The future of the automobile?

. ADestroyer360 wrote:I'm still waiting for teleport technology.

Namorg-Kun wrote:2009 much?

. ADestroyer360 wrote:I think this might fit the 'car of the future' title a bit better.

. ADestroyer360 wrote:I think this might fit the 'car of the future' title a bit better.

Jagdgeschwader wrote:The computer can't be trusted, if someone decides to go driving in their car, but wants to go to sleep because the car can drive itself, suddenly the computer fails for whatever reason, you have a dead or injured person/persons. Not saying it would always happen, but it could. You'd have to baby-sit it by sitting at the wheel for safety reasons.

Might as well just drive the car?

Desert Sleepy wrote:

Jagdgeschwader wrote:The computer can't be trusted, if someone decides to go driving in their car, but wants to go to sleep because the car can drive itself, suddenly the computer fails for whatever reason, you have a dead or injured person/persons. Not saying it would always happen, but it could. You'd have to baby-sit it by sitting at the wheel for safety reasons.

Might as well just drive the car?

I'd sooner trust a computer than a person. Even if the computer fucks up a lot, I'm sure the amount of fatalities would go down (due to the fact that humans would likely fuck up a lot more and a lot worse).

That, and this could help deal with the problem of drunk drivers. For the record, I'm not saying that self driving cars are ready for the road or anything like that, but it would be more ideal than human drivers.

Jagdgeschwader wrote:

Desert Sleepy wrote:I'd sooner trust a computer than a person. Even if the computer fucks up a lot, I'm sure the amount of fatalities would go down (due to the fact that humans would likely fuck up a lot more and a lot worse).

That, and this could help deal with the problem of drunk drivers. For the record, I'm not saying that self driving cars are ready for the road or anything like that, but it would be more ideal than human drivers.

Well that's where you're wrong. Computers should never replace human beings. It's a very slippery slope. Also, a drunk driver is someone doing something obviously wrong, whereas the entire point of a self-driving car is to be hands free doing other things while it drives itself. You're doing nothing wrong, and if it fails, that's your life on the line.

Technology will be the death of us for sure. It advances far faster than society can hope to keep up. Not even 100 years ago something like this was considered impossible and authors and thinkers have been predicting a downfall like that to happen for even longer.

Desert Sleepy wrote:

Jagdgeschwader wrote:

Desert Sleepy wrote:I'd sooner trust a computer than a person. Even if the computer fucks up a lot, I'm sure the amount of fatalities would go down (due to the fact that humans would likely fuck up a lot more and a lot worse).

That, and this could help deal with the problem of drunk drivers. For the record, I'm not saying that self driving cars are ready for the road or anything like that, but it would be more ideal than human drivers.

Well that's where you're wrong. Computers should never replace human beings. It's a very slippery slope. Also, a drunk driver is someone doing something obviously wrong, whereas the entire point of a self-driving car is to be hands free doing other things while it drives itself. You're doing nothing wrong, and if it fails, that's your life on the line.

Technology will be the death of us for sure. It advances far faster than society can hope to keep up. Not even 100 years ago something like this was considered impossible and authors and thinkers have been predicting a downfall like that to happen for even longer.

Are you implying that advances in technology will lead to some sort of robot apocalypse? What with all the "death of us" and "slippery slope" talk, that's what it sounds like. Just out of curiosity, how often have "slippery slope" theories even been true (in reference to something going down a slippery slope and somehow making the world a worse place)? I know that phrase was first said a while ago, but has anything since then really been a good example of it?

Anyway, back on the topic. If the computer fails, it's your life on the line, but it's also other people's lives as well. Same thing with drunk driving. I've heard somewhere before that driving a car is like driving a two ton bullet. Meaning, when a human messes up, not only are they in danger, but anything and anyone in the path of their two ton vehicle is as well. All I'm saying is that a self driving car will likely result in less accidents. Sure, you may not be comfortable putting your life in the hands of a computer. If so, you can just watch the road as it drives. But if you take the wheel, everyone else on the road is at your mercy. I'd rather be driven alongside much less fallible computers than cellphone chattering, multi-tasking, drinking and driving humans. Basically, I think that self driving cars, when perfected and allowed to communicate with other vehicles on the road, would make much safer drivers than humans, and result in thousands upon thousands less fatal car accidents.

Desert Sleepy wrote:OK.

Well, on the topic of the flying car, why don't they just make cheap helicopters instead? I'm sure helicopters would be a much easier route to go, seeing as they don't require a tremendous runway.

Plus, I think the point of a car is that it drives on the ground. They should just call this thing a personal plane or something.

andrew wrote:Flying cars means flying cops. Oh boy

Dankhat 420 wrote:

andrew wrote:Flying cars means flying cops. Oh boy

DeadApe - San wrote: