Would you be opposed to "Autodrive"?

[Gooberlx2]

Fuck yeah. I'd love to relax on my way to work. Not have to care about paying attention to the road. Surf with WiMax (if we had it here), or read a book while on the way.

Redesign cars to provide a type of "family room" experience, combinable fold down seats to create a cot, etc... I wouldn't even care it the system was slower.

 

[Ruptga]

Oh hell yes, I look forward to the day when this is a reality on all interstates (especially through Kansas, Texas, etc). I don't think it should be required, more like an HOV lane for autopiloted cars, except there'd be a median between us and the other guys so they can't careen into us.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
Absolutely NOT. I work on (among other things) aircraft autopilot systems and see the problems they can have; the nightmares of an autodrive system with the utter lack-of-maintenance to which they will be subjected is beyond the average driver's comprehension. Autodrive seems like a great idea until catastrophic component failure.



Besides, they'll probably use a Microsoft OS. Do you want a literal Blue Screen of Death in traffic at 75 mph?

But there's one key difference: catastrophic component failure in a car means "hit the brakes!" For a jet, it means "kiss your ass good-bye."

Originally posted by: darkxshade
I'm all for it if it means getting to my destinations faster and safer. Even better if this system also helps locate the nearest empty spot for parking in populated cities at the destination.

Not sure about the implications of this though. There would no longer be a need for drivers licenses. Anyone and everyone will want to own their own personal vehicle which would actually increase traffic. Mass transit would take a huge hit.

Actually, I almost agreed with you for a moment. However, consider a place like NYC in the future (just how far into the future is really up to us.) Imagine the city with a lot of electric cars driving all over the place - by themselves. i.e. a city of half a million taxis (or whatever it would take) and little or no other vehicles. Simple voice recognition in the taxis, and they take you to your destination. If you needed a taxi, you went to a small little thing like a bus stop & again, voice recognition could get your destination. Taxis could pick up multiple people along the route, etc.

 

[AreaCode707]

Safety nothing, I'd do it for the convenience as long as I have complete choice to override.

 

[Nik]

I'd be accepting of it if I could turn it on and off at will. Some days I just want to sleep on the way home from work. That would be sooooooo nice!

 

[videogames101]

Fuck that, driving is fun, gtfo over it. I'm willing to sacrifice those that die in accidents so I can drive a car.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
Absolutely NOT. I work on (among other things) aircraft autopilot systems and see the problems they can have; the nightmares of an autodrive system with the utter lack-of-maintenance to which they will be subjected is beyond the average driver's comprehension. Autodrive seems like a great idea until catastrophic component failure.



Besides, they'll probably use a Microsoft OS. Do you want a literal Blue Screen of Death in traffic at 75 mph?

But there's one key difference: catastrophic component failure in a car means "hit the brakes!" For a jet, it means "kiss your ass good-bye."

Originally posted by: darkxshade
I'm all for it if it means getting to my destinations faster and safer. Even better if this system also helps locate the nearest empty spot for parking in populated cities at the destination.

Not sure about the implications of this though. There would no longer be a need for drivers licenses. Anyone and everyone will want to own their own personal vehicle which would actually increase traffic. Mass transit would take a huge hit.

Actually, I almost agreed with you for a moment. However, consider a place like NYC in the future (just how far into the future is really up to us.) Imagine the city with a lot of electric cars driving all over the place - by themselves. i.e. a city of half a million taxis (or whatever it would take) and little or no other vehicles. Simple voice recognition in the taxis, and they take you to your destination. If you needed a taxi, you went to a small little thing like a bus stop & again, voice recognition could get your destination. Taxis could pick up multiple people along the route, etc.

yeap. it could be great.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: Nik
I'd be accepting of it if I could turn it on and off at will. Some days I just want to sleep on the way home from work. That would be sooooooo nice!

Exactly. Of course, it's easier for me to say this now when the technology is clearly unfeasible. If it ever came to fruition I'd have to take a long hard look at the situation before stating a preference.

 

[zerocool1]

Originally posted by: darkxshade
I'm all for it if it means getting to my destinations faster and safer. Even better if this system also helps locate the nearest empty spot for parking in populated cities at the destination.

Not sure about the implications of this though. There would no longer be a need for drivers licenses. Anyone and everyone will want to own their own personal vehicle which would actually increase traffic. Mass transit would take a huge hit.

but what if the centralized system fails? you should know how to drive as a back up. what if it gets hacked? There would need to be a manual driving mode like in iRobot.

If the system stops a person from doing something unsafe such as crossing through a red or something yea, that'd be fine.

 

[tk149]

Assuming that the auto-drive is proven much more safe and efficient than manual, heck yeah. I can nef on AT while traveling.

 

[Mo0o]

Obviously there needs to be an manual function but this is a great idea. I'm guessing with current and near-current technology it can only be well implemented on highways where there are a lot less variables to account for.

 

[BurnItDwn]

I wouldn't do it for increased safety (as it wouldn't increase saftey), but if it allowed for faster travel times due to higher speeds / reduced congestion, then I'd be all for it!

 

[Red Squirrel]

I think it would be cool if very reliable. You tell it where you want to go, it calculates the best route, then has sensors all around the car to ensure it does not get too close to any other cars while it drives based on GPS. It would also look for faster lanes and switch lanes when it's safe if the car in front is too slow. The danger is if two of these cars decide to do a fast decision at the same time, the sensors would have to be very good at correcting the move and go back to safety.

It would have to be an on/off option though. So if you want to take over you can at any time. In fact this would be neat as a cruise control where it just keeps driving on the road safely by following the lines/shoulder as a guide, and slowing down if the car in front is slower. Thsi would be awesome on those huge 4 lane divided highways that move at 1km/hour so you can just sit back and read a book for 2 hours while the car crawls on safely.

 

[QueBert]

If auto drive worked, even if it reduced traffic to nothing, if they didn't raise the speed limit most people I know would hate it. I have friends who seem to be physically incapable of driving the speed limit. If they're not going 90 in a 65, or 40 in a 25 school zone. They start to twitch and act really irritated lol. I would bet most would put up with traffic to be able to speed when the lanes are open.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: QueBert
If auto drive worked, even if it reduced traffic to nothing, if they didn't raise the speed limit most people I know would hate it. I have friends who seem to be physically incapable of driving the speed limit. If they're not going 90 in a 65, or 40 in a 25 school zone. They start to twitch and act really irritated lol. I would bet most would put up with traffic to be able to speed when the lanes are open.

Raising speed limit would not be an issue then. It is the human reaction time that dictates speed limit.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
I think it would be cool if very reliable. You tell it where you want to go, it calculates the best route, then has sensors all around the car to ensure it does not get too close to any other cars while it drives based on GPS. It would also look for faster lanes and switch lanes when it's safe if the car in front is too slow. The danger is if two of these cars decide to do a fast decision at the same time, the sensors would have to be very good at correcting the move and go back to safety.

It would have to be an on/off option though. So if you want to take over you can at any time. In fact this would be neat as a cruise control where it just keeps driving on the road safely by following the lines/shoulder as a guide, and slowing down if the car in front is slower. Thsi would be awesome on those huge 4 lane divided highways that move at 1km/hour so you can just sit back and read a book for 2 hours while the car crawls on safely.

Would be a slave system. The highway controls the fleas on it :laugh:

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
Absolutely NOT. I work on (among other things) aircraft autopilot systems and see the problems they can have; the nightmares of an autodrive system with the utter lack-of-maintenance to which they will be subjected is beyond the average driver's comprehension. Autodrive seems like a great idea until catastrophic component failure.



Besides, they'll probably use a Microsoft OS. Do you want a literal Blue Screen of Death in traffic at 75 mph?

But there's one key difference: catastrophic component failure in a car means "hit the brakes!" For a jet, it means "kiss your ass good-bye."

Catastrophic component failure in a car could just as easily mean "your brakes don't work" or "your steering just went away" as the throttle stays open...

 

[0roo0roo]

we could nef while "driving"

fine by me!