what do you think of self driving cars?
are you going to be the last old cunt refusing to conform, crashing into everything?
They won't happen. Liability for car choices now extend to the manufacturer, and no business wants to keep paying for products already sold.
Make more sense in big countries.
>2020 Britbongistan
>Overseerer May decrees that driving and freedom is haraam and self driving cars are introduced
>£60,000 for a base model because Brexit fucked the value of the pound
>just get the bus instead.
Seriously if you have public transport available why wouldn't you? Insurance Jews will still buttrape you to insure it and you'll still need to pay "vehicle excise duty"
capatcha - select all pickup trucks.
>>15404045
They will unfortunately be forced through through legislation, causing a heap of bullshit ending in poorfags unable to buy a car because they're all too fuckin expensive.
I welcome it
cars that require drivers belong on the racetrack not the streets
>>15404626
>May
>implying mummy isn't going to win
Yeah I don't like freedom anyway. I hope the range on these things is under 100 miles and that recharging takes 12 hours too.
Self driving cars will be a godsend provided they arent used as road monitoring devices by the police. Imagine if every car or even every other car used proper signals and followed the right of way rules of the road. A more predictable road is a safer and faster to drive on road.
>>15404862
I would call it boring and another step towards modern slavery.
I think it's great to get these dangerous, unattentive "WHINE, DRIVING IS SUCH A CHORE" idiots off the road. Then increase the requirements to get a driver's license and ayyy, speed limits increased.
Just make them live alongside manually-driven cars and we're golden.
>>15404045
Nice! Is this the new Camaro?
>>15404045
>are you going to be the last old cunt refusing to conform, crashing into everything?
Insurance rates will force people to go to them. Such cars will not have fast acceleration from stop lights, speed, or run red lights. They don't weave in the lane if you are on medications, and they don't drive when sleepy.
Car companies are already working with insurance companies to develop tracking methods of drivers and perfect a driver rating system. Right now, GM is working with various insurance companies and collecting data via Onstar and rating the car drivers.
I recently got an invitation from GM to participate in their new program to rate drivers. I have a terrible rating of 87 due to having as their rating analysis said "Fast Accelerations" in inappropriate areas. My car can detect and does report via Onstar that I have squealing starts three times this month already. Yes, the traction control system knows if your tires are squealing when you start, and it labeled my three squealing starts at a traffic light as being bad behaviour. Thus, my rating of 87 when otherwise I am a quite defensive driver and even signal for turns when no one is there (out of habit). I have only minor speeding issues and NO sustained speeding issues which is where you speed for a bit of time thus proving that your speeding was deliberate and not just an inadvertent short moment of speeding as you were trying to keep to stay at the speed limit.
So the day is coming when your car company will share your data to the insurance company. If it shares it with the police, then you could automatically get speeding tickets or running the red light tickets because the time base can be checked with the red light time base. Regardless, your insurance rates could go up or most likely go down.
The analysis of my driving skills on hills was informational and useful. It offered tips to improve mileage in those situations due to the adaptive automatic transmission.
>>15405009
This will mean the old non-computerized cars have the best value in terms of Big Brother watching you at all times. Just don't carry a cellphone with you since they can determine if you are speeding or not by how fast it moves.
>>15404939
Windows are too big.
>>15405009
Progressive Insurance does have a voluntary monitoring program people can sign up for. You get a small device that plugs into your OBD2 port and it measures what you do since it has a GPS in it too. While your insurance rate can go down, in practice, it seems that most peoples' rates go up. That's because Progressive penalizes your insurance rate for panic braking, speeding, and driving between 12AM and 5AM. Among other things of course.
>>15405009
Stop, you're scaring me.
>>15405026
No, this is untrue, they cannot raise your rates.
>>15405049
Never mind I'm wrong they can.
>>15405009
>>15405026
Welp, cars are done. Time to find a new interest
>>15404045
I think they're pretty cool! Great for long commutes and to make the roads a safer place. With that said, I would never in a million years buy one.
Shits fo casuals
>>15405026
Driving between 12 and 5... it's not like people work or anything.
>>15405009
as if this is any surprise that a car with always on data, gps and telemetry for all degrees of driving would report data to somewhere
from here on out your weekend car will pretty much have to be pre-2000's if you want to drive in an enthusiastic manner
Every vehicle I own going forward will be progressively older than my last until self driving vehicles are imposed by law. Enjoy the classics until it's too late.
>>15405060
It's a higher risk to drive at those times, so they'll fuck you over for it. If you happen to live somewhere with higher speed limits then you'll also get fucked for driving too fast even if you're driving perfectly at the speed limit. And the more you drive the more you get charged because every minute you're on the road is more risk for the insurance company.
I don't know who the fuck would willingly sign up for that shit, but apparently someone has to be signing up for it if they keep pushing it. I'm just terrified for the day that it becomes mandatory or at least becomes so common that insurance rates for driving without a tracking device become prohibitively expensive.
>>15405009
>>15404045
GM has the program but for now, the privacy laws stop them from sharing your name with the data. You can register with the program though and surrender a number of your privacy rights. Or you can wait for corporate lobbyists from insurance and database companies to convince legislators to allow the data to flow without your express permission for the "good of the children" or "for improved more accurate insurance rates" or "increase jobs and productivity" reasons that lobbyists use for everything.
https://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/bcportal.html/currentVideoId/4313843204001/currentChannelId/Most%20Recent.gsaOff.html
GM has admitted in the past that even if you are not an active Onstar subscriber, that it has collected driving data from cars that have Onstar.
Quote from Camaro driver who tried it:
"""Just for the hell of it I enabled OnStar smart driver for a week to see what my "driving score" was and what data they were collecting. The best score I got was around a 70. On a particular Sunday where I was driving around town I received a score of 10. On their website they stated a good driver is between 70-90. On top of the score I also saw a map that showed my exact locations of where I rapidly accelerated, pressed "hard" on my breaks, and areas where I turned off my car. I have now swiftly disabled OnStar and am debating a fuse pull. It feels like hard acceleration and hard breaking gets set off really easily. Besides those diagnostics I am not a fan of the whole here's the exact locations where you were speeding sir."""
>>15405139
>pull a single fuse and the system is disabled
Is this just like how you can check a couple of boxes in Windows 10 to feel like you're disabling all the telemetry when really you're doing absolutely nothing?
>>15405139
It does show the stretches of road you were speeding on.
But actually, if it's going to happen because enough people say "LOL tinfoil hat, who cares?", then you might as well try it out and see if it can improve your driving performance. Of course, this means your target for good driving is the conservative grandmother who never speeds, never accelerates hard, always uses turn signals, never weaves in the lane, never drives between 12AM and 4AM, never drives the car to bars and wineries, never drives the car to prisons or jails, never drives the car in slum areas where car crime is high, and does not have criminal passengers (blue tooth querying of cellphones of passengers will not link to those phones but will record the ID plan number of the phone and from that the identify of the owner is known which means their criminal record is available).
It would be good for crime fighting in the future if the car reported to the police that it was driven in suspicious manner because at 2AM it was in a business district with all stores closed and the onboard bluetooth sensed cellphones of 2 exfelons were in the car. A police cruiser would be dispatched and of course it knows where your Onstar car is located. Police trackers already indicate locations to go to for chases.
>>15405155
It does seem that way. You'd have to yank the fuse for the Onstar that is built on the motherboard of 2016 and newer. That means your car computer is off. That means your car is undriveable and would not start in the first place. So in older cars, you could yank it. But newer cars you can only hope to do three things:
1. disconnect the antenna wire if disconnectable
2. scratch the two traces of the dual antenna leads as it comes out of the transceiver otherwise even short leads will communicate to a close-by cell tower.
3a. solder a uhf shielded grounding lead for the transceiver antenna output
3b. put faraday cage cover over the computer housing and make sure it is grounded at multiple points.
Verify the onstar warning light is not on. If it is on, your dealer will check the computer module. If tampered with, your 3 year bumper to bumper or 5-year powertrain warranty for a new car may be voided because the computer controls everything from all subsystems to the powertrain. So they could blame future powertrain failures on misadjustments due to a defective computer due to your tampering with its performance.
>>15405026
>panic braking = bad
Because crashing/getting hit by fucktards is so much better.
>driving between 12AM and 5AM
Literally the best time to drive.
What a dumb system.
>>15405155
>>15405139
>>15405175
You could pull the fuse for your wheel speed sensors. That would disable your speedo and other things that use that data but the car would be drivable and more difficult to track.
Surely you could just disconnect the transceiver, or is it physically located in the ECU?
>>15405049
>they cannot raise your rates.
Many other people who have actually used the program have commented that their Progressive Insurance rates were raised as a direct result of using the driver measurement program. Very few rates were lowered and the amount lowered was generally small. Progressive would not provide details citing it was proprietary info.
The general consensus of the users in that auto forum was that smart driver measurement tools benefited the insurance companies the most and drivers negatively in terms of increased insurance rates in most cases. A number of drivers expressed regret at having participated since it damaged their insurance rates permanently since they gave consent and the insurance company continued to apply that data as a behavioural model of that driver in various situations.
http://www.carriermanagement.com/news/2015/01/15/134180.htm
One good thing - it probably is hard to hide hit-and-run with such a device. The police can go check the data cloud to see who was in that area at that time. Allstate Insurance CEO already expressed positive comments at the saleability of such recorded driver data. <-- probably good for data mining too
>>15405273
>This sounds terrifying, people want this shit?
It's already here but they are still making adjustments to how the data is mined to evaluate the drivers. The main purpose now of GM getting voluntary signups is to improve the evaluation system with a large data pool.
Right now, privacy laws constrain GM from handing over your name with the data to the insurance companies and the insurance companies cannot hand over your name and policy info to GM in order to have a direct account payment fee for each specific user. By getting your consent, the wall is removed and both parties can share info and sell it for a profit.
The problem is that the police surely want such a system for the benefits mentioned in previous posts in this thread. So the legislators will hae a lot of lobbying pressure on them to reduce privacy laws further. If the legislators perceive that the citizens don't really care, or that the number of citizens that do care is too small to affect an election, then they will probably do what the lobbyists want in return for benefits from the lobbyists and the corps. Look how the clintons collected 150M just from the lecture circuit in the past 15 years. There's lots of grateful corps out there.
citation:https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/clinton-money/
So unless the voters remain vigilant, and the people who keep saying "who cares" are few, the legislators will probably eventually approve car tracking data to be available to insurers in order to have more accurate insurance rates.
Self driving cars should be used by people who are bad drivers or hate driving. Cue soccer mom and 85 year old vet driving a Buick. Unfortunately, what's going to end up happening is people are going to end up being banned from driving. Self driving cars are actually pretty horrible if you think about it. Everyone in the transportation business is going to be out of a job. Hotels/motels will close because people will just sleep in their cars. Bus, Taxi, and long haul drivers are also going to be out of jobs. Something like 15% of all jobs in america are related to transportation, and most of those are going to die out. Not only that, the government is going to have too much power in regards to where people go. They could halt all traffic at the flick of a button. There's a protest in the city center? Shut down traffic. Natural disaster like an earthquake or fire? No chance. Have you seen video of people leaving Fort McMurrey? Do you think driverless cars could navigate that? Everyone would have ended up being cooked alive. I'm ok with driverless cars as a concept, but companies and the government are going to start using them as tools to save money, hire less people, and have complete control of the whereabouts of everyone. To me, this just sounds like the beginning of some 1984 shit. Not only that, but there was a video somewhere posted about "the ethics of driverless cars", and how they could be programmed to calculate a path of least destruction in case of an emergency. That's not going to happen, as programming things like that is too risky. There's going to be more and more cases of pedestrians or cars jumping in front of driverless cars and having them ram into a group of people or cars in an effort to avoid the immediate danger. I don't like this at all.
>>15405665
>Unfortunately, what's going to end up happening is people are going to end up being banned from driving.
Since a ban would be a constitutional problem, what will happen is people defacto"ban" themselves due to the insurance rates. That's because insurance companies will charge triple rates for anyone that does over 5% (or whatever number they come up with like 3% to 7%) of their driving in manual mode based upon the standard 12K mile per year rate. Everyone will be driving like non-blind non-old grannies or the proverbial "super safe" driver that infuriates all other drivers.
60MPH max in the left lane!
>>15405283
I assume you have to have this on all your cars if you sign up for it? Otherwise you could put it on your boring econobox and leave it off your fun car and have lower rates overall.
>>15405054
>tfw cars and guns, my two favorite things, may both be extinct interests in several decades
>tfw both my fandoms (besides cars and guns) are on their way out
Just kill me now
>>15405009
>owning, leasing, or DD'ing a new car
>ever
>>15407914
>I assume you have to have this on all your cars if you sign up for it?
No, it only works if the "item" is installed in your car's computer. The computer has access to all the sensor data, video, and microphones in the car. Besides that, there also needs to be a cellphone transceiver. For GM cars, the combination of hardware and software is called "Onstar". I don't know what Tesla names theirs or what other companies have.
Onstar is interactive and can have a live human operator from Onstar intervene if I press one of 3 dedicated Onstar buttons on my mirror. One of then contacts the onstar operator and we can converse thru the car's audio system and the multiple microphones built into the car. If the car is stolen, the operator can command the car to slow down and then stop. The police have asked Onstar before and stopped chases. If you are locked out, they can unlock the doors for you.
So it's not all gloom and doom. It's all old hat to you. After all, you're all accustomed to using Intel CPU in your PC/laptops for years. So you already have Intel's/The_Gov't's kill switch. Any intel CPU from sandy bridge onwards can be remotely commanded to stop working, delete material from the hard drive, etcetera. Those CPU have an onboard hardware cellular receiver. Why do you think so many foreign countries make their own processor chips? They don't want a foreign gov't turning off their security hardware, bombs, missiles, ships, planes, etc. The police have gotten search warrants before to turn on microphones in cars equipped with Onstar in order to listen to what suspects or persons of interest might be saying. Such CPU would be good if people tried to revolt against the gov't. Their PCs, phones, laptops, phones, and communication gear would all be turned off. Only CPU in gov't hands would remain working. Stops revolts when comms, cars, and smart devices are down for all the rebels.
>>15404045
Who's going to replace 250 million cars on the road in America?
No fucking way.
No one is going to trust them.
People want to be in control.
There are many situations where the car won't understand what you want to do and exactly where you want to go. They will never be smart enough.
the only way theyll be safe is if all the sensors are regularly maintained and the car can read your mind
imagine the lowerclass owning hightech cars that they simply can't afford to keep maintaining. those things will be dangerous as fuck. imagine giving a poor person an autonomous helicopter.
i assume this is only sustainable if the gov owns and maintains the cars and no one owns a car. and they're all taxis.
>>15408557
>It's all old hat to you. After all, you're all accustomed to using Intel CPU in your PC/laptops for years.
http://www.techspot.com/news/41643-intels-sandy-bridge-processors-have-a-remote-kill-switch.html
http://www.infowars.com/intel-developing-kill-switch-for-laptops/
Sandy Bridge is quite old now. Ivy Bridge added the ability to remotely delete data off the hard drive as well as a partial ability to circumvent some types of encryption. The ability to remotely wipe data is useful to corporations whose laptops have sensitive data on them.
>>15408594
>>15408604
How will the gov't prevent vandals from repainting lane markers to make automatic driving cars fail? Or will the GPS be so accurate that the cars will ignore faked lane markers?
I drive a Google Self Driving car as my occupation
![tumblr_nkd3jpVvPB1rwkpa6o1_1280[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/8lCrfIa.jpg "tumblr_nkd3jpVvPB1rwkpa6o1_1280[1].jpg")
>>15404821
My Volt has an official range of 38 miles. It takes 10 hours at 12 amps for a full charge-- a setting which must be selected manually through the infotainment system and defaults to 16 hours at 8 amps every time the transmission is taken out of park.
I don't like the idea of a car checking me in to the police station if my family reports me as a suicide risk. I don't like the idea of being treated like a coincidentally organic source of labor and tax dollars instead of a person.
I also don't like living in a world where crime means time, because not all crime is wrong, just possibly punishable if the cop agrees with the law and thinks it mattered in your case. With a self driving car, there isn't a cop to bring you in or let it slide. There's a car, and the automated law enforcement system has flagged you for some ridiculous future offense like "possession and distribution of obscene or subversive material" or a ridiculous current offense like "copy "right" violation". You get brought the fuck in, and the car doesn't even half ass it and give you a chance to high tail it to the nearest fishing boat to thailand, even though you didn't do anything most people would consider wrong. It's fucking terrifying to have a world truly ruled by the elite, rather than one practically ruled by human proxy forces who are more attitude-check than background-check.
>The good
people might reconsider their current government when ridiculous laws are enforced with exactly precision
>The bad
people won't care, "never happens to me i'm not a sinner", freedom dies
>>15408656
Interesting. Please tell me more.
>>15404045
Looks disgusting
>>15408712
>>15408656
During the day, my occupation is driving these cars.
During the night, I hunt them.
._._._.
The Night has finally come.
She is the Mistress of equality. She with darkness in her soul.
I waited patiently. I am used to it.
No one thought of me as a threat. After all, I drove a Miata. It has no EcoBoost.
Taylor Swift got into her ecoboost google self-driving car. It was a tight fit because the car was so small.
Her ecoboost google car took off efficiently and drove towards her next venue.
I wielded my stickshift Miata efficiently, darting between all the google cars.
Overly polite and full of self-defensive driving, those self-driving cars made way for me as they tried to avoid collisions. I took advantage of that.
I praised the inventors of the Miata. "Thank you for not filling the world full of EcoBoost"
After all, if the world was full of EcoBoost, I would be at a disadvantage on the road.
But the road is not only for brute force ecoboosted cars. Those with skill are able to coax success from their cars by driving cleverly.
I often force myself to drive cleverly on the Road.
After all, I only have a Miata.
Pulling alongside Taylor Swift's self-driving google car, I noticed the model type was known to be one that refused to run over people-shaped objects.
I moved in front and pushed the button to send gas from the canisters to several blow up dolls.
They inflated immediately.
The wind picked them up and dropped then into the road in front of the google car.
True to its algorithm, Taylor Swift's google car preferred to crash the car gently into the road barrier instead of running over people in the roadway.
Take that you ecoboost Bitch!
Sure, Taylor Swift was known to go through boyfriends at a prodigious rate.
But why did she have to drop me as her boyfriend? She didn't drop me for personality or looks. The reason stung.
She dropped me as her boyfriend
when
she
found
out
I
drove
a
Miata.
>>15404809
200-odd votes for May
Less than 100 for the fundie bigot.
>>15404626
>Overseerer May decrees that driving and freedom is haraam and self driving cars are introduced
James May would never do that.
>>15404045
I'd love an optional system. Drive like crazy to work, autopilot home in traffic.
Hung over? Drunk? Tired? Automode.
>>15404045
>are you going to be the last old cunt refusing to conform?
i hope to be
https://youtu.be/teFXjTSQGDQ?t=32s
movie related
Self driving cars vs human operated
https://youtu.be/mOWnlwLUvKA
>Self driving cars mandated
>Human driven cars still allowed but-
>Driver's license requirements shoot way up
>Now you must seriously apply yourself to get a license
>All "I hate driving" fags will just get self driving cars and would never consider getting a driver's license
It's a win win
>ITT:Dumb retards thinking of the anglosphere as the only land on earth.
Check things out over at Ivan's, he's doing donuts as of this moment while firing out of the window with his ak47.
None of these shitty progressive laws will be applied to anywhere but Anglosphere.
Thank God Im a fucking Slav.
>>15411270
>It's a win win
It will be a corporation and corrupt government official dominated country. The gov't officials and company officials with acess to data are de facto heads of regions of the country that they are assigned to cover. They can affect many things in subtle ways or even leak info in strategic ways.
>>15404045
>what do you think of self driving cars?
We have them, they are called trains.
>>15404045
>what do you think of self driving cars?
They can't be too small like google cars are right now. Otherwise, just one person and their baggage would fill up the car. Well, for efficiency, google cars would probably come in multiple sizes in order to economize on energy expenses.
>>15408604
>the only way theyll be safe is if all the sensors are regularly maintained and the car can read your mind
There's also the car's own safety too. If you have a record of vandalism, some of the automated driver cars might not stop for you when you signal on your smartphone app that you need a ride. They simply won't stop for you and you cannot tell if you are being excluded or not. The only cars that do stop for you are the heavily armored ones with the highest rates. All of the comfortable clean ones with plush seats and nice media features won't stop for you. But since the corps and news media will refuse to publish the info, you cannot tell if you are deliberately getting poorer service than someone rich or important. Then, one day you wake up and find out the laws actually will say that rich and important people or corporations do _legally_ have more rights than you. You are then in a class-type stratified society with a lot of your standing determined by that info the system collected about you.
>>15413858
>We have them, they are called trains.
Ours still have the train engineer guy at the front of the train. No autobot trains here.
>>15404045
>what do you think of self driving cars?
Even now, self-driving cars have a better driving record than normal human drivers. Because they are connected, they can instantly call the police if something bad happens to the vehicle or if the passenger presses the "emergency" button in the vehicle.
So, the presence of these cars all over the place will make things safer as long as they are visible. The only problem is that human drivers are being put into cars with less and less visibility. That increases the chance of accident so it wouldn't be surprising to have humans hitting a lot of these self-driving cars. Due to 360-degree view "dashcams" and their built-in lidar and sonar, these self-driving cars would probably show that the human drivers were at fault 99% of the time.
A 99% to 1% ratio would mean the self-driving cars are overwhelmingly safer than human drivers in terms of causing moving collision accidents. So, it would make sense to have self-driving cars insured at only 50% or less the rate that human drivers have.
>>15408656
>I drive a Google Self Driving car as my occupation
Do you have to wear a crash suit? Or was that only in the early beta test days when onboard passengers were there to monitor the car in case it failed its daily test drives for software upgrades?
>>15404045
They're for lazy cucks. Honestly, I hate the overuse of that term, but a self driving car is cucking you. Driving is an enjoyable experience and shouldn't be turned into just another time to stare at your idiot phone
>>15419379
>Driving is an enjoyable experience
Humans have a signficantly higher accident rate that these self driving cars. ALSO, humans do hit-and-run MOST of the time. The only times they don't hit-and-run are when there are people watching or their car cannot get away. Google cars would report the accident and film it and upload it. So no point in hit and run if you're in a self-driving car. You would have to pay the insurance rate increases of the accident that your leased software program (google automatic driver) did on your behalf.
>>15408211
At least you have the constitution to back your gun hobby.
>>15419764
>>15419871
>Look everybody, a paid corporate shill.
As professional forum posters go, the chinese government is known for hiring hordes of chinese who know foreign languages. Their job is to go post defensively on major foreign sites to derail or stop or even attack posts or ad hominem certain posters to get them to shut up. The chinese posters in /a/ displayed that pattern as they had no real interest in Gate as a legitimate cultural topic. Both Gate fans and the chinese posters can talk about the same JSDF topic, but one side seems "sterile" and that made their posts suspicious.
China's Officially Hired Forum Commentators (tens of thousands of them).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party
To be a 50center, the Ministry of Culture of the People's Republic of China now holds regular training sessions, where participants are required to pass an exam after which they are issued a job certification.
Water Army: Besides the 50cent Army, there are professional writers also recruited and they are paid more by the Chinese Government as the Internet Water Army. Certainly, professional sockpuppets are a problem on wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Water_Army
>>15419858
>At least you have the constitution to back your gun hobby.
It's the NRA that backs it. People are always trying to nibble at the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. 9/11 did the Bill of Rights no favors.
Imagine if cars were made safer if no consumer car was able to go faster than 80 MPH. Any car governor adjusted to go faster would get caught since all cars (by that future date) would be phoning home their data. Similarly, imagine how much safer we'd be if all consumer guns could have no more than 20 grains of gunpowder per cartridge. Blue Lives Matter. Or all consumer bullets (police, government, and military are excepted) can have no more than one grain of gunpowder. See, you still have guns and bullets so your rights were not removed. It's just that the bullets go 20 feet before falling to the ground. Of course the police can still shoot you for rebellion as an Enemy of the State. So it's good that the NRA tries to fight any and all encroachments on gun power and access.
self-driving cars would solve so many problems.
air pollution, traffic accidents, time wasted in jams, etc etc
ofc, in the cities. outside, on open roads, you'd be free to drive yourself.
motorcycles would have to be banned in cities.
>>15421607
>self-driving cars would solve so many problems.
Someone needs to make a special software hack. If car thief detected, the self-driving car drives over the perpetrator and then lowers its suspension until it detects a lessening of car weight of approximately 150 pounds. If the perp continues to scuttle out, the lowering can increase to trap the perp. If not enough of the perp torso remains under the car, then the car will rise back up and drive over the perp again. It will then lower itself again on top of the perp to hold the perp there. The last time was 150 so this next time is 160 pounds.
>>15419871
Too many facts, Anon? Can't deal?
>>15404045
I live in a rural area. These won't catch on around here. The lines on the road are poorly painted and we actually have a need to be able to drive down gravel roads, across fields, through forests, etc.
>>15418128
>The only problem is that human drivers are being put into cars with less and less visibility. That increases the chance of accident
Do you have a source to back up that claim?
>>15419379
Saving lives > fun
>>15424139
A self driving car could pick the most suitable off-road route too. It could measure elevation changes and water depth, as well as any hazards or obstacles.
>>15424173
Could it really though? Where's the proof? Technically speaking, these cars *could* do a lot of things, but is the technology really there?
>>15424244
>Could it really though? Where's the proof?
Prototype self-driving cars have been equipped with a drone as an experiment. So perhaps one day, you'll be able to buy an option to have a drone pad on your car. And a separate option to buy various drone models for your car.
The advantage of having a drone compatible sunroof is that Amazon drones can deliver items to your car when you are at the park and need some more items. Life is good for those 1st class and 2nd class citizens who can afford it. All the other 3rd class and 4th class citizens can admire and aspire to join those qualified to experience the joys and flavors of life. Freedom! Be all that you can be.
>>15424173
Simple backup sensors don't even work when caked in snow... I don't know how self driving cars are going to work when you have no cell signal, no GPS signal and no visibility.
y'all city slickers be fucked.
>>15424445
>Simple backup sensors don't even work when caked in snow.
No problem there because there is over a half century of development of ways to stop sensors from being frozen or blocked by ice or snow from aircraft. So a less extreme version of what aircraft use can be implemented. Body by Porsche; sensors by AirBus.
wait for it
Body by Amazon. Sensors by Nest
>>15425568
>sensors by AirBus.
About that.
Also joe schmoe won't maintain his car as well as most airlines maintain their aircraft.
>>15425673
most airlines send their airplanes to be maintained in cheap shit hole countries. Mexico, China, Central American shitholes.
Only Delta maintains all their airplanes in the US.
Fuck, last days have being full of threads about it, and more funny is all the comments defending that piece of crap and trying to call out who don't like it.
This is such a blatant shilling. Paid ones or do-it-for-free drones are the question.
>>15419379
That's like, your opinion, man.
Talk to any average young person these days who isn't an enthusiast and they would tell you that they'd rather catch the bus than drive these days. It affords them the ability to use their phone for the hour or so that they're stuck in the commute.
>>15404045
>are you going to be the last old cunt refusing to conform, crashing into everything?
Perhaps, assuming manually driven vehicles don't get outlawed.
I'm not blind to the advancement of progress. I can accept that autonomous vehicles will be for the fundamental good of society. They'll dramatically cut fatalities as a result of crashes, they'll give people an opportunity to pay less for insurance. They'll be able to coordinate traffic better and you won't have to sit in gridlock for an hour to get 5km. Hell, some cities might even be able to implement a "pool" scheme - buy a number of vehicles and allow the the population to "call them" so they can get to work... the same car would then disappear off to go and collect someone else to take them to their destination. I imagine that a subscriber system like this would be run by paying a monthly fee, since that seems to be the way most services are going these days. It'll give young people who genuinely don't enjoy driving the opportunity to sit in a vehicle on the way to work and read a book, play some vidya, or further their education. Hell, even sleep.
But I can't pretend that I won't be a very... lost, person if manually driven vehicles were to be forcibly discarded entirely, or if they became prohibitively expensive due to skyrocketing insurance rates. Cars and driving are a big part of my life and always have been. I was itching to get my license when I was a teenager. Nothing to me feels better than the independence of getting in my car, and the control that I have over what I do, where I go, and how I do it. Guess I'll just have to fill the void with something else more wholesome socially acceptable in the eyes of our future society.
>>15426003
The automated cars will also be good for significantly reducing the amount of infidelity and car chases. If someone is running from the police, a bunch of unoccupied self-driven cars will coordinate together to make a cordon to block the manually-driven car or even wreck into the manually-driven car to stop it. Other effects can occur such as Local Area Domination where all the unoccupied cars create a traffic jam that the escapee cannot avoid.
Infidelity is reduced since it would have to be done with old cars from 2004 or older which don't store data or report. More modern cars would show a the path and destinations taken and be linked to the Internet of Things which can also narrow down the identify of a person by exclusion methods. Since manually driven cars are an anomaly and may be used by criminals, the self-driven cars will monitor and automatically report the location of those manual cars and their occupant identify if known by bluetooth, wifi, or shark-style cell ID detection methods.
>>15425693
>most airlines send their airplanes to be maintained in cheap shit hole countries. Mexico, China, Central American shitholes.
It's hard to beat those labor rates and that the benefits paid to workers are also lacking as compared to in the USA with union labor and 401K plans plus social security payments the companies have to support. Workers don't need 401K or social security.
Not paying into those reduces costs a lot. So no brainer to service the planes in China or other places like that.
>>15408557
How is this not Dystopia to you?
they are the devil's work
So, why would I buy a self driving car instead of just taking the bus, taxi, train and/or plane?
>>15404045
Looks delicious.
>>15428421
>How is this not Dystopia to you?
There are actually a lot of people that like that. They never break the law. They would like to see such systems rein in the lawbreakers. My conservative parents like the idea.
>>15408681
You have an engine idiot. That extends range to 300 something miles.
>>15430384
Would your parents like it if the government could read people's thoughts and remotely control/kill them if they had to? After all, they're not breaking the law so they have nothing to fear.
>>15405009
I believe some insurance company tries to get folks to plug something into their OBD2 port which monitors driving conditions/activity and reports this sort of information so they can adjust your insurance. Of course I ran away when reading this
>>15404045
>what do you think of self driving cars?
They will have to be a lot bigger than their current "smaller than a volkswagon bug" size. Or they won't have enough crumple zone to save the front passenger's legs.
>>15426271
>1984: the post
>>15432493
It's how lawyers use the info. In some divorce cases, lawyers subpoena the records of bank card purchases and shopping club (supermarket, safeway club card, kroger card, etcetera) to look for telltale signs like condom purchases, gift purchases, dress or female clothing purchases, trips, etc. The locations and timing is also important to show infidelity.
Having the car tattletale is a big help especially as its bluetooth means the passengers can't have smartphones, iPod, or other bluetooth and WiFi devices on them or the synch records will be available.
In the Internet of things, it will be harder and harder not to carry something into a bluetooth/WiFi car that won't have its ID code sensed.
>>15432424
The small lightweight car is for decision making and to reduce damage if it hits anything.
What's interesting is whether or not laws will change to allow car-driving robots to report legal violations they observe on the road. These self-driving cars have so many sensors that they really are mobile witnesses due to cameras, GPS, and continually uploaded data.
>>15428421
>How is this not Dystopia to you?
Why is it dystopia? What are you so paranoid? Only criminals and software pirates worry about privacy nowadays.
>>15435168
Because the government is approaching a point where it knows all, controls all, and cannot be defeated. It will be able to do anything without repercussion. That's not freedom. That's North Korea tier tyranny. The people should not be the government's bitch; the government should be the people's bitch.
>>15435286
>>15435168
>>15428421
>The people should not be the government's bitch; the government should be the people's bitch.
Ugh, that is Trump's line. Hillary is for the side of the government having more control and she said that before her presidential run although that was MANY years ago when her husband was president. She is unfortunately corrupt and does influence peddling. Look at how she and her husband personally collected over $150 million dollars just for doing honorarium speeches for corporations and major donor group meetings AFTER her husband left office and while she was secretary of state. She had to use a private email server to avoid the government security office having undeletable backups of her influence peddling emails as well as contacts with certain individuals whose emails on their end might be recorded and accessible if the secret service only knew who they were.
Trump is not my choice of candidate, but he'd be more for hooning than hillary. He's also not strongly against privacy like Hillary. She's repeatedly said Snowden should be brought back to the USA and tried. At least Bernie recognized some of the value Snowden did for the people versus invasive government. Hillary is paranoid against rebellion.
I CAN'T FUCKING WAIT FOR SELF-DRIVING CARS
NO MORE TRAFFIC JAMS
NO MORE DUMBASSES CUTTING YOU OFF
ALL THE CARS CAN TALK TO EACH OTHER SO ZIPPER MERGING IS COMMONPLACE
TRAFFIC WILL MOVE SMOOTHLY AND PEOPLE CAN SWAP LANES EASILY THANKS TO RADAR AND SOME SORT OF RADIO CONNECTIVITY
DUMBASSES CAN JUST SIT AROUND AND PLAY CANDY CRUSH V248204820.1 WHILE THEIR PERFECT DRIVER GUIDES THEM TO THEIR DIABETES DOCTOR
meanwhile i can buy a self-driving audi for monday thru friday and keep something more visceral for the weekend or late at night when i want to feel some metal on metal action
self-driving cars are going to be the biggest thing since the internet, just wait
if anyone knows of any forerunners in the self-driving game besides google, merc, apple, audi, and tesla, please tell me because i want to get in on some start-ups now so i can watch a 1000% increase in 15 years
>>15435934
okay sorry, but all democrats want is a slight increase in personal taxes and fewer corporate loopholes in corporate taxes to fund widespread medicare, more grants for kids to go to college, and more oversight in matters regarding police and domestic military action
republicans are fighting to remove abortion and planned parenthood, cut welfare costs, cut down immigration numbers significantly, and loosen up gun regulations. all so they can give more tax cuts to corporations and increase military spending
i'd much rather my tax money go towards helping people medically than throw more cash into the burning inferno that is USA military spending
>>15435987
>okay sorry, but all democrats want is a slight increase in personal taxes and fewer corporate loopholes in corporate taxes to fund widespread medicare, more grants for kids to go to college, and more oversight in matters regarding police and domestic military action
All very good things
>republicans are fighting to remove abortion and planned parenthood, cut welfare costs, cut down immigration numbers significantly
All pretty shitty things, I'm liking y-
>loosen gun regulations
>implying that's not the only good thing Republicans are doing
Nope. Into the trash you go.
>>15437043
The self-driving cars probably won't go to planned parenthood centers (if any still exist in 10 years). Or there may be other places that are on their non-updated site listings. It's a proprietary system after all.
>>15437762
>The self-driving cars probably won't go to planned parenthood centers (if any still exist in 10 years). Or there may be other places that are on their non-updated site listings.
The advantage of cars with approved and unapproved locations in memory is that the cars can do certain things. For example, an invasive car might always be listening to string along certain phrases:
"""Helo, I'se was lissnin to yo boyfren bout how he HELP sara snydurr gitz PREGNANT and she goes to HOSPITAL 2 have da BABY.
Now heading to hospital. Estimated time of arrival 12 minutes at 60 MPH (it won't speed on freeway).
>>15404045
>are you going to be the last old cunt refusing to conform, crashing into everything?
Yes
https://youtu.be/GZmQEeo2qpQ?list=PLOcxeVQQCKuZcGzh9TQBdGAwLDUFysQWc&t=382
>>15439099
You'll be the last with the highest insurance rates. As the last user of your type, you'll legitimately be given the highest rate possible in that class as you are the sole user. Thus you have to fund 100% of the costs of insurance for that class plus an additional amount as profit for the insurance company.
>>15440039
Long before it gets to that point, the poster would have quit that purely manual driving class. That's because the better drivers moved on to buy new self-driving cars leaving only the financially poorer drivers will be left in that class thus driving the rates super high. Poor drivers have the stereotypical characteristic of having more accidents, tickets, and claims than the well-off better class of prudent drivers.
Insurance rates do influence car purchases. Particularly if the self-driving car category ahs the new-normal rate (what you have right now but a little lower) and higher-risk-cars category with all the poor drivers and luddites with the 3 times normal rate coverage. While 3X sounds too high, that is what happens when almost all the prudent drivers leave to go to the other category. And there is no way to be in that other category without a self-driving-car that drives 95% of the time or more on a 11K miles per year average.
Many people will elect to let the car always drive since manual driver is too risky to the insurance rate. Since those cars record if you break the law or not, each time you speed, your rate will increase just as if you had receive an actual speeding ticket from a police officer. However, because the officer was not there, you don't have the speeding ticket. You do have the treatment by the insurance company though as if you did get a ticket. The car proved you were speeding.
If you manually drive and do not come to a full complete stop at the stop sign, your rates will be treated as if you got a "running the stop sign" ticket. But since no officer was there, you luckily didn't also get a separate ticket for not properly stopping.
Another car is tailgating you. You manually take over by pressing the brake pedal to "Check Brake". While tailgating is bad, Check Brake is not legal and you are issued a rate hike for the moving violation of "Check Brake" to try to cause the other driver to crash into you
>>15440858
When there are so many self-driving robots on the road, that ALSO means they can report on the manually-driven cars too. The robots have speed measurement, so they can work together and cross-witness for each other any speeder. Thus the speeder has a problem disproving that all 500 cars that saw him speeding were wrong.
Thus the judge issues the speeding ticket based upon evidence submitted by the prosecutor who reviewed the daily scan logs of all the robotic devices on the road. Robot vision is more accurate than police officer eyeball vision anyways.
>>15441180
who are the robot makers? will ford and chrysler also do it?
>>15418128
>55mph on the highway and the only other car for miles is a self driving buggy? Bullshit.
>Speed past self driving car
>soccer mom presses button to call the cops
>we are safer now
>:^)
>>15435168
There is a large contingent of people that disagree with and break the law regularly? In a representative democracy, where the lawmakers are elected based on charisma and promises they aren't legally held to, money talks, and petitions rot in the corner? Say it aint so.
America owes its current social stability to propaganda trying to codify the law as the moral right for those with a "because god said so" mindset and how easy it is to get away with all those victimless crimes. If you took away the ease of breaking the law just because it's the law, you'd get a wave of "beta uprising" types with nothing left to live for after the first ten court orders over dumb shit like drugs, thoughtcrime, and copying and using data as they wished. Kind of like all those black kids that go to juvi for weed and come out crips, but more suicidal.
>>15441180
or the speed limit no longer exists in places and the robot cars just safely adapt to the small contingent of humans, and are programmed to just move out of the way when possible
kind of like a country where drivers are actually trained to drive.
>>15443185
>or the speed limit no longer exists
This argument is retarded. Speed limits wont go away, basically ever. If anything, history shows they've gotten tighter and slower.
People shouldn't need to drive, public transit should be good enough for people. Course that's not gonna happen for a long time in US, but in Europe it's doable cos more is urbanized than america.
If i want to get anywhere interesting in Canada, i gotta take a car cos TTC doesn't go there.
But i'm sure it can be done with street cars in downtown and shit.
Basically there should be less drivers so that there's more room for me.
>>15443185
>kind of like a country where drivers are actually trained to drive.
Your logic is only valid if drivers will learn. The USA is too full of deliberately habitually careless drivers. Can those drivers learn? I bet they will just hit-and-run instead of changing.
Last week, some mexican truck swings into the space next to me super fast and was braking hard as he came to a stop. His heavy metal bumper missed scraping the side of my car (both passenger doors) by about six inches. I know as I was walking across the front of my car as he swung in.
If he had hit me, he would simply hit-and-run. His front bumpers already had scuff marks on both left and right corners. So he's almost certainly hit other cars. Since he kept using that fast-in close-call driving style after all those other collisions with parked cars, it is reasonable to assume that is his natural driving style.
Because he's still driving after all those other collision marks, they must have all been hit-and-runs. Or he's driving without insurance because his insurance would have cancelled after a bunch of repeat similar collisions.
I told him to be careful, he almost hit my car. He smiled, as all mexicans do when they want to disarm their opponent who has them dead to rights. And said don't worry, he is a safe driver with no accidents on his record.
He did say none on his record. So all those bumper marks means he is hit-and-run. Hit-and-run. Mexican. Well, that's the stereotype.
>>15404045
Public transport has existed well over a century
>>15404045
I fucking hate highway driving at the speed limit and any traffic so yeah I'll use it for that any other time I wont
>>15405283
idea:
1) use for about a month
2) drive like a perfect angel for that month
3) rates go down slightly
4) give back tracker and resume old driving habits
we communism now
Fuck yeah the west
>>15444593
It's valid if drivers that don't learn are straight up forbidden from the roads. As in, every car has an ignition device that only works with your drivers license, and you have to apply for a private land use permit and a GPS (oh no the feds know where I am on my own estate!) to start a car without public road license. If you're caught being a moron too many times, even for poor lane discipline, you lose your license. We could be stricter than germany, we could have 100mph highways, we could ban non-commercial vehicles that can't keep up in terms of speed or acceleration and force commercial cargo to upgrade within a certain timeframe or stick to designated lanes. But
"muh freedom"
>>15444678
>but in a manuel
>sleepy
>give it a little too much throttle taking off
>tires chirp a little bit
>TCS flips its shit
>"ANON DID A FUCKING BURNOUT"
>$500 full coverage
>cops notified, will be arriving shortly
>>15445426
With modern communication, driver's licenses could have a biometric chip in them. That is inserted into the car's reader slot. The biometrics have to match up will all drivers that were added to the approved list of drivers at the insurance company, driver's license bureau, or authorized agent.
Yup, won't be long now; and don't think you'll be some heroic last-man-standing road warrior. Face the facts now: your car will be illegal.
>>15404045
they are pretty cute
