- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: how long will it be until people are forbidden to drive?
Posted on 12/29/15 at 5:03 pm to prplhze2000
Posted on 12/29/15 at 5:03 pm to prplhze2000
quote:
Driverless cars. Suppose a few actuarial studies are made down the road that show auto accidents and deaths are virtually nonexistent. Insurance companies declare they will not insure peolw who actually driver cars.
Possible?
No because driverless cars are actually getting in a ton of accidents right now.
Nation needs to get rid of commuter trains or whatever Amtrak is called, and use railways just for freight, and implement driverless buses in isolated lanes along major interstates.
2
Posted on 12/29/15 at 5:04 pm to sullivanct19a
quote:
No because driverless cars are actually getting in a ton of accidents right now
How do they write tickets to driverless cars?
Posted on 12/29/15 at 5:05 pm to Esquire
quote:
Hopefully soon. I'm ready to stop paying car insurance.
Ha! As if they'll give that up. The insurance companies will contrive some way to force you to keep paying that.
Posted on 12/29/15 at 5:07 pm to prplhze2000
Hopefully sooner than later. Long road trips would be so much better without having to drive.
Posted on 12/29/15 at 5:10 pm to stinkdawg
quote:
Just talked to my friend about this yesterday. He works for a company that works on all this. He said in ten years picture a major city with eight lane highways. Four lanes for computer driven cars that are allowed to go 80 mph. and four lanes with operator driven cars that the max speed limit is 45 mph. The computer driven cars are considered safer so are allowed to drive faster. Which would you choose?
Did he care to explain the high rate of accidents driverless cars are having right now?
Also, just like new emissions requirements on diesel engines have required things like exhaust gas filtration and if you run out of it the vehicle essentially shuts down automatically - they will have similar things for driverless vehicles: plug into the internet for latest updates, anti-virus softward, route updates, etc. That means cost of ownership goes up.
There will be tons of people happy to drive 45.
Posted on 12/29/15 at 5:13 pm to dewster
quote:
How do they write tickets to driverless cars?
They don't. When Google fricks up they just have their CEO pay a visit to their lover friend in the WH and it gets passed on to you and me and our taxes.
There was a story recently about these vehicles getting in more accidents. It's not a made up issue.
Posted on 12/29/15 at 5:44 pm to sullivanct19a
Dude, just passing on the jist of a convo. from someone who is working with this tech. It's coming whether we like it or not. Back up cameras, assist parking, is just the ground floor. Tech won't be stopped integrating itself in our day to day lives.
Oh and glad you read an article.
Oh and glad you read an article.
This post was edited on 12/29/15 at 5:51 pm
Posted on 12/29/15 at 5:52 pm to stinkdawg
Good. Get Caitlyn Jenner off the road.
Posted on 12/29/15 at 6:38 pm to sullivanct19a
I wouldn't say driverless cars are involved in a "high rate" of accidents.
I believe there have been eight accidents involving driverless cars, and all of them were because the human douchebag following them rear-ended them or sideswiped them.
I believe there have been eight accidents involving driverless cars, and all of them were because the human douchebag following them rear-ended them or sideswiped them.
Posted on 12/29/15 at 6:48 pm to sullivanct19a
quote:
Did he care to explain the high rate of accidents driverless cars are having right now?
Do you have a source for your claim that there's a high rate of accidents? The last I read, the accidents in California were never the fault of the google car, but other drivers. Of course, that was months ago.
Posted on 12/29/15 at 6:57 pm to ocelot4ark
It was the fault of the other driver, but it exposed the flaw of driverless cars: they won't perform what's considered illegal, unsafe lane changes or pull ahead past the white line at red lights (or break the speed limit) to avoid accidents.
Posted on 12/29/15 at 7:07 pm to sullivanct19a
quote:Well damn, that really stinks that the technology is just never going to get any better!!!
No because driverless cars are actually getting in a ton of accidents right now.
Posted on 12/29/15 at 7:19 pm to prplhze2000
Well Google wants to give us driverless cars but California says they have to have a steering wheel, pedals, and a driver behind the wheel
Posted on 12/29/15 at 7:27 pm to shel311
quote:
No because driverless cars are actually getting in a ton of accidents right now.
You completely pulled this out of your arse. It is false.
As of a few months ago Google had 11 minor accidents with no injuries in 6 years. 1.7 million miles of driving. By no definition is that a ton of accidents.
This post was edited on 12/29/15 at 7:31 pm
Posted on 12/29/15 at 8:06 pm to SG_Geaux
I think shel was just compounding that fact. 
Posted on 12/29/15 at 8:26 pm to texashorn
quote:
wouldn't say driverless cars are involved in a "high rate" of accidents.
I believe there have been eight accidents involving driverless cars, and all of them were because the human douchebag following them rear-ended them or sideswiped them.
you are wrong
Posted on 12/29/15 at 8:27 pm to shel311
quote:
Well damn, that really stinks that the technology is just never going to get any better!!!
Going to be difficult to assess that when they don't release the accident reports you stupid frick. Shut up and come back when you rip your head out of your arse.
Posted on 12/29/15 at 8:38 pm to sullivanct19a
"Eleven accidents over 1.7 million miles equates to a rate of 0.65 accidents every 100,000 miles. By comparison, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says there were 0.3 accidents involving only property damage for every 100,000 miles driven in 2013."
Twice the rate for these "safe" cars.
"Officials at the state’s DMV said on Monday that accident reports are confidential and they have denied public records requests on this basis. "
That is an outright lie and those reports could be released immediately.
If you believe Google is going to release reports you are dreaming.
Google claims its cars were not the cause of any accidents but refused to discuss any details. I'd expect this from a politician, not a company that wants the public to trust its product. Unless of course the product is not trustworthy. Then it's deny, delay, ignore, refuse to speak.
LINK
Take that Google sycophant doosh drinkers!
Twice the rate for these "safe" cars.
"Officials at the state’s DMV said on Monday that accident reports are confidential and they have denied public records requests on this basis. "
That is an outright lie and those reports could be released immediately.
If you believe Google is going to release reports you are dreaming.
Google claims its cars were not the cause of any accidents but refused to discuss any details. I'd expect this from a politician, not a company that wants the public to trust its product. Unless of course the product is not trustworthy. Then it's deny, delay, ignore, refuse to speak.
LINK
Take that Google sycophant doosh drinkers!
Posted on 12/29/15 at 8:39 pm to sullivanct19a
You know what, you might be right.
This is the article I read a several days ago, and it claims "Accident rates are twice as high as for regular vehicles."
But the driverless car was never at fault, that's the thing. People run over people all the time who drive the speed limit and obey traffic laws, driverless or not. Driverless is just programmed to never vary from obeying the law, which makes quick lane changes impossible. They can come to a quick stop and not run into anything, but the bozo riding their arse can't/won't.
LINK
This is the article I read a several days ago, and it claims "Accident rates are twice as high as for regular vehicles."
But the driverless car was never at fault, that's the thing. People run over people all the time who drive the speed limit and obey traffic laws, driverless or not. Driverless is just programmed to never vary from obeying the law, which makes quick lane changes impossible. They can come to a quick stop and not run into anything, but the bozo riding their arse can't/won't.
LINK
Posted on 12/29/15 at 8:50 pm to sullivanct19a
Your not getting it Sulli. This is coming one way or another. The insurance companies are already working with the tech companies. I don't like it but if it keeps me from getting run into by a distracted soccer mom painting her nails and texting, then good.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News