The cars of the future are virtual, when everyone of us is hooked up to the matrix.
Anyway, detecting fatigue is hard as fuck on itself (even when you monitor heart rate), the next thing is convincing the asshole on the drivers seat that it is better for him and way better for everyone else not to continue driving.
Believe it or not, our bodies already have really rather good smart fibers to detect fatigue and intoxication due to alcohol and other drugs. Has that ever prevented your average asshole from driving in that state? What we'd need is a car that slows down in a safe and controlled way, pulls over and refuses to start again. Is it likely that we get that? Chances are low, I guess.
Even if we get a car like that, some smartass will include a "manual override" function so the assholes can continue driving. Imho, all the money wasted on such projects should be redirected into making a comfortable and working automatic traffic system, where the human factor is removed at all. But the again, the germans treat their cars and freedom to travel at the speed of sound on ze autobahn in the same way as you americans treat your rifles: "From my cold dead hands!"
Anyway, there *are* cars fitted with breathalyzers (sp?) which require that you blow into the tube and get a "not intoxicated" reading in order to start the engine. However, those systems are only given to people who have *already* gotten a DUI.
That just doesn't make sense. If someone already got a DUI they shouldn't be given any opportunity to drive again. None.
(However, as someone who has had a family member killed by a drunk driver, I may not be totally objective on this topic.)
as the privately owned number of cars drops - aka the owner is almost never the driver - this probably will become more and more reality.
Since, if you lend cars away by the RFID of a passport, you have to protect your property, right?
Fri Jan 30 2015 09:24:36 ESTfrom IGnatius T Foobar @ UncensoredMay I remind you that our American rifles are the reason you Germans aren't still living under a Nazi regime.
5 years from now, we'll start seeing self-driving cars. Drunk? no prob. you're not driving anyway.
I aint getting younger. There is still a lot to be worked out, there is still a lot of human interaction.
zooer: would you give up driving if it meant that you could read/write/work/watch a video while getting from point a to point b with significantly lower risk of accidents, and probably at about the same speed?
.oO(I ride trains or busses for that)
when I am in a car, I don't think I would watch a movie but then again I do watch tv/movies on planes. I enjoy
driving and the drive. Thankfully I have only been in two accidents. Once many many years ago when my mother
insisted I take her car because of the bad weather, I hit and ice patch and not being familuar with the car and
how to respond I slid into the other lane and was hit. I was traveling below the speed limit, was going around
a very slight bend in the road, the car kept going straight. I crossed the double yellow line enough to side
swipe the other car. They took off the rear bumper of my mother's car.
The second accident was in South Florida and traffic was traveling VERY slowly. I tapped the bumper of the car
ahead of me and it caused my car's bumper
to wrinkle slightly. This is the newer (97 model) rubber/plastic
bumper, not a good solid chrome bumper. The other driver didn't want to stop. I actually reported the accident
so I could not get charged with a hit and run... there were no tickets issued to me because the other driver
I am lucky in that sense. I do know that my driving skills will get worse as I age so I welcome the idea of
self driving cars and look forward to their use. For now, I still want to drive.
The owner of The Oatmeal dot com, Matt Inman was able to test drive... I mean tavel in one of Google's self
driving car on the public roads, here is his comments, in comic form, on it.
Bart - I used to work in Raanana - I live in Modiin (you can check a map if you care). At the time, a car ride took about 45-50 minutes, and bus would take 1:30-2:15 each way (1:30 was only if everything timed out perfectly, and it rarely did) and required a minimum of 3 buses. It's easy to understand why someone would prefer to take a car rather than spend an additional two to two and a half hours in transit daily.
yea, looks pretty well connected by highway...
but probably not in terms of public transportation ;-)
one of the reasons to pick my current job and force my way out of gemalto (which one could argue did cost me some financial benefits on top of those I got) without trying to get other alternatives was the direct train connection, since I did not expect to find any job matching my profile remotely as close.
So far I'm pretty much satisfied with my choice.Best job I had in over a decade.
being late to the smartwatch party, maybe not as late to the smart car party?
Sun Feb 08 2015 10:00:07 AM EST from vince-q @ Cascade Lodge BBSIf, for any reason, you are hit by a self-driven car, WHO DO YOU SUE?
You sue Google because they have deep pockets. Duh.
Feb 13 2015 8:03am from IGnatius T Foobar @uncnsrd (Uncensored)
Sun Feb 08 2015 10:00:07 AM EST from vince-q @ Cascade Lodge BBS
If, for any reason, you are hit by a self-driven car, WHO DO YOU
You sue Google because they have deep pockets. Duh.
That all depends.
My bet is that any auto manufacturer selling a google-based driverless car will have to sign a "save and hold harmless" contract with google which will make google impervious to any litigation unless you are prepared to prove fraud and/or criminal liability. *Very* difficult in a civil court - that sort of claim normally does not survive Defendant's Motion to Quash/Dismiss ("Demurrer" in California) unless Prima Facie proofs are attached to the First Papers as Exhibits. And *that* is a practice most Plaintiffs do *not* follow since it does too much "hand tipping" at the very beginning instead of forcing Defendant into a round of Interrogatories which allows both sides to make *very* long, expensive and not always productive.
"Motion Practice" is the key to any successful bout of civil litigation. The goal is to make the ongoing process time-consuming and load up the legal fees of your opposition which goes to "encouraging them to settle" rather than continue to face what could easily amount to years of court hearings on motions, which will quickly run up legal fees that, in many cases, could rival the amount sought by the Plaintiff in the original filings, under the "theory" of "pay me or pay court fees and more lawyer bills, either way you're paying."
Of course, the Defendant can also play the "motion practice" game, so it can easily work both ways.
You're just some random third party who can sue the manufacturer (Lexus Snobmobiles Inc.) or the driver (Google).
But yes, you are correct in observing that Google would definitely invest a lot of time and money into motion practice the first time that happened, in order to avoid the onslaught of additional suits that would be filed if a bad precedent were to be set.
On the other hand, you can probably count on lots of people being paid by Microsoft to fling themselves in front of Google-driven cars to make things difficult.
Flying cars have been just a decade or two away for half a century now. At this point the problem isn't that we can't build them, it's that we can't trust the typical driver to operate one safely, and when pairs of them start falling out of the sky from accidents, the resulting lawsuits will consume 350% of the GDP, I like run-on sentences, and comma splices.
Turning it off and on again not possible until a dealer fixes it
(from the feeds ;-)