- 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: Ripple Effect of Driverless Cars
Posted on 12/4/15 at 2:55 pm to slackster
Posted on 12/4/15 at 2:55 pm to slackster
quote:
If you need to rush someone to the hospital, I doubt you'll sit back and let the car ferry you around at 35 mph.
Sure that would be an issue that would crop up, but imagine going the speed limit with effectively no traffic and much fewer stop signs/lights.
You'd probably get to the hospital/work/etc just as fast as you would if you were speeding around, but still stopping at red lights and dodging traffic.
0
Posted on 12/4/15 at 2:59 pm to slackster
quote:
If you need to rush someone to the hospital, I doubt you'll sit back and let the car ferry you around at 35 mph.
If it got to the point where every car on the road was automated, then it would take you to your destination in the fastest manner possible regardless of your urgency. A manual override wouldn't get you there any quicker and would only slow you down and put you and others in danger.
Posted on 12/4/15 at 3:01 pm to LucasP
Imagine in 20 years when a terrorist attack consists of hacking cars computer systems and causing cars to crash into each other all across the country at high speeds.
Posted on 12/4/15 at 3:06 pm to MrSpock
quote:Good thought though I'd say no more than 2 hours, or even 1 hour, right?
Commuter flights under 4 hours will probably cease to exist given the time it takes to check in and such.
4 hour flight is the equivalent of what, 25 hours drive team or so?
Posted on 12/4/15 at 3:08 pm to LucasP
quote:Not really. If the automated car is driving at the speed limit of 35mph for 10 straight minutes on a stretch of road with no lights and little traffic, it's only the fastest automated manner possible. Not the fastest actual way possible.
If it got to the point where every car on the road was automated, then it would take you to your destination in the fastest manner possible regardless of your urgency.
Posted on 12/4/15 at 3:19 pm to shel311
quote:
Not really. If the automated car is driving at the speed limit of 35mph for 10 straight minutes on a stretch of road with no lights and little traffic, it's only the fastest automated manner possible. Not the fastest actual way possible.
Speed limits will likely be raised significantly nationwide if human error is removed from the equation.
Posted on 12/4/15 at 3:21 pm to shel311
quote:
Good thought though I'd say no more than 2 hours, or even 1 hour, right?
4 hour flight is the equivalent of what, 25 hours drive team or so?
Exactly. 1 hour in the air could be a 4 hour drive. I see what people are saying about getting to the airport an hour or two early and all that. But I think anything over and hour or two flight won't have much change.
Posted on 12/4/15 at 3:24 pm to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
Yes, but why would an automated car full of drunks get pulled over?
DUI checkpoint?
Cops just pull people over for bullshite at night to check for drunks?
Not everyone who gets a DUI is pulled over for a violation. I have been pulled over several times at night for no reason because cops thought they'd catch a drunk college kid.
Posted on 12/4/15 at 3:24 pm to shel311
quote:
Good thought though I'd say no more than 2 hours, or even 1 hour, right?
4 hour flight is the equivalent of what, 25 hours drive team or so?
I'm dumb. That's what I meant to say. Basically any flight equivalent to a 4 hour drive.
Posted on 12/4/15 at 3:25 pm to UpToPar
quote:
Imagine in 20 years when a terrorist attack consists of hacking cars computer systems and causing cars to crash into each other all across the country at high speeds.
You know that airplanes are pretty much completely flown by computers these days right?
Posted on 12/4/15 at 3:28 pm to cajuntiger26
From a litigation standpoint it would definitely change things up. Instead of negligence actions they'd have to be products liability actions.
Posted on 12/4/15 at 3:29 pm to Larry
quote:
From a litigation standpoint it would definitely change things up. Instead of negligence actions they'd have to be products liability actions.
I fell asleep three times reading these two sentences.
Posted on 12/4/15 at 3:31 pm to TheCaterpillar
quote:
They'd still need insurance. Machines aren't perfect and there would be times when you'd have to take over for the car.
But would the insurance be based on your driving history? Seems like it shouldn't be. And the at fault party would be the car manufacturer would it not?
Posted on 12/4/15 at 3:31 pm to Upperdecker
quote:
No more wrecks in the morning caused my women putting on makeup while they drive
This. I got a huge scare on I-10 a few days ago because of that. I was able to avoid the collision but I dropped my electric razor in my coffee.
Posted on 12/4/15 at 3:33 pm to TheCaterpillar
quote:
DUI checkpoint?
Cops just pull people over for bullshite at night to check for drunks?
Not everyone who gets a DUI is pulled over for a violation. I have been pulled over several times at night for no reason because cops thought they'd catch a drunk college kid.
Yes of course they could get caught by a checkpoint, but don't you think checkpoints would be fewer and fewer once traffic/drunk driving related accidents falls to almost 0?
The money spent to operate checkpoints would be so much more than whatever revenue generated from catching the handful of drunks.
As far as pulling people over randomly, I feel like most of the go to bullshite probable cause justifications for pulling someone over go out the window.
No more "you swerve, you didn't come to a full stop, you didn't use your blinker, you failed to maintain your lane, etc..." It's easy for a cop to make that shite up and justify a stop because he was bored or fishing for a DUI today. None of that could be used against an automated car.
Posted on 12/4/15 at 3:38 pm to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
Speed limits will likely be raised significantly nationwide if human error is removed from the equation.
City speed limits could not be raised too much as you still have dumb pedestrians.
Posted on 12/4/15 at 3:39 pm to JohnnyKilroy
quote:Good call, can we start this tomorrow?
Speed limits will likely be raised significantly nationwide if human error is removed from the equation.
Posted on 12/4/15 at 3:42 pm to NOFOX
quote:
City speed limits could not be raised too much as you still have dumb pedestrians.
True, but I'd still wager that speeding, dodging around traffic, and getting caught at red lights will be overall slower than automated car that travels the speed limit while rarely/never slowing down or stopping.
Posted on 12/4/15 at 3:43 pm to cajuntiger26
What happens when the computer software, the road software, etc get hacked or something else fails and 1000s die in one giant wreck along any major interstate?
Posted on 12/4/15 at 3:43 pm to Powerman
quote:Right. If we're playing the hypothetical correctly, we're talking a car accident being an extreme rarity, maybe only a handful a year in all of America.
But would the insurance be based on your driving history? Seems like it shouldn't be. And the at fault party would be the car manufacturer would it not?
Plus, if we're also taking away the manual override option, it creates a situation where the consumer owns the car, but I feel like it would still be the car manufacturere's responsibility to insure it and pay for damages, right? Which means automobile prices going up substantially I'd guess.
Or I'm guessing car ownership goes away and you basically just rent them?
This post was edited on 12/4/15 at 3:44 pm
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News