A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

DRIVERLESS ELECTRIC CARS



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old October 9th 17, 02:59 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default DRIVERLESS ELECTRIC CARS

On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 5:44:00 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/8/2017 10:32 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 18:22:03 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

What I meant about optimism was, what makes you think the
carnage will slow or stop?


Oh that. Well, it can go either way. Initially, it will be a balance
between early adopters, who are generally competent and reasonably
affluent, and customer tested beta quality software, which is certain
to be FOB (full of bugs). These early adopters are generally willing
to tolerate a few bugs and fatalities in order to win points among
their peers for being a technical pioneer or adventurer. Once these
are gone, the next wave of buyers will be less competent and less
affluent. At the same time, the lessons learned by the fatal
accidents of the early adopters will improve the software to keep the
second wave of buyers alive long enough to run the driverless car into
a commodity. Of course, government will try to help accelerate
progress, but more likely will simply hinder progress with
bureaucratic impediments. In other words, I don't have any idea if a
driverless car will actually save 30,000 lives per year. It might
simply kill the same number of drivers in a different manner. My
guess(tm) is that the carnage will initially slow down but later
increase as the software becomes old, communications protocols change,
and the roads become even more clogged with additional driverless
"things". Talk to anyone with an older car that has a dashboard GPS
mapping display, who has tried to obtain an up to date map.

The key to the puzzle is the word "safety". I've dealt with safety
equipment in an industrial environment. Once safety interlocks and
shields are introduced, the accident rate usually increases rather
than decreases. That's because workers genuinely believe that the
safety device will protect them from harm, no matter how stupid they
act. So, they do risky things and soon learn that safety devices only
protect against a limited number of possible actions.

Methinks that much the same will be when driverless cars are
introduced while chanting the "safety" mantra. Drivers will believe
that the driverless car technology will protect them from harm, and
proceed to perform new and original stupid stunts, testing the limits
of the new technology. If the programmers have anticipated such
stunts, then these drivers might live to tell the story at the next
party. If not, the drivers become a statistic. I'm not worried
because natural selection should be able to eliminate drivers with
more faith in the new technology than understanding.

Now, back to my question. How much are you willing to relinquish for
the privilege of riding your bicycle on the driverless highway of the
future? Are you ready for robo-bike?




I'll take my bad attitude and antiauthoritarian streak
wherever my bike wants to go, sans tracking device. We're
USAians - defiance is among our dearest cultural values.

To the phrase, "Everyone ought to...", my reply is a raised
middle finger.


Unfortunately that is aimed straight at Frank who makes the most absurd comments. It's like reading a 6th grade primer on "what everyone should do".
Ads
  #42  
Old October 9th 17, 04:51 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Jeff Liebermann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,018
Default DRIVERLESS ELECTRIC CARS

On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 07:43:57 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

I'll take my bad attitude and antiauthoritarian streak
wherever my bike wants to go, sans tracking device. We're
USAians - defiance is among our dearest cultural values.

To the phrase, "Everyone ought to...", my reply is a raised
middle finger.


I'll take that to mean that you don't like the idea of converting your
bicycle into a computerized autonomous vehicle. I recommend a slogan
such as "Death before I change anything" for those occasions when you
confront progress. I assume you realize that by refusing to have a
remote controlled autopilot installed on your bicycle, you are
sentencing 30,000 people per year to needless and senseless deaths in
automobile accidents? You are also obstructing the technical progress
by which literally all the auto manufacturers are furiously
developing, presumably because they smell profit. Since a casual poll
of my friends and associates have indicated that they would gladly
purchase a driverless car for their wives and teenagers, but would
never buy one for themselves, it's amazing that all these auto
manufacturers would consider the R&D expenditure worthwhile. Maybe
they know something that we don't, such as if it can be made to work,
the government will buy into the program and shove it down our
throats?

Even if you refuse to embrace technical progress in cycling, what
about your customers? Surely you will have requests for totally safe
bicycles suitable for cyclists that are a hazard to themselves and
others. What will you say to bicycle commuters, who only want to
arrive on time and in one piece? What about the lost sales of wiring,
power, sensors, computers, radios, and bolt on accessories that will
soon be necessary on the bicycle of the future? What will you say to
a paraplegic who wants to experience an improvement in mobility? Can
you really look the other way to the local drug dealer who needs a
better get-away vehicle? Are you planning to ignore the potential
market of adding mobility to the IoT (Internet of Things) which with
the addition of some navigation hardware can act as a delivery vehicle
on behalf of the owner? Can you really ignore these and many other
benefits that only require that you relinquish a few fundamental
freedoms, personal preferences, and cycling habits?


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
  #43  
Old October 9th 17, 05:02 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default DRIVERLESS ELECTRIC CARS

On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 8:51:51 AM UTC-7, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 07:43:57 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

I'll take my bad attitude and antiauthoritarian streak
wherever my bike wants to go, sans tracking device. We're
USAians - defiance is among our dearest cultural values.

To the phrase, "Everyone ought to...", my reply is a raised
middle finger.


I'll take that to mean that you don't like the idea of converting your
bicycle into a computerized autonomous vehicle. I recommend a slogan
such as "Death before I change anything" for those occasions when you
confront progress. I assume you realize that by refusing to have a
remote controlled autopilot installed on your bicycle, you are
sentencing 30,000 people per year to needless and senseless deaths in
automobile accidents? You are also obstructing the technical progress
by which literally all the auto manufacturers are furiously
developing, presumably because they smell profit. Since a casual poll
of my friends and associates have indicated that they would gladly
purchase a driverless car for their wives and teenagers, but would
never buy one for themselves, it's amazing that all these auto
manufacturers would consider the R&D expenditure worthwhile. Maybe
they know something that we don't, such as if it can be made to work,
the government will buy into the program and shove it down our
throats?

Even if you refuse to embrace technical progress in cycling, what
about your customers? Surely you will have requests for totally safe
bicycles suitable for cyclists that are a hazard to themselves and
others. What will you say to bicycle commuters, who only want to
arrive on time and in one piece? What about the lost sales of wiring,
power, sensors, computers, radios, and bolt on accessories that will
soon be necessary on the bicycle of the future? What will you say to
a paraplegic who wants to experience an improvement in mobility? Can
you really look the other way to the local drug dealer who needs a
better get-away vehicle? Are you planning to ignore the potential
market of adding mobility to the IoT (Internet of Things) which with
the addition of some navigation hardware can act as a delivery vehicle
on behalf of the owner? Can you really ignore these and many other
benefits that only require that you relinquish a few fundamental
freedoms, personal preferences, and cycling habits?



Jeff, remember that this is a sue-happy society and you can be assured that if a self driving car hits another car, cyclist or pedestrian that that company will be done for.
  #44  
Old October 9th 17, 05:02 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default DRIVERLESS ELECTRIC CARS

On 10/9/2017 10:51 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 07:43:57 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

I'll take my bad attitude and antiauthoritarian streak
wherever my bike wants to go, sans tracking device. We're
USAians - defiance is among our dearest cultural values.

To the phrase, "Everyone ought to...", my reply is a raised
middle finger.


I'll take that to mean that you don't like the idea of converting your
bicycle into a computerized autonomous vehicle. I recommend a slogan
such as "Death before I change anything" for those occasions when you
confront progress. I assume you realize that by refusing to have a
remote controlled autopilot installed on your bicycle, you are
sentencing 30,000 people per year to needless and senseless deaths in
automobile accidents? You are also obstructing the technical progress
by which literally all the auto manufacturers are furiously
developing, presumably because they smell profit. Since a casual poll
of my friends and associates have indicated that they would gladly
purchase a driverless car for their wives and teenagers, but would
never buy one for themselves, it's amazing that all these auto
manufacturers would consider the R&D expenditure worthwhile. Maybe
they know something that we don't, such as if it can be made to work,
the government will buy into the program and shove it down our
throats?

Even if you refuse to embrace technical progress in cycling, what
about your customers? Surely you will have requests for totally safe
bicycles suitable for cyclists that are a hazard to themselves and
others. What will you say to bicycle commuters, who only want to
arrive on time and in one piece? What about the lost sales of wiring,
power, sensors, computers, radios, and bolt on accessories that will
soon be necessary on the bicycle of the future? What will you say to
a paraplegic who wants to experience an improvement in mobility? Can
you really look the other way to the local drug dealer who needs a
better get-away vehicle? Are you planning to ignore the potential
market of adding mobility to the IoT (Internet of Things) which with
the addition of some navigation hardware can act as a delivery vehicle
on behalf of the owner? Can you really ignore these and many other
benefits that only require that you relinquish a few fundamental
freedoms, personal preferences, and cycling habits?



At least on one point, you're out of date. Dope dealers
used to be very big into flashy race bikes. Oh, do I ever
miss those days! Park your expensive car in a not so
expensive neighborhood and it sticks out like an 'arrest me'
sign. Nobody sees bicycles, even nice ones. And they just
go with you, indoors/ upstairs out of sight.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


  #45  
Old October 9th 17, 05:06 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Jeff Liebermann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,018
Default DRIVERLESS ELECTRIC CARS

On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 21:29:58 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 20:14:20 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I came down a street this morning at about 30 mph dodging pot
holes the entire distance. Some 5 miles. No auto-car could do that.


At this time, that's probably true. However, they're working on the
problem.

"Driverless Cars Stay In Their Lane - Even If It Means Hitting
Potholes"
https://www.newsy.com/stories/autonomous-cars-take-pothole-hits-to-keep-other-drivers-safe/

"5 Things That Give Self-Driving Cars Headaches"
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/06/automobiles/autonomous-cars-problems.html
"But potholes are tough. They lie below the road surface,
not above it. A dark patch in the road ahead could be a
pothole. Or an oil spot. Or a puddle. Or even a filled-in
pothole."


Incidentally, one of the proposed solutions to the pothole problem is
for a self driving vehicle to "mark" the location of any road hazards
on the map which all the other cars use. It's essentially a crowd
sourced technology that in use today with traffic monitoring software
such as Waze and Google Maps. The first vehicle that finds a pothole
sends the GPS lat-long position of the pothole to the central
computer, which then redistributes the hazard to navigation
information to the other self-driving cars. The first car to drive
into the pot hole may have a problem, but those that follow can the
avoid the pothole.

"Google Is Developing a System to Map Potholes Using a Car's GPS"
http://time.com/money/4009901/google-patent-gps-potholes-tracking-map/
My explanation of the origin, nature, and characteristics of potholes,
a little about their reproductive habits, and their connection to
gophers:
http://members.cruzio.com/~jeffl/nooze/pothole.txt


--
Jeff Liebermann

150 Felker St #D
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
  #46  
Old October 9th 17, 05:58 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
(PeteCresswell)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,790
Default DRIVERLESS ELECTRIC CARS

Per Jeff Liebermann:
Once safety interlocks and
shields are introduced, the accident rate usually increases rather
than decreases. That's because workers genuinely believe that the
safety device will protect them from harm, no matter how stupid they
act. So, they do risky things and soon learn that safety devices only
protect against a limited number of possible actions.


Our Industrial Relations 101 prof told us the following (approximate)
story:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lumbering operations are notoriously dangerous. You have hundreds of
large, whole, trees piled up and workers have to navigate the mess.

One particular hazard is the crane: guys get killed and maimed as trees
being moved around by the crane impact workers.

One such operation had a conspicuously-good safety record and The Powers
That Be wanted to find out how it was accomplished.

They brought the crane operator in for questioning.

"How do you manage to keep such a good safety record in such a dangerous
environment?"

"Well, when I hook up a tree and start moving it, I yell 'RUN YOU
SONOFABITCHES, RUN!!!!'."
------------------------------------------------------------------------

And that was it.

There was no Snopes back then, so I don't know....


--
Pete Cresswell
  #47  
Old October 9th 17, 06:40 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Jeff Liebermann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,018
Default DRIVERLESS ELECTRIC CARS

On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 12:58:24 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per Jeff Liebermann:
Once safety interlocks and
shields are introduced, the accident rate usually increases rather
than decreases. That's because workers genuinely believe that the
safety device will protect them from harm, no matter how stupid they
act. So, they do risky things and soon learn that safety devices only
protect against a limited number of possible actions.


Our Industrial Relations 101 prof told us the following (approximate)
story:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lumbering operations are notoriously dangerous. You have hundreds of
large, whole, trees piled up and workers have to navigate the mess.

One particular hazard is the crane: guys get killed and maimed as trees
being moved around by the crane impact workers.

One such operation had a conspicuously-good safety record and The Powers
That Be wanted to find out how it was accomplished.

They brought the crane operator in for questioning.

"How do you manage to keep such a good safety record in such a dangerous
environment?"

"Well, when I hook up a tree and start moving it, I yell 'RUN YOU
SONOFABITCHES, RUN!!!!'."
------------------------------------------------------------------------

And that was it.

There was no Snopes back then, so I don't know....


Probably baloney. You can't hear anyone yelling over the noise of a
big diesel crane motor. Large logging cranes also have a long reach,
making the distance where one can be heard a problem.
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=logging+crane
Having someone suddenly run in some random direction is a really bad
idea. Without first looking around, chances are good that they'll run
into a harazardous situation, rather than away from it. Best to stay
put, look around, determine the best exit strategy, and then do
whatever is appropriate. Lastly, there's the "sky is falling" effect.
If the crane operator really does yell "run" with every load, fairly
soon, everyone in the yard is going to ignore him.

Unfortunately, my safety story is quite real. I don't have time to
tell the story in detail, but basically, the safety guards and
interlocks were responsible for more accidents than the unsafe
original equipment. Much of this was in the 1970's and 1980's, when
OSHA was empowered to demand these safety features, and machinery
manufacturers were forced to retrofit existing machinery with
dangerous safety guards and awkward interlocks. It's much better
today, but the basic principle applies. If people feel that they're
safe, they tend to do risky things on the assumption that the safety
devices will protect them from injury.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
  #48  
Old October 9th 17, 07:20 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,511
Default DRIVERLESS ELECTRIC CARS

On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 11:32:54 PM UTC-4, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Methinks that much the same will be when driverless cars are
introduced while chanting the "safety" mantra. Drivers will believe
that the driverless car technology will protect them from harm, and
proceed to perform new and original stupid stunts, testing the limits
of the new technology. If the programmers have anticipated such
stunts, then these drivers might live to tell the story at the next
party. If not, the drivers become a statistic. I'm not worried
because natural selection should be able to eliminate drivers with
more faith in the new technology than understanding.


Yep. You're describing "risk compensation." It's real.

Now, back to my question. How much are you willing to relinquish for
the privilege of riding your bicycle on the driverless highway of the
future? Are you ready for robo-bike?


I'm not willing to relinquish my right to travel by bicycle.

- Frank Krygowski
  #49  
Old October 9th 17, 07:30 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,511
Default DRIVERLESS ELECTRIC CARS

On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 11:51:51 AM UTC-4, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
... it's amazing that all these auto
manufacturers would consider the R&D expenditure worthwhile. Maybe
they know something that we don't, such as if it can be made to work,
the government will buy into the program and shove it down our
throats?


I really doubt that. Consider: The attempt to force seat belt interlocks
down our throats was a failure. People will put up with some things (like
explosive safety devices in their cars) if they're pretty much invisible.
But people tend to reject interventions that require behavior changes they
don't want to make.

- Frank Krygowski
  #50  
Old October 9th 17, 07:39 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,374
Default DRIVERLESS ELECTRIC CARS


ROBOCYCLE ?

is but a small rectangle....go to hell n we know your there

enforcing cycle laws against children is $$$$$$$$$$$$$
but Mom can sew a transponder to their spec cycle shorts

a bicycle isnot a gun or a manifesto.

if turning the bike life into a manifesto... kinda anticycling

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Electric cars in the wet NEMO UK 3 February 16th 15 05:09 PM
OBIT ELECTRIC CARS kolldata Techniques 2 October 30th 11 10:49 PM
Charging points for cars but what about electric bicycles? Doug[_3_] UK 17 February 27th 10 07:10 PM
Electric Car Conversion Companies: Alternatives To Gas Powered Cars n41beyha Unicycling 0 November 27th 07 05:40 PM
An Electric Car Conversion Kit Will Not Affect Your Cars Speed OrPick-Up n41beyha Techniques 0 November 27th 07 05:19 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.