Nevada Legalizes Self-Driving Cars

[MRoCkEd]

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2011/06/25/nevada-legalizes-self-driving-cars-0


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_eVE6KQ4Jg&feature=player_embedded

[aGameOfThrones]

Good. Now they can give tickets to the computer instead of the human.

[Napoleon's Shadow]

Well on long stretches of straight boring interstates it makes sense.

[newyearsrevolution08]

Good. Now they can give tickets to the computer instead of the human.

I never thought about that one lol,

"but officer it wasn't me it was "jonny 5 alive" that ran that red light!"

[angelatc]

And another huge miss from Michigan and Detroit's automakers.... why on earth aren't they testing new auto technology in the motor city?

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Wait, self-driving cars AND prostitution are legal in Nevada?

oh crap. One or the other, but not both :D

[newyearsrevolution08]

Wait, self-driving cars AND prostitution are legal in Nevada?

oh crap. One or the other, but not both :D

hell no need to park, just hop in the back seat LOL

[Dr.3D]

Seems like a pretty aggressive driving style that thing has. Doubt I would want to pay for the fuel and tires when it drives like that. Maybe there is a selector to tell it to drive like an old person.

[newyearsrevolution08]

Seems like a pretty aggressive driving style that thing has. Doubt I would want to pay for the fuel and tires when it drives like that. Maybe there is a selector to tell it to drive like an old person.

hell yeah with the option of every once in awhile confusing the brake for the gas and plowing through a starbucks or other building LOL

"sorry about that officer, I had the old lady setting on again"

[Dr.3D]

hell yeah with the option of every once in awhile confusing the brake for the gas and plowing through a starbucks or other building LOL

"sorry about that officer, I had the old lady setting on again"
Well, that video had it driving like an immature imbecile. There must be a way to moderate between senile and stupid.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Cop: "Do you know why I pulled you over, son?"
Driver: "No sir."
Cop: "You were doing Ludicrous Speed when there were two signs back there that clearly said Ridiculous Speed."

[Danke]

Great, now the punks can go back to texting while driving...

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Well, that video had it driving like an immature imbecile. There must be a way to moderate between senile and stupid.

lol. Yeah, the video was pretty bad. I don;t know who would want to even be in that car.



But today, Nevada – at Google’s urging – became the first state to pass a bill that allows driverless cars. Wow--a government that actually repealed a law.

Well, that would be impressive, but I'm hardly surprised a large corporation is getting laws they like.

[Napoleon's Shadow]

Seems like a pretty aggressive driving style that thing has. Doubt I would want to pay for the fuel and tires when it drives like that. Maybe there is a selector to tell it to drive like an old person.New York setting vs Mississippi setting.

[Romulus]

Next step - Outlaw ALL cars that are NOT self driving to keep us SAFE.

See where this is going?

[squarepusher]

Why don't I trust this?

[flightlesskiwi]

Why don't I trust this?

because you have a brain. and, apparently, you use it.

[123tim]

Why don't I trust this?



because you have a brain. and, apparently, you use it.


Indeed.
Wait until real life kicks in and this doesn't work as it did on the test track.

Shoot a couple of deer in front of this and then see what it does. Will it slow down for a deer standing beside the road, ready to bolt?

[Napoleon's Shadow]

Ever seen the film "Minority Report"?

[Brian4Liberty]

Why don't I trust this?

Because it will have secret, remote, backdoor access for the government, including the "run into a wall at high speed" command... ;)

[123tim]

Next step - Outlaw ALL cars that are NOT self driving to keep us SAFE.

See where this is going?

Yep. You can really see it from this quote:

"Our goal is to help prevent traffic accidents, free up people's time and reduce carbon emissions by fundamentally changing car use," project leader Sebastian Thrun told the Daily Mail.

There was, however, one hiccup during Google's testing phases: One of the unmanned vehicles was rear-ended by a human driver.

Read more: http://techland.time.com/2011/06/24/nevada-legislation-paves-way-for-googles-self-driving-robo-cars/#ixzz1QJAh7BD1


(obtained from another article)

[TheDrakeMan]

Even if this new Google car causes a few car crashes, it'll still be safer than a human-operated car. I'm really excited for this.


Next step - Outlaw ALL cars that are NOT self driving to keep us SAFE.

This is the next logical step. It won't happen until the majority of people own these self-driving cars, though.

[flightlesskiwi]

Even if this new Google car causes a few car crashes, it'll still be safer than a human-operated car. I'm really excited for this.


This is the next logical step.It won't happen until the majority of people own these self-driving cars, though.

my sarcasm radar is broken.:confused::confused:

[TheDrakeMan]

my sarcasm radar is broken.:confused::confused:

Don't be silly. If it's proven that Google's cars are indeed statistically safer than human-operated cars, then why wouldn't you outlaw non-autonomous cars? Obviously you can't do it right away, you need to give the market time to adapt to these new vehicles. But once the majority of people are using these kinds of cars, then I think it'll be appropriate for the government to intervene in some way. After all, humans should have a right to safety in transportation, why else do we have speed limits?

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Don't be silly. If it's proven that Google's cars are indeed statistically safer than human-operated cars, then why wouldn't you outlaw non-autonomous cars? Obviously you can't do it right away, you need to give the market time to adapt to these new vehicles. But once the majority of people are using these kinds of cars, then I think it'll be appropriate for the government to intervene in some way. After all, humans should have a right to safety in transportation, why else do we have speed limits?

sarcasm, ...right?

[pcosmar]

sarcasm, ...right?
I would hope to think so.

why else do we have speed limits?

To control and limit individuals choice.
To generate revenue.

[pcosmar]

And another huge miss from Michigan and Detroit's automakers.... why on earth aren't they testing new auto technology in the motor city?

Detroit has. long ago.
the first one I saw was in the 70s (published in Playboy, as I recall)
I think it has not caught on because most people like to have some control over their choices and their lives.

[flightlesskiwi]

Don't be silly. If it's proven that Google's cars are indeed statistically safer than human-operated cars, then why wouldn't you outlaw non-autonomous cars? Obviously you can't do it right away, you need to give the market time to adapt to these new vehicles. But once the majority of people are using these kinds of cars, then I think it'll be appropriate for the government to intervene in some way. After all, humans should have a right to safety in transportation, why else do we have speed limits?

Of course! Your sound and rational argument has won me over! As a bonus I will no longer disregard my and other's right to safety by disobeying the speed limits set by those who are in authority and by that virtue know better than I. I feel so much shame for having done so on the past. How could I have been so blind!!

:p

[thehungarian]

This is very cool, but yes, Minority Report, iRobot, blah blah blah. Next step will be mandated driverless cars and then tracks for the driverless cars and you won't be able to even drive your car on the roads because of the tracks. Fuck you, Spielberg.

[thehungarian]

sarcasm, ...right?

Internet sarcasm can be quite difficult to decipher sometimes. I'm not sure, myself.

[pcosmar]

Internet sarcasm can be quite difficult to decipher sometimes. I'm not sure, myself.

That is the reason for tags. such as.
/s, /sarc, /sarcasm <sarcasm> and other variations. Also the favorite, :rolleyes:

[Anti Federalist]

I hate this for so many reasons, many of which were already stated, I don't need to repeat myself.

Fuck a bunch of computer cars.

[AFPVet]

That is the reason for tags. such as.
/s, /sarc, /sarcasm <sarcasm> and other variations. Also the favorite, :rolleyes:

Ah yes, the :rolleyes:

Gotta love the emoticons :)

[pcosmar]

Self driving cars????

No thank you.
putting responsibility on others is what has degraded things to the point they are today.

I like independence.

I also want a 1957 anything (Chevy, Ford, Willy's)
something real.

[Airborn]

sarcasm, ...right?

don't think so... just read his other posts. I don't think he gets the overall message of this liberty movement/ron paul..

[pcosmar]

don't think so... just read his other posts. I don't think he gets the overall message of this liberty movement/ron paul..

some don't.
:(

[heavenlyboy34]

some don't.
:(
true that. :(

[Anti Federalist]

sarcasm, ...right?

And no, he's quite serious.

The kind of person that would happily mandate an implanted RFID chip in every newborn baby, to keep them safe.

[2young2vote]

I don't see what the problem is. There are already highway lanes that you have to pay extra to use so you can skip the traffic. I think an autocar lane would work pretty much the same.

[smartguy911]

Why is Google pushing this? Google relies heavily on information they collect on users, so I am guessing they will use tracking information to find out where you shop, so they can target ads???

[aGameOfThrones]

The computer will get the bill when a fender bender occurs. Yay!

[Chester Copperpot]

at 1:25 when the computer disengages he's headed right for the wall.

fuck that.

If it were a horse Id trust it.. but this has disaster written all over it.. Wait.. there will be a school bus full of kids going off a cliff because of some self-driving school bus...

we need to stop placating all the stupid people in the world.

[123tim]

I reported earlier this year about a cool new technology: cars that drive themselves. Google already designed one, and it drove more than a thousand miles on public roads using just a computer chip and a sensor to detect other cars. It only crashed once, and in that case it was rear-ended while it was stopped at a red light.

So why can’t you buy one yet? Because they’re illegal. Outdated government rules in every state require a driver always to be in control of the wheel.

Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2011/06/25/nevada-legalizes-self-driving-cars-0#ixzz1QNm9MkYc


Four questions:

1.) How was this car tested on public roads when a (human) driver wasn't in control of the car?

2.) How are our current laws on this matter already outdated?

3.) Is 1,000 miles really enough miles to make a decision on the safety, and dependability, of a new technology?

4.) Did John Stossel really write this? I knew that I couldn't trust him.



One of the most interesting aspects of this whole project is that local authorities were fine with Google road-testing these cars. “We’ve briefed local police on our work,” Google noted today and said that human beings are always present in the driver’s seat when the cars are on the road just in case a manual override is needed. The only accident over all these months involved someone else rear-ending one of the cars.

http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/09/google-car-video/

[ForLibertyFight]

So what if the self-driving car gets into an accident, who will be responsible? the owner or the computer system?

[VBRonPaulFan]

Well, that video had it driving like an immature imbecile. There must be a way to moderate between senile and stupid.

it was on a test course. obviously they were testing the capabilities of the system to see how it handled situations in where it would have to quickly respond.

i think this is awesome. it would be great to have something like this on a long trip where you'd need to drive for 8 hours of mostly monotonous driving. just kick it on and read, and passively pay attention to what's going on. my biggest concern with this would be making sure it isn't in a vehicle with any sort of on-star system, so where i was travelling could not be relayed to google, and what would happen in the case of a sensor failure. it would kind of suck to be travelling 75mph on a highway and have a sensor fail and the system just suddenly kick into manual mode with basically no notification.

those of you saying hell no are probably being a little too 'neo-luddistic'. there isn't any reason to outright shun new technology just because there is room for abuse. just make sure you understand it, know what you're getting into, and know how to get around the bullshit.

[VBRonPaulFan]

So what if the self-driving car gets into an accident, who will be responsible? the owner or the computer system?

i'm sure the responsibility would end up falling on the driver. google would probably have some clause where you signed over responsibility to yourself for using the system. they'll probably spout some line in the text of 'while the system is fully autonomous, you must be responsible at all times for making sure the system is working properly...'

[flightlesskiwi]

it was on a test course. obviously they were testing the capabilities of the system to see how it handled situations in where it would have to quickly respond.

i think this is awesome. it would be great to have something like this on a long trip where you'd need to drive for 8 hours of mostly monotonous driving. just kick it on and read, and passively pay attention to what's going on. my biggest concern with this would be making sure it isn't in a vehicle with any sort of on-star system, so where i was travelling could not be relayed to google, and what would happen in the case of a sensor failure. it would kind of suck to be travelling 75mph on a highway and have a sensor fail and the system just suddenly kick into manual mode with basically no notification.

those of you saying hell no are probably being a little too 'neo-luddistic'. there isn't any reason to outright shun new technology just because there is room for abuse. just make sure you understand it, know what you're getting into, and know how to get around the bullshit.

don't people do this anyway? and don't bet on the non-data/gps gathering aspect of any of it.

and here's an interesting thought: the FAA restricts unmanned aircraft (drones) basically to fly only over rural areas. drones have been in the skies for decades now (and, fyi, they used to be considered "disposable"). now, i get the whole "unmanned" aspect would maybe be a non-issue with these cars, but, think about it. a technology that has been tested and proven is still restricted in the skies where auto-pilot is the name of the game and they're gonna let loose on this just at the click of google's mouse. call me tin-foil, but something else is going on here.

another thought: maximum overdrive!!! ;)

[Xenophage]

I didn't know these forums were trolled by a bunch of paranoid Luddites. :rolleyes:

You all better get used to it. The advent of A.I. during this century will change human society more dramatically and more quickly than your wildest imaginings.

On a side note, Google is not out to steal your kidneys and control your mind. They're out to make a profit, and in a free society that means offering value to consumers. If you're concerned about the possible abuse of human liberty that new technology affords, your only enemy is the state. The only difference between technological dystopia and utopia is: how authoritarian is our government?

As time marches on, it becomes ever more crucial that we limit the size, scope and power of government. Not only to ensure that we can benefit from the tremendously cool technological revolutions that await us, but also to ensure that they cannot be used to oppress our freedoms.

[acptulsa]

Hate to wish disaster on people, but I sure hope this ends very, very badly.

Driving is fun. There's little enough that's fun that they still allow us to do as it is.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Ever seen the film "Minority Report"?

I was more thinking Demolition Man.

[Anti Federalist]

those of you saying hell no are probably being a little too 'neo-luddistic'. there isn't any reason to outright shun new technology just because there is room for abuse. just make sure you understand it, know what you're getting into, and know how to get around the bullshit.

Sounds like the argument made for the surveillance grid about 25 years ago.

Now, not one square inch of the earth's surface is outside the reach of total 24/7 surveillance.

And a whole generation does not know what it was like to walk down a street without a thousand cameras in your face.

All you are doing is offering a bland rationalization for a technology to take over another aspect of your life and render us more superfluous, and with less freedom in the bargain, because if you think that any autodrive system will not be under constant and total surveillance, you're nuts.

[ProIndividual]

These things have been tested over and again, no accidents yet. They also estimate that we could fit 3 times as many cars on our existing roads as now...meaning less road fees to cover the growing population of drivers annually. This also means BETTER, not worse, gas mileage. Don't let technology scare you.

[Anti Federalist]

On a side note, Google is not out to steal your kidneys and control your mind. They're out to make a profit, and in a free society that means offering value to consumers. If you're concerned about the possible abuse of human liberty that new technology affords, your only enemy is the state. The only difference between technological dystopia and utopia is: how authoritarian is our government?

What nonsense.

Corporate tyranny can be just as invasive, just as opressive and just as abusive government tyranny.

When the two are hand in hand, as we have now, it's the worst of both worlds.

[acptulsa]

The usual incrementalism. Get used to it. You shouldn't complain, it isn't mandatory. But it will be mandatory, and we shouldn't have to get used to it.

I love to drive. I really love it. Is it dangerous? Sure. So is mountaineering.

Someone wants to protect my life, so I shouldn't complain when that life is no longer worth living. Sorry, but I don't buy it.

[Dr.3D]

When those creating the new technology are big enough to get government to mandate the use of said technology, it behooves us to become concerned.

[Anti Federalist]

These things have been tested over and again, no accidents yet. They also estimate that we could fit 3 times as many cars on our existing roads as now...meaning less road fees to cover the growing population of drivers annually. This also means BETTER, not worse, gas mileage. Don't let technology scare you.

Why not?

Seems like every time I turn around, some new technology, that was praised by the technofiles as being the latest, greatest, bestest thing since sliced bread when it first appears, has almost immediately been adopted in such a way as to end up restricting even more freedom.

[acptulsa]

Don't let technology scare you.

Technology doesn't scare me, as a general rule. Like photoshop. I'm all for it.

In fact, I'll photoshop my pic into an image of Fukushima, and you go there with a self-timing camera and a tripod, and we'll compare. Deal?

[Anti Federalist]

Silence, Mundane!

We'll tell you what you like, got it?!

And what you like is the pretty promise of a self driving car, that you can just turn on and go about texting, or beating your meat, or sleeping, as it glides effortlessly and safely down the road.

The reality will be far from that: you will under constant surveillance and you will be required to maintain a "sterile cockpit", nothing will be allowed but total concentration and monitoring of the autodrive system.

Just ask any commercial pilot, they'll tell you about your "autodrive" future.

And it ain't pretty...


The usual incrementalism. Get used to it. You shouldn't complain, it isn't mandatory. But it will be mandatory, and we shouldn't have to get used to it.

I love to drive. I really love it. Is it dangerous? Sure. So is mountaineering.

Someone wants to protect my life, so I shouldn't complain when that life is no longer worth living. Sorry, but I don't buy it.

[ProIndividual]

Why not?

Seems like every time I turn around, some new technology, that was praised by the technofiles as being the latest, greatest, bestest thing since sliced bread when it first appears, has almost immediately been adopted in such a way as to end up restricting even more freedom.

Are you as afraid of living past 35? How about almost no women dying in child birth? How about guns? I bet when they were invented the knife lovers were outraged...fear of technology should have a -phobia set aside for it...maybe they do already...and maybe some of you suffer from it.

You're right, you're right. Why should we embrace gas prices decreasing by a large percentage? lol.

[acptulsa]

Are you as afraid of living past 35? How about almost no women dying in child birth? How about guns? I bet when they were invented the knife lovers were outraged...fear of technology should have a -phobia set aside for it...maybe they do already...and maybe some of you suffer from it.

You're right, you're right. Why should we embrace gas prices decreasing by a large percentage? lol.

I'm scared of DDT and hydrogen bombs, and stay well clear of imploding buildings. How about you? Your notion that everything man hath ever made is safe is just stupid, if you don't mind my saying so.

That said, I believe I mentioned something or another about how this will lead to something I like to do being outlawed. I believe that would be a fear of what men will do, not of technology itself. So why don't you get a civil tongue in your fingers and admit that I have a right to feel as I do?

[Anti Federalist]

Are you as afraid of living past 35? How about almost no women dying in child birth? How about guns? I bet when they were invented the knife lovers were outraged...fear of technology should have a -phobia set aside for it...maybe they do already...and maybe some of you suffer from it.

You're right, you're right. Why should we embrace gas prices decreasing by a large percentage? lol.

New does not neccesarily equal good.

[Dr.3D]

New does not neccesarily equal good.

Especially when mandated for the greater good.

Edit: Case in point... the killing of the incandescent light bulb market via government decree.

[ProIndividual]

New does not neccesarily equal good.

But it usually does, so stop wanting to hold back the majority of good things for the minority of bad things. When you're an adult, the excuse "the bad apple spoils the bunch" is bunk. That only works on/for children.

And I agree with 3D, it should NEVER be mandated...but that's an issue with mandates, not tech.

[flightlesskiwi]

But it usually does, so stop wanting to hold back the majority of good things for the minority of bad things. When you're an adult, the excuse "the bad apple spoils the bunch" is bunk. That only works on/for children.

And I agree with 3D, it should NEVER be mandated...but that's an issue with mandates, not tech.

until the robots take over and they make the mandates. then it's both. :p:p:p;)

sorry, had to. :D

[Anti Federalist]

But it usually does, so stop wanting to hold back the majority of good things for the minority of bad things. When you're an adult, the excuse "the bad apple spoils the bunch" is bunk. That only works on/for children.

And I agree with 3D, it should NEVER be mandated...but that's an issue with mandates, not tech.

Now you're just arguing for your opinion.

[Cutlerzzz]

Yet again, a good portion of this board is in favor of coercive regulation.

[Vessol]

hell no need to park, just hop in the back seat lol

roflmao!

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Yet again, a good portion of this board is in favor of coercive regulation.

Really hard to break old habits.

If something is good, then we obviously need the government to force people to do it.

[VBRonPaulFan]

Sounds like the argument made for the surveillance grid about 25 years ago.

Now, not one square inch of the earth's surface is outside the reach of total 24/7 surveillance.

And a whole generation does not know what it was like to walk down a street without a thousand cameras in your face.

All you are doing is offering a bland rationalization for a technology to take over another aspect of your life and render us more superfluous, and with less freedom in the bargain, because if you think that any autodrive system will not be under constant and total surveillance, you're nuts.

and yet, this is nothing even similar. you should be totally against cars with your rationale, since it enables government employees to track/follow you that much easier :rolleyes:

the problem isn't the technology, it's the abuse of it by the government. don't mix the two together in some kind of sick, twisted fantasy. you hate the abuse of the technology. that doesn't mean that we as a people shouldn't move forward. that means we as a people should work that much harder to reject government involvement in our lives.

[pcosmar]

the problem isn't the technology, it's the abuse of it by the government..

To a large extent that is true. And the Government HAS abused every technology available to it.
There is NO reason to believe that they wouldn't.

My objection is from another track though. I like my independence.
I like to have personal control over speed and direction.
And from spending many years in the auto industry, I appreciate simplicity.
I want the mechanical failures to have as little impact on my safety as possible.
If power steering fails there is still a mechanical connection, and I can still safely control the car.
If "fly by wire" fails I cannot.

[Anti Federalist]

and yet, this is nothing even similar. you should be totally against cars with your rationale, since it enables government employees to track/follow you that much easier :rolleyes:

the problem isn't the technology, it's the abuse of it by the government. don't mix the two together in some kind of sick, twisted fantasy. you hate the abuse of the technology. that doesn't mean that we as a people shouldn't move forward. that means we as a people should work that much harder to reject government involvement in our lives.

Cars don't track you.

Autodrive cars sure as shit will.

To me, it's all about the surveillance grid, and it's why all these analogies fail.

This isn't cars or buggies, candles or light bulbs.

This is another system that will, by it's very nature require full time surveillance and monitoring.

At no time before in human history has the ability to track every single person's actions and movements existed.

It does now, and that makes me not paranoid, but claustrophobic.

[Xenophage]

What nonsense.

Corporate tyranny can be just as invasive, just as opressive and just as abusive government tyranny.

When the two are hand in hand, as we have now, it's the worst of both worlds.

Corporate tyranny is really only statist tyranny. Don't you see? If there's no gun, there's no victim. Government is the gun. Sans government power, corporations have NO power. No corporation can force you to do anything in a free society upheld by an objective rule of law. If a corporation has the ability to oppress you by force of arms, it is only because the force and the arms come from the government.

[acptulsa]

Corporate tyranny is really only statist tyranny. Don't you see? If there's no gun, there's no victim. Government is the gun. Sans government power, corporations have NO power.

lulz

How many mercenaries can you afford? How many could Wal Mart theoretically afford? Get real.

[torchbearer]

I hate this for so many reasons, many of which were already stated, I don't need to repeat myself.

Fuck a bunch of computer cars.

I'm a computer guy, but when it comes to my car. i want analog.
no on-star. no gps. no computer regulating my engine.
my dream car in the plymouth roadrunner jake was driving in the tv series Jericho.