensors"? Again have "dirty sensors" caused any accidents up to this point? And how can a "better idiot" be a danger in a car they have on complete autopilot????
Exactly. I have yet to hear of a stability control system going haywire and randomly start braking wheels until the car crashes into a tree and bursts into flames.
You anti-computer guys are way too late to the party to be complaining about this. There are a ton of systems already in place that are operating just fine. You're just oblivious to it.
Some of us just don't want it to get to the point that we're removed from the equation completely. Using the argument that there are tons of people out there who can't be bothered to pay attention while driving is just enabling them to be less responsible. It's not normally exclusive to one facet of their lives.
I'd trust a computer over the average driver.
Quote from: Northlands on June 05, 2013, 08:00:36 PM
Some of us just don't want it to get to the point that we're removed from the equation completely. Using the argument that there are tons of people out there who can't be bothered to pay attention while driving is just enabling them to be less responsible. It's not normally exclusive to one facet of their lives.
For the record I want to keep driving. But changing culture is pretty rough, esp in today's PC + litigious climate. Many people don't give a shit or are too hardheaded to drive properly.
I was out w/some people and this chick was telling her boyfriend about how she was speeding and almost got in an accident, because she incorrectly guessed what a driver was doing and didn't have time to react. Knowing idiots like her are on the road make me want to put the bike away completely, TBH. It's not worth it. She'd be better off in an self-driving drunk tank
If these self driving cars do come out, I think you guys are just imagining a world where driving is dead. Personally, I think the recreational driving market would explode. You'd have a living room on wheels to deliver you to work every day, but then you'd have something like an Ariel Atom and lots of tracks around to exploit it. Autonomous cars would drive the price down on something like an Atom to make it a $10-$15k toy.
I don't know about you guys, but that sounds like a pretty awesome scenario. Sitting through rush hour traffic while napping or watching TV is much preferred over driving. I'm imagining that episode of Top Gear where Jeremy tries to build a British living room in the back of a car :lol: Fireplace, 4 seats all facing each other.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 05, 2013, 06:36:01 PM
There are already these systems in place... for the millionth time can you or Raza point to an example of any of the hundreds of millions of cars w/computer controlled dynamic systems causing accidents?
Even your hypothetical scenario is goofy. "Dirty sensors"? Again have "dirty sensors" caused any accidents up to this point? And how can a "better idiot" be a danger in a car they have on complete autopilot????
Again, you have to remember that these cars would be used daily. I mean look at airplanes, it's all getting more and more automated and they still have problems with sensors like i.e. AF447 accident, while it's partly human error, there's still a part of it as the result of sensors.
So if you put it all in the hands of a computer without human control, would it be better? I don't know.
And you equating computer today with cars being operated by computers in the future is not equal at all. Since you won't have a computer to actually do steering, monitor traffic, and variety of other feats that are not performed by today's car.
Apples and oranges comparison. If you look at majority of the computerized systems today, they're pretty much passive systems that activates only when needed. It's not the same as something that's on all the time, again.. SportySPIN is wrong with the analogies.
Quote from: MrH on June 06, 2013, 11:18:21 AM
If these self driving cars do come out, I think you guys are just imagining a world where driving is dead. Personally, I think the recreational driving market would explode. You'd have a living room on wheels to deliver you to work every day, but then you'd have something like an Ariel Atom and lots of tracks around to exploit it. Autonomous cars would drive the price down on something like an Atom to make it a $10-$15k toy.
I don't know about you guys, but that sounds like a pretty awesome scenario. Sitting through rush hour traffic while napping or watching TV is much preferred over driving. I'm imagining that episode of Top Gear where Jeremy tries to build a British living room in the back of a car :lol: Fireplace, 4 seats all facing each other.
Like I said before, not in the forseeable future due to liability reasons for the manufacturers. They would want the drivers to maintain somewhat of a control in case something is wrong so they can blame the drivers if someone gets run over. Unless we have cars on rails, some sort of magnetic systems in the road so they simply follow the traffic flow, .. this might be possible.
But then again, if all cars follow this type of path, congestion would be less likely, but individual car ownership would likely go way down as well due to cost.
Quote from: NomisR on June 06, 2013, 11:36:41 AM
Again, you have to remember that these cars would be used daily. I mean look at airplanes, it's all getting more and more automated and they still have problems with sensors like i.e. AF447 accident, while it's partly human error, there's still a part of it as the result of sensors.
So if you put it all in the hands of a computer without human control, would it be better? I don't know.
And you equating computer today with cars being operated by computers in the future is not equal at all. Since you won't have a computer to actually do steering, monitor traffic, and variety of other feats that are not performed by today's car.
Apples and oranges comparison. If you look at majority of the computerized systems today, they're pretty much passive systems that activates only when needed. It's not the same as something that's on all the time, again.. SportySPIN is wrong with the analogies.
Planes are even safer to travel in than a car. And they're flying through the air! Much more difficult concept. If anything, you're arguing that automation is safer.
I wonder if they can develop self driving software that will speed away recklessly if the driver doesn't have insurance. Because that happens all the fucking time with shitheaded humans.
Quote from: MrH on June 06, 2013, 12:19:23 PM
Planes are even safer to travel in than a car. And they're flying through the air! Much more difficult concept. If anything, you're arguing that automation is safer.
Yeah, but different scenarios as well.. You have significantly more space in the air and less traffic on top of that. And along with the fact that these planes are constantly maintained and checked all the time which is not done for regular car or expected to be done. And cars travel at greater density and greater variables than a plane would as autopilot on, you typically wouldn't have to deal with a moose suddenly running in front of you as a car would. And the size of the jumbo jets, any birds they come across would be more similar to striking a bug, but at the altitute they fly at with autopilot, birds aren't as big of an issue to begin with.
Quote from: MrH on June 06, 2013, 11:18:21 AM
If these self driving cars do come out, I think you guys are just imagining a world where driving is dead. Personally, I think the recreational driving market would explode. You'd have a living room on wheels to deliver you to work every day, but then you'd have something like an Ariel Atom and lots of tracks around to exploit it. Autonomous cars would drive the price down on something like an Atom to make it a $10-$15k toy.
I don't know about you guys, but that sounds like a pretty awesome scenario. Sitting through rush hour traffic while napping or watching TV is much preferred over driving. I'm imagining that episode of Top Gear where Jeremy tries to build a British living room in the back of a car :lol: Fireplace, 4 seats all facing each other.
I think you've got it the wrong way round. Prices would go through the roof and manually driven cars would become a luxury that few could afford. Most people right now can afford only one car or have only one car for other reasons (that's why things like sport sedans exist, or why people drive gas guzzling SUVs to work everyday instead of having a dedicated commuter car). I can't afford to run two cars and I make more than the average household in the US.
Quote from: MrH on June 06, 2013, 12:19:23 PM
Planes are even safer to travel in than a car. And they're flying through the air! Much more difficult concept. If anything, you're arguing that automation is safer.
Would you get on a plane that doesn't have a pilot?
When was the last time a plane had a tire blow out on the move or had to react to a child or animal running in front of it or had to control a slide due to black ice?
Flight is simple. They're basically there all by themselves and have air traffic controllers guiding their moves.
Quote from: Raza on June 06, 2013, 12:45:58 PM
Would you get on a plane that doesn't have a pilot?
When was the last time a plane had a tire blow out on the move or had to react to a child or animal running in front of it or had to control a slide due to black ice?
Flight is simple. They're basically there all by themselves and have air traffic controllers guiding their moves.
If it was proven to work and be safer than a piloted aircraft, sure. Why wouldn't I?
...there's turbulence. Which is a hell of a lot harder to control than braking in a straight line. The fact you think flight is simple is hilarious. There are so many systems in place that just keep in going in a straight line. There are planes that are naturally unstable on all three axes. Computers have to be in place or it would just spin wildly out of control. Cars are caveman engineered in comparison.
Quote from: Raza on June 06, 2013, 12:32:51 PM
I think you've got it the wrong way round. Prices would go through the roof and manually driven cars would become a luxury that few could afford. Most people right now can afford only one car or have only one car for other reasons (that's why things like sport sedans exist, or why people drive gas guzzling SUVs to work everyday instead of having a dedicated commuter car). I can't afford to run two cars and I make more than the average household in the US.
No, everything becomes simpler when you don't have idiot drivers involved. Tear dropped shaped living rooms, no airbags, no crumble zones. The game for basic cars changes completely if this happens. Your track car could be similar to an ariel atom or caterham, which will only come down in price when demand comes up.
Quote from: MrH on June 06, 2013, 01:23:40 PM
If it was proven to work and be safer than a piloted aircraft, sure. Why wouldn't I?
...there's turbulence. Which is a hell of a lot harder to control than braking in a straight line. The fact you think flight is simple is hilarious. There are so many systems in place that just keep in going in a straight line. There are planes that are naturally unstable on all three axes. Computers have to be in place or it would just spin wildly out of control. Cars are caveman engineered in comparison.
You're fucking nuts, man. You feel free going up in a plane without a pilot, you'll be sorely missed when it comes crashing down. Flight is simple may have been an overstatement, but autopilot tackles a completely different type of task, with a crew constantly monitoring the systems, and air traffic control. Air travel and car travel are not remotely comparable.
Quote
No, everything becomes simpler when you don't have idiot drivers involved. Tear dropped shaped living rooms, no airbags, no crumble zones. The game for basic cars changes completely if this happens. Your track car could be similar to an ariel atom or caterham, which will only come down in price when demand comes up.
You're saying that completely redesigned and completely automated would cost less than an average mainstreamer? And you think that they'd get rid of safety features? That's right, you think putting your life in the hands of a computer and a computer only is a good idea.
If this shit ever happens, leave me the fuck out of it. Your idea of automated driving is so idealized it's ridiculous. We don't live in Minority Report or I, Robot.
Quote from: Raza on June 06, 2013, 01:43:27 PM
You're fucking nuts, man. You feel free going up in a plane without a pilot, you'll be sorely missed when it comes crashing down. Flight is simple may have been an overstatement, but autopilot tackles a completely different type of task, with a crew constantly monitoring the systems, and air traffic control. Air travel and car travel are not remotely comparable.
You're saying that completely redesigned and completely automated would cost less than an average mainstreamer? And you think that they'd get rid of safety features? That's right, you think putting your life in the hands of a computer and a computer only is a good idea.
If this shit ever happens, leave me the fuck out of it. Your idea of automated driving is so idealized it's ridiculous. We don't live in Minority Report or I, Robot.
I'm left wondering if this is all an act to further your persona of being some sort of aged hard ass. :lol:
Quote from: MrH on June 06, 2013, 01:23:40 PM
If it was proven to work and be safer than a piloted aircraft, sure. Why wouldn't I?
...there's turbulence. Which is a hell of a lot harder to control than braking in a straight line. The fact you think flight is simple is hilarious. There are so many systems in place that just keep in going in a straight line. There are planes that are naturally unstable on all three axes. Computers have to be in place or it would just spin wildly out of control. Cars are caveman engineered in comparison.
No, everything becomes simpler when you don't have idiot drivers involved. Tear dropped shaped living rooms, no airbags, no crumble zones. The game for basic cars changes completely if this happens. Your track car could be similar to an ariel atom or caterham, which will only come down in price when demand comes up.
Like I said before, unless there's a massive overhaul on infrastructure, I don't see this likely in the near future. There would be a big period where old manual driven cars are mixed with automated cars. And then you would run into all the problems i've noted before. Best case scenario would be transportation pod type thing that merges with some sort of rail system on the fly to transport people to their final destination. But again, infrastructure needed. Automated cars would run into a lot of liability problems at least in the US making waves for public transportation similar to transportation pods I mentioned.
OK, I agree with the fact that cars will be safer with computers. However, what I don't agree with is that manually controlled cars would become cheaper. There is no way that there would be enough demand from just enthusiasts to justify producing conventional cars, and if there were, it'd be prohibitively expensive for 95% of people out there. I don't see how you think prices would go down at all. Hell, most companies can't even make a business case for building a sports car right now. I'm not sure how you think they'd be willing to make them once the majority of the driving public switches to automated cars.
It's like the horse. It used to be a cheap form of transportation that everyone used. As they all moved to cars, the prices of owning and maintaining a horse (sounds weird) went up and now it's a rich white person sport. The same will happen with cars. The problem is, you don't have to engineer a horse, but you have to engineer a car, and ultimately I think they'll stop being made.
Plus, I highly doubt manual cars would be allowed on the roads with automated cars, just like how horses aren't on roads with cars nowadays.
Quote from: thecarnut on June 06, 2013, 02:57:31 PM
OK, I agree with the fact that cars will be safer with computers. However, what I don't agree with is that manually controlled cars would become cheaper. There is no way that there would be enough demand from just enthusiasts to justify producing conventional cars, and if there were, it'd be prohibitively expensive for 95% of people out there. I don't see how you think prices would go down at all. Hell, most companies can't even make a business case for building a sports car right now. I'm not sure how you think they'd be willing to make them once the majority of the driving public switches to automated cars.
It's like the horse. It used to be a cheap form of transportation that everyone used. As they all moved to cars, the prices of owning and maintaining a horse (sounds weird) went up and now it's a rich white person sport. The same will happen with cars. The problem is, you don't have to engineer a horse, but you have to engineer a car, and ultimately I think they'll stop being made.
Plus, I highly doubt manual cars would be allowed on the roads with automated cars, just like how horses aren't on roads with cars nowadays.
There's enough demand for Ariel Atoms and Caterham's right now. Now imagine that's the only option for driving fun...
Going from a thousand or two a year to making 50,000 a year is a HUGE difference. If one of the big OEMs had 50,000 units a year worth of demand, they could make something bad ass for pretty cheap.
Quote from: thecarnut on June 06, 2013, 02:57:31 PM
Plus, I highly doubt manual cars would be allowed on the roads with automated cars, just like how horses aren't on roads with cars nowadays.
Horses and horse-drawn carriages/karts/buggies can and are legally operated on roads with cars.
Quote from: MX793 on June 06, 2013, 03:01:30 PM
Horses and horse-drawn carriages/karts/buggies can and are legally operated on roads with cars.
Yeah, but only surface streets. Not on highways, which is what I think he meant.
Quote from: Raza on June 06, 2013, 03:02:45 PM
Yeah, but only surface streets. Not on highways, which is what I think he meant.
I haven't seen them on interstates or limited access roads, but I've seen them on rural highways (55 mph, mostly 2-lane but sometimes 4).
Quote from: MX793 on June 06, 2013, 03:10:25 PM
I haven't seen them on interstates or limited access roads, but I've seen them on rural highways (55 mph, mostly 2-lane but sometimes 4).
Must vary state to state, which makes sense since it's motor vehicle code. As far as I know, nothing but motor vehicles are allowed on highways in PA (and I think NJ too); no bicycles, horses, skateboards, or what not. I don't know about scooters or mopeds.
Cars that drive you to work and to the mall. Maybe even have a system where you can program your vehicle to connect to other vehicles and save on energy use. You can just check a schedule and see where you can meet up with others for the ride. It will be one big vehicle of commuters.
Isn't that a bus?
Quote from: MrH on June 06, 2013, 03:00:47 PM
There's enough demand for Ariel Atoms and Caterham's right now. Now imagine that's the only option for driving fun...
Going from a thousand or two a year to making 50,000 a year is a HUGE difference. If one of the big OEMs had 50,000 units a year worth of demand, they could make something bad ass for pretty cheap.
I bet the market would be similar to the ATV/dirtbike market, which aren't exactly cheap.
Quote from: thecarnut on June 06, 2013, 02:57:31 PM
OK, I agree with the fact that cars will be safer with computers. However, what I don't agree with is that manually controlled cars would become cheaper. There is no way that there would be enough demand from just enthusiasts to justify producing conventional cars, and if there were, it'd be prohibitively expensive for 95% of people out there. I don't see how you think prices would go down at all. Hell, most companies can't even make a business case for building a sports car right now. I'm not sure how you think they'd be willing to make them once the majority of the driving public switches to automated cars.
It's like the horse. It used to be a cheap form of transportation that everyone used. As they all moved to cars, the prices of owning and maintaining a horse (sounds weird) went up and now it's a rich white person sport. The same will happen with cars. The problem is, you don't have to engineer a horse, but you have to engineer a car, and ultimately I think they'll stop being made.
Plus, I highly doubt manual cars would be allowed on the roads with automated cars, just like how horses aren't on roads with cars nowadays.
There are kit cars out there assembled for like $30K. Thats reasonable to me
Plus enthusiast cars could be made w/o all the stupid safety regs, further driving down costs. Since it would be much less likely for an idiot driver to hit you.
Raza has gone completely off his rocker on this one. I think the thought of automated cars triggers some deep seated fight or flight response. Dude is not speaking rationally or even acknowledging any facts that don't coincide w/his preconceptions. Point blank American drivers suck and computers would do a better job, on average. That dude trusts alcoholics and teenagers more than computers says it all
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 06, 2013, 04:08:04 PM
There are kit cars out there assembled for like $30K. Thats reasonable to me
Plus enthusiast cars could be made w/o all the stupid safety regs, further driving down costs. Since it would be much less likely for an idiot driver to hit you.
Raza has gone completely off his rocker on this one. I think the thought of automated cars triggers some deep seated fight or flight response. Dude is not speaking rationally or even acknowledging any facts that don't coincide w/his preconceptions. Point blank American drivers suck and computers would do a better job, on average. That dude trusts alcoholics and teenagers more than computers says it all
It really depends on how transportation evolves.
If we end up with something like this
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ae/ULTra_001.jpg/300px-ULTra_001.jpg)
manual cars will end up costing more
If we have something similar to cars today where parts are readily available and can be sourced for kit car type things, cost won't go up too much. Right now, kit cars costs the price they do because majority of the parts are sourced from mass produced vehicles. If the parts aren't interchangeable then prices of manual cars goes up significantly...
Quote from: Raza on June 06, 2013, 03:13:50 PM
Must vary state to state, which makes sense since it's motor vehicle code. As far as I know, nothing but motor vehicles are allowed on highways in PA (and I think NJ too); no bicycles, horses, skateboards, or what not. I don't know about scooters or mopeds.
I think you're thinking of limited-access highways, which are a subset of highway. A highway is any main road that connects population centers (I generally classify them as roads with speed limits in excess of 45 mph). They may or may not be multi-lane, divided, and/or limited access. US Rte 11, for instance, is a highway but is not limited-access (portions may be, but large stretches are not). In contrast, roads in the Interstate system are usually limited access (and non-motor vehicles are not permitted).
Quote from: MX793 on June 06, 2013, 05:44:44 PM
I think you're thinking of limited-access highways, which are a subset of highway. A highway is any main road that connects population centers (I generally classify them as roads with speed limits in excess of 45 mph). They may or may not be multi-lane, divided, and/or limited access. US Rte 11, for instance, is a highway but is not limited-access (portions may be, but large stretches are not). In contrast, roads in the Interstate system are usually limited access (and non-motor vehicles are not permitted).
I was just viewing a webpage about how different areas of the U.S. have different names for the same thing. Highway was one of those names.
Quote from: MX793 on June 06, 2013, 05:44:44 PM
I think you're thinking of limited-access highways, which are a subset of highway. A highway is any main road that connects population centers (I generally classify them as roads with speed limits in excess of 45 mph). They may or may not be multi-lane, divided, and/or limited access. US Rte 11, for instance, is a highway but is not limited-access (portions may be, but large stretches are not). In contrast, roads in the Interstate system are usually limited access (and non-motor vehicles are not permitted).
Quote from: NomisR on June 05, 2013, 05:12:52 PM
freeway has limited access whereas a highway can have stoplights and intersections..
:lol:
Quote from: NomisR on June 06, 2013, 04:29:27 PM
It really depends on how transportation evolves.
If we end up with something like this
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ae/ULTra_001.jpg/300px-ULTra_001.jpg)
manual cars will end up costing more
If we have something similar to cars today where parts are readily available and can be sourced for kit car type things, cost won't go up too much. Right now, kit cars costs the price they do because majority of the parts are sourced from mass produced vehicles. If the parts aren't interchangeable then prices of manual cars goes up significantly...
Well I see it like this
Theres currently a certain number of people willing to plop down $$$ for brand new stickshift cars
Im thinking those will be the people who will want to buy human-driven cars. Also there are crate motors and transmissions for shit like old Rustangs. Those will prob be the basis of new kits. There's also a shit ton of old existing motors in shit like old Honda Accords. That's another place for people to base their kits around.
If anything there would be "universal" kits that could take any engine. Everything doesn't have to be all perfectly integrated and shit like a real car. I think there's potential.
Quote from: MrH on June 06, 2013, 01:23:40 PM
If it was proven to work and be safer than a piloted aircraft, sure. Why wouldn't I?
...there's turbulence. Which is a hell of a lot harder to control than braking in a straight line. The fact you think flight is simple is hilarious. There are so many systems in place that just keep in going in a straight line. There are planes that are naturally unstable on all three axes. Computers have to be in place or it would just spin wildly out of control.
This plane flew all the way across the Atlantic without a single computer on board......
(http://www.nytstore.com/assets/images/NSAP1813LindyandtheSpiritofStLouis1927_MSTtoned.jpg)
Oh no, how did he ever survive?!?!? :lol:
Quote from: MrH on June 06, 2013, 01:23:40 PM
Your track car could be similar to an ariel atom or caterham, which will only come down in price when demand comes up.
This part at least has me scratching my head.
Quote from: Madman on June 06, 2013, 09:51:28 PM
This plane flew all the way across the Atlantic without a single computer on board......
(http://www.nytstore.com/assets/images/NSAP1813LindyandtheSpiritofStLouis1927_MSTtoned.jpg)
Oh no, how did he ever survive?!?!? :lol:
He didn't have a front window, so he never worried about where he was going.
Quote from: MrH on June 06, 2013, 03:00:47 PM
There's enough demand for Ariel Atoms and Caterham's right now. Now imagine that's the only option for driving fun...
Going from a thousand or two a year to making 50,000 a year is a HUGE difference. If one of the big OEMs had 50,000 units a year worth of demand, they could make something bad ass for pretty cheap.
I don't think having one or two options as your only source of fun motoring is an appealing idea.
Quote from: JWC on June 06, 2013, 03:25:12 PM
Cars that drive you to work and to the mall. Maybe even have a system where you can program your vehicle to connect to other vehicles and save on energy use. You can just check a schedule and see where you can meet up with others for the ride. It will be one big vehicle of commuters.
Isn't that a bus?
:lol:
Quote from: MX793 on June 06, 2013, 05:44:44 PM
I think you're thinking of limited-access highways, which are a subset of highway. A highway is any main road that connects population centers (I generally classify them as roads with speed limits in excess of 45 mph). They may or may not be multi-lane, divided, and/or limited access. US Rte 11, for instance, is a highway but is not limited-access (portions may be, but large stretches are not). In contrast, roads in the Interstate system are usually limited access (and non-motor vehicles are not permitted).
Yes, I mean limited access highways.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 06, 2013, 04:08:04 PM
There are kit cars out there assembled for like $30K. Thats reasonable to me
Plus enthusiast cars could be made w/o all the stupid safety regs, further driving down costs. Since it would be much less likely for an idiot driver to hit you.
Raza has gone completely off his rocker on this one. I think the thought of automated cars triggers some deep seated fight or flight response. Dude is not speaking rationally or even acknowledging any facts that don't coincide w/his preconceptions. Point blank American drivers suck and computers would do a better job, on average. That dude trusts alcoholics and teenagers more than computers says it all
I think your utopian view of automation is extremely idealistic and naive. I know exactly how good or bad the average American driver is. I don't trust them, I trust myself. Automate driving and you lose your last line of defense against the myriad of problems that computers have.
Quote from: Raza on June 07, 2013, 07:02:34 AM
I think your utopian view of automation is extremely idealistic and naive. I know exactly how good or bad the average American driver is. I don't trust them, I trust myself. Automate driving and you lose your last line of defense against the myriad of problems that computers have.
You're more out of touch with technology than my parents. Honestly, it's kind of impressive :lol:
If you told me when I was in 2nd grade we'd have a 5" touch screen that could tell us EVERYTHING, I wouldn't believe you. You'd probably claim it as the downfall of society and we should fear it.
Quote from: Raza on June 07, 2013, 07:02:34 AM
I think your utopian view of automation is extremely idealistic and naive. I know exactly how good or bad the average American driver is. I don't trust them, I trust myself. Automate driving and you lose your last line of defense against the myriad of problems that computers have.
Its amazing how you exaggerate the problems computers have and completely ignore the problems people have. Again computers are already controlling cars. Your car has an electronic throttle for fucks sake. Electronics have been in auto safety systems for a good 30 yrs now. Can you point to any deaths or accidents stemming from these systems? How do those #s compare to the # of accidents and deaths caused by human error?
When it comes to humans you will never go broke betting on stupid. Meanwhile computers only continue to gain in computational ability and reliability. Its a no brainer dude.
Quote from: MrH on June 07, 2013, 08:57:31 AM
You're more out of touch with technology than my parents. Honestly, it's kind of impressive :lol:
If you told me when I was in 2nd grade we'd have a 5" touch screen that could tell us EVERYTHING, I wouldn't believe you. You'd probably claim it as the downfall of society and we should fear it.
Find me a problem free computer that can do half of what a driver needs to do when driving and I'll say go for it.
You won't, because you can't.
Quote from: Raza on June 07, 2013, 09:04:32 AM
Find me a problem free computer that can do half of what a driver needs to do when driving and I'll say go for it.
You won't, because you can't.
Find me a human who has never driven under the influence of alcohol, never used a phone while driving, and will be as good of a driver at 90 as they were at 30. Hell, find me a good 90 year old driver. See how stupid this game is
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 07, 2013, 09:03:43 AM
Its amazing how you exaggerate the problems computers have and completely ignore the problems people have. Again computers are already controlling cars. Your car has an electronic throttle for fucks sake. Electronics have been in auto safety systems for a good 30 yrs now. Can you point to any deaths or accidents stemming from these systems? How do those #s compare to the # of accidents and deaths caused by human error?
When it comes to humans you will never go broke betting on stupid. Meanwhile computers only continue to gain in computational ability and reliability. Its a no brainer dude.
I'm not ignoring anything--in fact I'm pointing out that the fallibility of humans is where automation would likely go massively wrong. After all, it's humans who are designing, programming, and maintaining these systems. You're just failing to grasp that I've weighed both sides of the argument and still disagree with you. I'm not anti-electronics. Electronics are great, as long as you can turn them off. I'm anti-cars-without-anyone-fucking-driving. Because just like traction control/stability control, if you teach people to drive with that system in place, they're not going to be able to deal with issues that arise should that system fail.
Computers are great with doing defined tasks. Driving in the real world is not a defined task. You say it's a cultural issue, so we should try to bypass that with another layer of bubble-wrapped idiocy protection. I say we should change the culture and make people smarter.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 07, 2013, 09:33:27 AM
Find me a human who has never driven under the influence of alcohol, never used a phone while driving, and will be as good of a driver at 90 as they were at 30. Hell, find me a good 90 year old driver. See how stupid this game is
Sigh. If you're proposing a solution to a problem, it better be well enough thought out to make the status quo seem unfavorable. If I say I want to lose weight and you say the fastest way is to cut off a limb, that solution doesn't fly because the end result is not favorable compared to the current state. Yes, I lose weight, but overall I'm at a net negative because I no longer have a limb. See what I'm getting at here? Your identification of issues is fine. Your solution is the problem because it leads to an overall detriment.
Quote from: Raza on June 07, 2013, 09:46:59 AM
Sigh. If you're proposing a solution to a problem, it better be well enough thought out to make the status quo seem unfavorable. If I say I want to lose weight and you say the fastest way is to cut off a limb, that solution doesn't fly because the end result is not favorable compared to the current state. Yes, I lose weight, but overall I'm at a net negative because I no longer have a limb. See what I'm getting at here? Your identification of issues is fine. Your solution is the problem because it leads to an overall detriment.
You only view it as a net negative because you enjoy driving.
Sporty's right, you're delusional.
Quote from: MrH on June 07, 2013, 09:58:50 AM
You only view it as a net negative because you enjoy driving.
Sporty's right, you're delusional.
I find it unsurprisingly unfunny that it's two engineers that think this is a great idea. Because engineers think that everything engineers do will be perfect.
Quote from: Raza on June 07, 2013, 10:37:04 AM
I find it unsurprisingly unfunny that it's two engineers that think this is a great idea. Because engineers think that everything engineers do will be perfect.
Once the bugs are worked out, a computer program will respond/react in a very repeatable, predictable fashion given a certain set of stimulus. People are far more erratic. Different people will respond to any given driving scenario differently and even the same person may not react to the same situation in the same way every time.
Truthfully, if cars start moving towards auto-piloting themselves, I believe the biggest risk of multi-vehicle collisions will be human piloted vehicles adding unpredictability to the mix.
Quote from: MX793 on June 07, 2013, 10:49:39 AM
Once the bugs are worked out, a computer program will respond/react in a very repeatable, predictable fashion given a certain set of stimulus. People are far more erratic. Different people will respond to any given driving scenario differently and even the same person may not react to the same situation in the same way every time.
Truthfully, if cars start moving towards auto-piloting themselves, I believe the biggest risk of multi-vehicle collisions will be human piloted vehicles adding unpredictability to the mix.
Animals, children, road hazards, et al. How can you have a predictable response to an unpredictable world? And, as Simon brought up, who takes the blame when things go wrong?
And I don't buy the "once the bugs are worked out" side of it either. Computers have been around for ages. Is Windows perfect yet?
Quote from: Raza on June 07, 2013, 09:42:24 AM
I'm not ignoring anything--in fact I'm pointing out that the fallibility of humans is where automation would likely go massively wrong. After all, it's humans who are designing, programming, and maintaining these systems. You're just failing to grasp that I've weighed both sides of the argument and still disagree with you. I'm not anti-electronics. Electronics are great, as long as you can turn them off. I'm anti-cars-without-anyone-fucking-driving. Because just like traction control/stability control, if you teach people to drive with that system in place, they're not going to be able to deal with issues that arise should that system fail.
Computers are great with doing defined tasks. Driving in the real world is not a defined task. You say it's a cultural issue, so we should try to bypass that with another layer of bubble-wrapped idiocy protection. I say we should change the culture and make people smarter.
It is a defined task. Each computer system has a set job to do and a set reaction to certain situations. It's not like hooking your laptop up to the car.
Quote from: hotrodalex on June 07, 2013, 10:58:50 AM
It is a defined task. Each computer system has a set job to do and a set reaction to certain situations. It's not like hooking your laptop up to the car.
Cars don't run on tracks. The roads themselves make reactions to things unpredictable. You'd have an argument if we were talking about trains, but not cars. Do you think it's feasible to program a response to every situation that could occur while driving? The code would be hundreds of trillions of lines long.
Quote from: Raza on June 07, 2013, 10:56:12 AM
Animals, children, road hazards, et al. How can you have a predictable response to an unpredictable world? And, as Simon brought up, who takes the blame when things go wrong?
You obviously don't understand software or computer programming. The world is unpredictable, but the auto-pilot program will only have a set number of responses. Will it be capable of avoiding every accident? No. Some things, like an animal jumping right out in front of you from behind an obstruction, are completely unavoidable for human or computer alike (you'll note I specified "multi-vehicle" accidents).
QuoteAnd I don't buy the "once the bugs are worked out" side of it either. Computers have been around for ages. Is Windows perfect yet?
Some of the problems with Windows are due to users. Every time you install a new program or remove an old one or install a new driver, you are changing Windows. These changes made by the user are what cause a number of issues. Auto-pilot software in a car would be a very different animal since the user wouldn't be interfacing with it, and changing it with apps and software downloads, like they do with a personal computer operating system. It would be more like the software/firmware in a video game console like an old-school PSone or N64.
Quote from: MX793 on June 07, 2013, 11:11:35 AM
You obviously don't understand software or computer programming. The world is unpredictable, but the auto-pilot program will only have a set number of responses. Will it be capable of avoiding every accident? No. Some things, like an animal jumping right out in front of you from behind an obstruction, are completely unavoidable for human or computer alike (you'll note I specified "multi-vehicle" accidents).
No, I do. Clearly some others in favor don't, especially those who think that safety features in cars could be removed because driving would now be absolutely accident free. I accept that automation is a possible solution to the issues on the road today. It's just a bad one.
Quote
Some of the problems with Windows are due to users. Every time you install a new program or remove an old one or install a new driver, you are changing Windows. These changes made by the user are what cause a number of issues. Auto-pilot software in a car would be a very different animal since the user wouldn't be interfacing with it, and changing it with apps and software downloads, like they do with a personal computer operating system. It would be more like the software/firmware in a video game console like an old-school PSone or N64.
I disagree. You think users won't find a way to fuck with automated cars? Someone couldn't hack his way into a car's computer to gain some sort of benefit? Some other hacker couldn't create a virus that affects how they act? Drivers wouldn't become complacent with regards to wear issues?
There are tons and tons of problems with automated driving that people are trying to ignore. If you want to talk about delusional, they're positing that imperfect human beings can create and maintain a perfect machine. The picture of a world where automated driving world is so full of holes it's Swiss cheese.
Quote from: Raza on June 07, 2013, 11:22:44 AM
I disagree. You think users won't find a way to fuck with automated cars? Someone couldn't hack his way into a car's computer to gain some sort of benefit?
No different than people making dangerous/cob-job modifications to mechanical systems on their vehicles now. You can't fault the program because someone intentionally sabotaged it.
QuoteSome other hacker couldn't create a virus that affects how they act?
Only a problem if the cars are somehow tied into a network. A virus is a foreign thing that must be physically introduced into the system. Computers not connected to any sort of network cannot be infected by, or in turn infect, other computers. If the system works like the ECU in your car (like older video game consoles, another example of a stable computer system), the only way a hacker is going to infect a large number of vehicles with a virus is to go around and physically plugging into them one by one and infecting them. When was the last time you heard of a car's ECU being infected by a computer virus?
QuoteDrivers wouldn't become complacent with regards to wear issues?
Again, not an inherent fault with auto-piloted systems and as much a problem today without auto-piloted vehicles.
QuoteThere are tons and tons of problems with automated driving that people are trying to ignore. If you want to talk about delusional, they're positing that imperfect human beings can create and maintain a perfect machine. The picture of a world where automated driving world is so full of holes it's Swiss cheese.
Many of the "problems" you're pointing out aren't inherent to auto-piloted cars. Will a world of auto-piloted cars be accident-free? Of course not. Even if the auto-piloting system works flawlessly, you still have to contend with things like unforeseen mechanical failures that exceed what the program can cope with or "acts of God" (animals and whatnot) that are problems for human drivers today. What auto-piloting would eliminate are accidents caused by human error (including recklessness like running redlights and stop signs), which account for a considerable percentage of accidents today.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 06, 2013, 07:57:22 PM
Well I see it like this
Theres currently a certain number of people willing to plop down $$$ for brand new stickshift cars
Im thinking those will be the people who will want to buy human-driven cars. Also there are crate motors and transmissions for shit like old Rustangs. Those will prob be the basis of new kits. There's also a shit ton of old existing motors in shit like old Honda Accords. That's another place for people to base their kits around.
If anything there would be "universal" kits that could take any engine. Everything doesn't have to be all perfectly integrated and shit like a real car. I think there's potential.
Well, in the end, it really depends on how transportation evolves in the future. If it's just standard format today with change of drivers, then it's highly possible. If we diverge from that mode, then it would be more difficult to intergrate manual driving with automated. And also, knowing out government, they would likely outlaw all forms of manual driving, and may possibly outlaw motorsport even either for safety reasons, waste of resources reason, or global warming. Or who knows what shit they will come up with... none of it will surprise me.
It really pains me to see one of my favorite posters here be so consistently and ADAMANTLY wrong about something.
Re: human infallibility in programming... humans program a lot of shit that could kill everyone that somehow, 99.9999999% of the time, doesn't. So thats a moot point. A computer doesn't have to be perfect to not kill anybody.
Re: teaching people to be better drivers. A driver w/training worthy of driving an F1 car can still try and text and drive. Or drink and drive. And eventually if that driver lives long enough there will be a point where they won't have the physical or mental faculties to drive safely. So again driver's training is a but nowhere near THE issue, culture and aging effects are.
Re: driving not being a defined task. Ummmmm... yes it is. Get the occupants from point A to point B w/o hitting anything or breaking any laws. Again, the Google cars have logged millions of miles w/the only incident being... wait for it... entirely a HUMAN driver in another car's fault! Even w/o the accident Google cars haven't broken any laws or got any red light tickets. Can you, a self proclaimed excellent driver, say the same about yourself in your 300 or so thousand miles of driving?
Re: your weight loss analogy, its horrible and makes no sense. America's driving problem actually IS like America's weight problem- most fat people know what they need to do to lose weight, but choose not to. Likewise EVERYONE who texts or drinks while driving KNOWS they're not supposed, but does anyway. Why you think more driver's training would solve that is beyond me, as if driver's training doesn't already address these issues. And for the few people with legitimate physical issues making them fat (or bad at driving- see, old people)- there aren't enough resources or tools available for them to work around the issue. If you're an old person who shouldn't be driving in some regular American town, you're FUCKED. Self driving cars would help that.
Re: obstacles... again, Google Cars have managed to get through NY, LA, FL and other horrible driving cities w/o causing any incidents. You don't think in their millions of miles they've encountered any obstacles they had to dodge? Come on dude.
Re: people reprogramming their cars... the avg person can't do much w/a computer besides go on Youtube and Facebook... and yet, somehow, there is this army of folks capable of hacking through GOOGLE'S security. Not to mention, there are already millions of cars running around now w/self-driving technology, and no reported security breaches. If your hackers existed they would have penetrated the code already.
And in a way these hackers DO exist... aftermarket tuners dive into automotive electronics all the time. And yet again, nobody has crashed because their Hondata ECU commanded WOT while they were driving around an embankment. Plus what would someone want to modify their automated car for?
So on literally every argument you have against automated cars, you have yet to present any facts or cogent arguments... just misguided speculations and personal digs. I feel like I am watching a loved one battle with dementia. Americans are terrible drivers, and it will take a CULTURAL change to fix that. Just like it will take CULTURAL change, the most difficult type of change to implement, to help the ME move forward (both on the part of the ME and the West). Computers are better at completing simple tasks with reliability than humans, and there are billions of miles logged w/not even an accident stemming from a computer system failure. So can you please point us to where exactly you are getting all your ideas from? Nothing in the real world corroborates your POV.
Quote from: Raza on June 07, 2013, 11:08:06 AM
Cars don't run on tracks. The roads themselves make reactions to things unpredictable. You'd have an argument if we were talking about trains, but not cars. Do you think it's feasible to program a response to every situation that could occur while driving? The code would be hundreds of trillions of lines long.
Raza. Google fucking did it already and has logged TONS of miles just fine. What decade are you stuck in?
And even after all that, there's still the retail use issue with regards to maintenance of the sensory equipment that allows the automated cars to function properly and the liability issue of injuries, deaths and property damage as well as responsibility.
In the end, this will happen, just what form and how, and when..I don't see current method of doing things really efficient. We're almost better off as a society with ready to use cab type systems run by automated machines as I remember someone posting something about car it is cheaper to pay per use than actually buying a car.. or something like that..
Quote from: NomisR on June 07, 2013, 01:09:08 PM
And even after all that, there's still the retail use issue with regards to maintenance of the sensory equipment that allows the automated cars to function properly and the liability issue of injuries, deaths and property damage as well as responsibility.
In the end, this will happen, just what form and how, and when..I don't see current method of doing things really efficient. We're almost better off as a society with ready to use cab type systems run by automated machines as I remember someone posting something about car it is cheaper to pay per use than actually buying a car.. or something like that..
There is no maintenance necessary for 99% of sensors in cars now, and when they need replacing they let you know (i.e. oxygen sensor). A GPS sensor or a radar sensor is not a maintenance item.
I think it's a good thing as long as it doesn't completely kill off human driving. The less idiots there are on the road the more enjoyable the roads will be for folks like us. It's purely a win-win.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 07, 2013, 01:15:30 PM
There is no maintenance necessary for 99% of sensors in cars now, and when they need replacing they let you know (i.e. oxygen sensor). A GPS sensor or a radar sensor is not a maintenance item.
I think it's a good thing as long as it doesn't completely kill off human driving. The less idiots there are on the road the more enjoyable the roads will be for folks like us. It's purely a win-win.
99% of the sensors are air pollution or engine management or whatever passive safety system that has nothing to do with navigating the car. GPS is not 100% reliable nor bill it be available at all times. There will have to be variety of radar what other types of sensors significantly more complicated than what we have today.
But I don't think it's possible to not kill off current cars today in the future. Our politicians hates to give us freedom and cars are a part of that...
Our politicians only have as much power as we give them... I think it will be much harder to completely automate driving than you guys are saying (from a political standpoint, not a technical one)
Quote from: hotrodalex on June 07, 2013, 01:30:52 PM
Our politicians only have as much power as we give them... I think it will be much harder to completely automate driving than you guys are saying (from a political standpoint, not a technical one)
Well, in a way, they would actually push towards that because it provides a better way for the government to track where everyone is, plus a better way to control the population. Car as is right now still give us greater freedom and mobility than what the government would want. Automated cars would limit that freedom and would allow the population to be controlled.
You're right though, the technical limitations isn't that big, but adapting it to consumer applications may be what delays it as you have to make it as idiot proof as possible.
Most politicians are regular people with personal cars too. And many are fans of cars. SEMA has a list of car-friendly representatives and such.
Quote from: Raza on June 07, 2013, 10:37:04 AM
I find it unsurprisingly unfunny that it's two engineers that think this is a great idea. Because engineers think that everything engineers do will be perfect.
No, that's because they actually understand the ramifications of the technology being discussed.
I enjoy driving too much to want self-driving cars to gain popularity, but I can't deny their advantages.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 07, 2013, 12:23:47 PM
Re: people reprogramming their cars... the avg person can't do much w/a computer besides go on Youtube and Facebook... and yet, somehow, there is this army of folks capable of hacking through GOOGLE'S security. Not to mention, there are already millions of cars running around now w/self-driving technology, and no reported security breaches. If your hackers existed they would have penetrated the code already.
Where are these "millions" of self-driving cars of which you speak? :confused:
Quote from: Madman on June 07, 2013, 06:24:02 PM
Where are these "millions" of self-driving cars of which you speak? :confused:
Cars w/traction control, ABS, stability control, self-parking, lane guidance, adaptive cruise control, etc... we are not far off dude.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 07, 2013, 07:52:13 PM
Cars w/traction control, ABS, stability control, self-parking, lane guidance, adaptive cruise control, etc... we are not far off dude.
All passive systems, adaptive cruise control + usage of lane guidance is the closest thing you have, and self parking. But none would be used in all situation as the driver still has to maintain control...
He's just mentioning those in a sense that they haven't failed massively, gone wildly out of control, or were taken over by evil hacking masterminds like Raza was suggesting.
Self driving cars will be the death of the hobby. I'm not sure why you guys are ok with this.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on June 10, 2013, 02:12:09 PM
Self driving cars will be the death of the hobby. I'm not sure why you guys are ok with this.
I'm not, but you can't deny the practical advantages.
I think tracks would pop up and there'd be a boom in recreational vehicles for the track (cheap ariel atom like cars).
I like to drive but driving as a necessary chore sucks.
It's slow, it's expensive, it's time consuming, and there's a non-negligible chance of being injured or killed.
Quote from: Laconian on June 10, 2013, 02:40:51 PM
I like to drive but driving as a necessary chore sucks.
It's slow, it's expensive, it's time consuming, and there's a non-negligible chance of being injured or killed.
Exactly. I'd gladly give up my daily drive if it meant cheap, fun thrills on a track regularly with a stripped out toy.
Quote from: MrH on June 10, 2013, 02:31:44 PM
I think tracks would pop up and there'd be a boom in recreational vehicles for the track (cheap ariel atom like cars).
Its hard for me to shake my NYC state of mind. You are right though. This could def rejuvinate track days and such, as psychologically people would begin to dissociate public roads with driving for pleasure. Personally, like Lac said, I enjoy driving for fun, but really hate essentially putting my life into the hands of careless idiots every time I do it. I really do have more faith in computers at this point.
And for everyone saying this will be the death of driving. Save the melodrama for your mama. All the Razas and folks buying BRZs and Mustangs and 911s would not stand by and give up their right to enjoy their cars. I know I wouldn't. Especially, if for no other reason, than banning human-driven cars over night would render hundreds of millions of cars worthless. No, it would definitely be a gradual thing with a mix if it ever really came to be, with the first adopters being the rich and enterprise outfits looking to save costs by dumping human drivers. For all the crying about the death of the manual yadda yadda... we are kind of in a golden age of performance cars, with the market only set to grow. There are more cars with stickshift worth putting stickshifts into available now than there have ever been (i.e. nobody cried when the Camry lost its stickshift option). Plus like Mr H said it could and prob will encourage more folks to take it to the track (really where it BELONGS) and keep the heroism off of public streets.
Tracks wouldn't be a perfect substitute. Driving briskly (but not unsafely) along the coastline with the top down, you can't replicate that on a track and it wouldn't be nearly as fun in a self driving car.
I would like self-driving capabilities around populated areas though - press the "this sucks, go auto" button when things start getting congested.
Quote from: Laconian on June 10, 2013, 03:09:50 PM
Tracks wouldn't be a perfect substitute. Driving briskly (but not unsafely) along the coastline with the top down, you can't replicate that on a track and it wouldn't be nearly as fun in a self driving car.
I would like self-driving capabilities around populated areas though - press the "this sucks, go auto" button when things start getting congested.
True. Maybe if these auto cars advance enough, we can have a mixture of both. Take manual control on those great drives.
Like Minority Report! The Lexuses have a manual driving mode!
Yeah, but again, it's the liability thing and the fact that, if it's proven to be safe enough where all cars on the road will become auto, there may be a time when all manually driven cars will simply be banned because of it being unsafe
Either that or the cost of insurance for cars with manual driving capabilities would be so high that most people won't buy it.
This is a real possibility unfortunately..
Thankfully I don't see it happening fully in my lifetime.
Quote from: NomisR on June 10, 2013, 03:46:42 PM
Yeah, but again, it's the liability thing and the fact that, if it's proven to be safe enough where all cars on the road will become auto, there may be a time when all manually driven cars will simply be banned because of it being unsafe
Either that or the cost of insurance for cars with manual driving capabilities would be so high that most people won't buy it.
This is a real possibility unfortunately..
I guarantee a Google car would be less expensive to insure than a dude with 4 DUIs. Or an old lady who can't pass a vision test. You are talking like they would put these technologies out w/o proving their reliability + safety Plus don't see how if someone can get insurance discounts for ABS, traction control, lane detection, sleep detection etc, it would cost more to insure a car that completely takes the driver, who can't brake, stay in his lanes or stay awake out of the equation.
You can argue that the avg driver is better than these systems (though I'm not sure based on what)... but there are definitely some people who just have no business behind the wheel of a car that a self-driving car could easily outperform on the basis of safety.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 10, 2013, 04:33:51 PM
I guarantee a Google car would be less expensive to insure than a dude with 4 DUIs. Or an old lady who can't pass a vision test. You are talking like they would put these technologies out w/o proving their reliability + safety Plus don't see how if someone can get insurance discounts for ABS, traction control, lane detection, sleep detection etc, it would cost more to insure a car that completely takes the driver, who can't brake, stay in his lanes or stay awake out of the equation.
You can argue that the avg driver is better than these systems (though I'm not sure based on what)... but there are definitely some people who just have no business behind the wheel of a car that a self-driving car could easily outperform on the basis of safety.
No,you're misreading what I wrote. I'm talking about manually driven cars will either be too expensive to insure or will simply be banned outright because of the lowest common denominator rule that the government follows so we can no longer enjoy a drive along the ocean or canyon roads or whatever.
I think a computer driven car with a manual option would be perfect, actually. Let the computer drive in horrible traffic, when I'm tired, distracted, had a bad day, don't feel well, or if I have a few drinks... and let me drive when I want to. There. Everybody's happy. :praise:
Quote from: NomisR on June 10, 2013, 04:43:13 PM
No,you're misreading what I wrote. I'm talking about manually driven cars will either be too expensive to insure or will simply be banned outright because of the lowest common denominator rule that the government follows so we can no longer enjoy a drive along the ocean or canyon roads or whatever.
You cant really blame me. You were saying the same things about self driving cars being too dangerous because they couldn't handle obstacles or some shit.
Computer driven cars would suck in a zombie apocalypse. :heated: < Object detected; must stop vehicle >
Just sayin... :mask:
Quote from: MrH on June 10, 2013, 02:49:17 PM
Exactly. I'd gladly give up my daily drive if it meant cheap, fun thrills on a track regularly with a stripped out toy.
I would definitely not go that far. Even on my daily drive I get some thrills, whether it's an on ramp with no one in front of me, or a nicely executed heel-toe shift into a corner.
I don't like the combination either, eg an automated car with manual override controls. I'd rather the two be separate. Have an auto driving car for bad days or when I need extra sleep on the way to work (:lol:), but let me have my standard car to enjoy when I want.
I dont think most people can afford the combo. I def prefer having multiple cars for different purposes but I'm realizing now financially that doesn't make much sense. Something like a 3 series with autopilot mode would be a good fit for me.
O yea, here's a video of a driver who clearly needs to STAY behind the wheel of a car and is NO threat to the public at large.
Runaway car in San Rafael nearly hits Guide Dogs for the Blind trainers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFKWpsmCmwQ#ws)
http://gawker.com/guide-dog-saves-trainers-from-being-run-over-by-out-of-512968211 (http://gawker.com/guide-dog-saves-trainers-from-being-run-over-by-out-of-512968211)
I think we need to hold people that are actually giving out licenses to some of these assholes responsible.
Elderly woman drives car through supermarket window in Melbourne, Australia.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLWqJwqOzbE#at=19 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLWqJwqOzbE#at=19)
I read the article in the latest C&D on autonomous cars. It was mostly about sensors & radars & cameras and the difficulty of getting them to distinguish objects: e.g. how is a system to know that the car in front of you is still there even if it has disappeared round a curve? There only was short once sentence right at the end about cars communicating with cars which is, IMO, the obvious way to get started with this.
Quote from: Morris Minor on July 09, 2013, 03:26:12 AM
I read the article in the latest C&D on autonomous cars. It was mostly about sensors & radars & cameras and the difficulty of getting them to distinguish objects: e.g. how is a system to know that the car in front of you is still there even if it has disappeared round a curve? There only was short once sentence right at the end about cars communicating with cars which is, IMO, the obvious way to get started with this.
You need to be able to avoid hitting things that don't talk back to you as well. I think the first level of implementation of autonomous cars would be something like a dedicated lane for automatic cars only, along designated areas of highways.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on July 09, 2013, 03:40:51 AM
You need to be able to avoid hitting things that don't talk back to you as well. I think the first level of implementation of autonomous cars would be something like a dedicated lane for automatic cars only, along designated areas of highways.
We already have that.
(http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/cars/06_Sustainability_565x377.jpg)
Quote from: hotrodalex on July 09, 2013, 08:45:12 AM
We already have that.
(http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/cars/06_Sustainability_565x377.jpg)
:golfclap: :golfclap: :golfclap:
Quote from: Soup DeVille on July 09, 2013, 03:40:51 AM
You need to be able to avoid hitting things that don't talk back to you as well. I think the first level of implementation of autonomous cars would be something like a dedicated lane for automatic cars only, along designated areas of highways.
Well, I think we're expecting too much from these machines. We have humans that have enough problem driving in a straight line as is and they definitely have problems keeping track of cars that went around corners and not hitting stuff they. Hell, humans has trouble not hitting stuff that's in front of them as is.
Quote from: Morris Minor on July 09, 2013, 03:26:12 AM
I read the article in the latest C&D on autonomous cars. It was mostly about sensors & radars & cameras and the difficulty of getting them to distinguish objects: e.g. how is a system to know that the car in front of you is still there even if it has disappeared round a curve? There only was short once sentence right at the end about cars communicating with cars which is, IMO, the obvious way to get started with this.
Ummm... the same way you do. Or the same way a computer can remember files after you close them. Memory? I'm waiting on this issue, maybe they go into it more.
I thought this would be a good place to post this.....
http://plays-with-cars.kinja.com/what-the-hell-do-old-people-buy-these-days-718345492 (http://plays-with-cars.kinja.com/what-the-hell-do-old-people-buy-these-days-718345492)
Quote from: hotrodalex on July 09, 2013, 08:45:12 AM
We already have that.
(http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/cars/06_Sustainability_565x377.jpg)
Those are funny looking cars.
Quote from: Madman on July 09, 2013, 02:30:18 PM
I thought this would be a good place to post this.....
http://plays-with-cars.kinja.com/what-the-hell-do-old-people-buy-these-days-718345492 (http://plays-with-cars.kinja.com/what-the-hell-do-old-people-buy-these-days-718345492)
What about an Avalon? It's big & floaty &, as long as our octogenarian does not specify a high trim level, should have fairly straightforward controls.
Quote from: hotrodalex on July 09, 2013, 08:45:12 AM
We already have that.
(http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/cars/06_Sustainability_565x377.jpg)
And a oh what a failure it is.
Quote from: NomisR on July 09, 2013, 09:39:27 AM
Well, I think we're expecting too much from these machines. We have humans that have enough problem driving in a straight line as is and they definitely have problems keeping track of cars that went around corners and not hitting stuff they. Hell, humans has trouble not hitting stuff that's in front of them as is.
That is definitely true. The REAL faulty premise is government would have to be in control of the system.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on July 09, 2013, 10:22:56 AM
Ummm... the same way you do. Or the same way a computer can remember files after you close them. Memory? I'm waiting on this issue, maybe they go into it more.
Its one thing to recognize that there is an object in front of you; its another to understand what that object is and how it behaves, or is likely to behave in the future. Its yet another to get it to understand non-standard communications like turn signals and brake lights
Quote from: thecarnut on June 13, 2013, 12:18:56 AM
I would definitely not go that far. Even on my daily drive I get some thrills, whether it's an on ramp with no one in front of me, or a nicely executed heel-toe shift into a corner.
I don't like the combination either, eg an automated car with manual override controls. I'd rather the two be separate. Have an auto driving car for bad days or when I need extra sleep on the way to work (:lol:), but let me have my standard car to enjoy when I want.
I think it could be done in one vehicle. Two modes: one that requires actual driving, and the other that's compliant with a standard that allows you to surrender control and latch on to a train with similar vehicles on freeways.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 09, 2013, 06:26:32 PM
That is definitely true. The REAL faulty premise is government would have to be in control of the system.
:banghead: :nutty: :pee:
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on July 10, 2013, 12:04:49 PM
:banghead: :nutty: :pee:
You can't reason with crazy. Its pointless to try.
Another advocate for a tech-free luxury car aimed at oldsters......
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2013/07/qotd-no-frills-luxury-car/#more-494759 (http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2013/07/qotd-no-frills-luxury-car/#more-494759)
Quote from: Madman on July 10, 2013, 03:23:05 PM
Another advocate for a tech-free luxury car aimed at oldsters......
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2013/07/qotd-no-frills-luxury-car/#more-494759 (http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2013/07/qotd-no-frills-luxury-car/#more-494759)
Good article. Old people have money, and this is attractive to car makers, but the stigma attached to age outweighs the attraction. Nobody wants their brand associated with stigmatized groups. Cadillac is especially sensitive to this; they want to shake off the "official car maker of octogenarians and rappers" image.
Witnesses said the unnamed 86-year-old woman seemed oblivious to the flashing red lights warning that the bridge was about to rise when she crashed through a safety barrier and continued up towards the growing gap.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2520276/Woman-driver-crashed-flipped-Twin-Sails-bridge-Poole-Dorset.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2520276/Woman-driver-crashed-flipped-Twin-Sails-bridge-Poole-Dorset.html)
Speed is the cause of this, we need to lower the speed limit... she couldn't see the flashing lights and the barrier and the raising bridge at 20mph....
:lol: The only real issue here is that the Clio has a design flaw. A decent car would have landed upright on it's tires, suffered no dmage and the driver could have motored on. She should sue Renault.
"Three people have been killed and four others injured after a 79-year-old woman backed over them with her SUV while attempting to manoeuvre out of a parking space. Police say Doreen Landstra struck the group as they were leaving a church service at a mobile home community in Bradenton, Florida."
http://news.sky.com/story/1206516/florida-woman-accidentally-kills-three-with-suv (http://news.sky.com/story/1206516/florida-woman-accidentally-kills-three-with-suv)
Quite a commentary on America this whole problem; broken family unit, entitlement, privilege vs. right, and plain ole ego.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 05, 2014, 08:22:58 PM
Quite a commentary on America this whole problem; broken family unit, entitlement, privilege vs. right, and plain ole ego.
Well, this at least saved the US government some money? :huh:
QuoteThe three killed were identified as 72-year-old Margaret Vanderlaan, 70-year-old Wilhemina Paul and 80-year-old Johanna Djikhoff.
Quote from: NomisR on February 07, 2014, 01:10:54 PM
Well, this at least saved the US government some money? :huh:
Probably not. The state's gonna have a lot of costs due to this - medical examiner, probate, LE investigation, Medicare payouts, etc., plus SS benefits are transferable.
(http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/webimage/1.3429892.1401715989!/image/3533845643.jpg_gen/derivatives/articleImgDeriv_628px/3533845643.jpg)
74-year-old driver who lost control of his car crashes into a Tesco superstore in Dalkeith, Scotland.
A witness said "He panicked and hit the accelerator, collided with five cars and then hit the barrier. It was very lucky it was there or he would have halfway down the milk aisle."
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/car-park-crash-oap-loses-control-of-vehicle-1-3429893 (http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/car-park-crash-oap-loses-control-of-vehicle-1-3429893)
Quote from: Madman on September 16, 2014, 09:50:23 PM
(http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/webimage/1.3429892.1401715989!/image/3533845643.jpg_gen/derivatives/articleImgDeriv_628px/3533845643.jpg)
74-year-old driver who lost control of his car crashes into a Tesco superstore in Dalkeith, Scotland.
A witness said "He panicked and hit the accelerator, collided with five cars and then hit the barrier. It was very lucky it was there or he would have halfway down the milk aisle."
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/car-park-crash-oap-loses-control-of-vehicle-1-3429893 (http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/car-park-crash-oap-loses-control-of-vehicle-1-3429893)
These people think they can run a damn country when they can't even drive their own cars?
74 isn't even that old, dude has probably sucked at driving his whole life.
Govt controlled automated cars can't come fast enough. Govt Motors!!!
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 05, 2013, 07:42:38 AM
The problem is American driving culture for which there is no simple fix.
culture starts with driver's ed. Continues with sentencing and personal responsibility.
Germany requires $1000-2000 and like 80(?) hours of IN-CAR driver's ed. Get a DUI or two and lose license for LIFE.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on September 17, 2014, 08:15:33 AM
culture starts with driver's ed.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 05, 2013, 07:42:38 AM
There is no driver's ed course that will convince people that driving safety & skill are more important than getting hammered, or checking Facebook, or swallowing one's pride to acknowledge that they are too old to be behind the wheel of a car
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on September 17, 2014, 08:15:33 AMContinues with sentencing and personal responsibility.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 05, 2013, 07:42:38 AM
You could make DUI a capitol offense, people will still drive drunk
Culture is impossible to change and American driving culture SUCKS.
The more expensive licensing might be the only way to get people to take it seriously.
We're a lot better than some countries. Russia and India, for example. They do a lot more driving on their roofs over there.
I'd say US drivers are excellent considering the amount of training required.
Go to Asia for a few days, come back and then say US drivers suck as a whole
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on September 17, 2014, 08:15:33 AM
culture starts with driver's ed. Continues with sentencing and personal responsibility.
Germany requires $1000-2000 and like 80(?) hours of IN-CAR driver's ed. Get a DUI or two and lose license for LIFE.
Adopting Germany's licensing standards would cripple/kill the US economy. Driving is a luxury for most Europeans. In the US, driving is essentially a requirement for gainful employment.
Quote from: Tave on October 16, 2014, 10:41:18 AM
Adopting Germany's licensing standards would cripple/kill the US economy. Driving is a luxury for most Europeans. In the US, driving is essentially a requirement for gainful employment.
or create bunches of new jobs
-driver ed instructors
-test coaches
-remedial test coaches
-people who passed the test and can take me to work
:lol:
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on October 16, 2014, 10:56:44 AM
or create bunches of new jobs
-driver ed instructors
-test coaches
-remedial test coaches
-people who passed the test and can take me to work
:lol:
Public transit would boom. The roads would be less clogged. I wouldn't have my life threatened by incompetents on a daily basis. Win win win.
Quote from: hotrodalex on September 17, 2014, 11:40:58 AM
I'd say US drivers are excellent considering the amount of training required.
I think we are just well corralled
Most Americans are shit at basic stuff like managing space, lane discipline/etiquette, merging etc. etc. Stability control and advances in tires & chassis design have pretty much eliminated the need for mastery of at the limit driving, but ultimately safe roads are not necessarily the result of good drivers.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on October 16, 2014, 12:12:30 PM
Most Americans are shit at basic stuff like managing space, lane discipline/etiquette, merging etc. etc.
The way idiots around here speed up to pass as the lanes are merging definitely agrees with you...
Skip to 3 minutes in on this. OMG.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJ0S_NJxVK0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJ0S_NJxVK0)
Jesus.
That's like every driver around here
Lol. But I didn't know a car would run that long on low oil.
Feel bad for the old guy; he was helpless. I think the message might have stood a better chance of getting across if the guy on the bike had dismounted & taken off his helmet to talk to him.
I'm impressed the car ran that long.
Quote from: Morris Minor on December 25, 2015, 12:10:59 PM
Feel bad for the old guy; he was helpless. I think the message might have stood a better chance of getting across if the guy on the bike had dismounted & taken off his helmet to talk to him.
Yea I can imagine how scary this dude looks all geared up (srs)
Autonomous cars cant come soon enough, poor old dude.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 25, 2015, 07:18:40 PM
Yea I can imagine how scary this dude looks all geared up (srs)
Autonomous cars cant come soon enough, poor old dude.
Old guy hits a curb: meh
Autonomous car hits a curb over the course of 5 million miles: OMG NYT OPED STOP THE KILLING MACHINES
Lol
Idk even if the guy wasn't in full riding regalia, the old man sounds like he was in the stages of dementia. He didn't have a clue what was going on.
(http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/102BC/production/_87563266_car.jpg)
An elderly driver is recovering after crashing his car into the front of a bungalow in Merthyr Tydfil.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-35262069 (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-35262069)
He was probably busy trying to pronounce the name of the street he was on or something. Ccthylwlyd Yygruyym Avenue or something.