Printable View
... and when autonomy rules the transport sector you can betcha bottom dollar the hackers are going to cause havoc ... for no other reason than they can ... and they will. It will be a new challenge for them.
Sent by iPhone using two tin cans and Forum Runner
That reminds me of the first driverless straddle at the docks - it was switched on with 100's of onlookers to much fanfare, where it promptly drove off the dock into the water. Aparently the GPS in it had been incorrectly programmed... :DQuote:
Originally Posted by PAT303
Autonomous public transport is very achievable and is here right now - but not in Melbourne. The Private sector will have more luck than the bumbling fools that look after the trains.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh
In China, the Maglev to the airport is fully automated - and runs at 400KPH with a service departing every 2 minutes to the second. The trip takes 6 minutes each way and there are 6 trains on the track - basically 1 at each station, and 2 in transit on each line at any one time.
We've been talking about a train line to the Airport since the 70's, but we aren't any closer to building it than we were then, so by my reasoning we should have automated trains in Melbourne in about 70 years time.
The new Sydney North West line will be driverless.
The reason that intervals are 5 minutes at present are for safety as the control systems are inadequate and will cost many millions to upgrade.
AFAIK Sydney is planning for 2 minutes but also changing from double decker to single decker as the greatest delay is time at station for people to get on and off the two decks.
Regards Philip A
For the purposes of my discussion in relation to autonomous cars, I interpret that as "not achievable".Quote:
Originally Posted by Homestar
So, why are they saying we will all be riding in autonomous cars in Melbourne in ten years time?
As said before, I would be happy to have an autonomous car, but, what people are brushing aside is what laws are in place for the introduction of these vehicles?
When they have an accident, and kill someone (as they have and they will), who is at fault?
The way they are sitting it up the patsy will be the bunny sitting in the car who has no control over it. Let's face it, if that bunny was capable of controlling a car, they wouldn't be in a driverless one.
I reckon they should lay the blame squarely on the constructor, the programmer and the person who approves the legislation allowing these vehicles on the road. Not the office or position, the person.
It's going to be a lawyers picnic, I think. Imagine trying to get insurance for a driverless vehicle. What would be 'reasonable risk'?
Once a hundred or more have completed a years service in a real life situation (e.g. one city adopts them), there will be ample data to calculate risk. Once a million are on the roads insurance will be easy. Just as VW the corporation as a whole took the blame for the actions of a few crooked engineers and officials, autonomous vehicle manufacturers will cover/self insure themselves for occasional guidance failures. A person dying due to guidance failure is no different to a person dying due to a manufacturers fault, e.g. an ignition lock failing. Insurance companies exist to make money and their premiums will be set according to the calculated risk.Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscoMick
Reasonable ? Much less than currently your Honour ... they ARE safer ...Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscoMick
;)
Sent by iPhone using two tin cans and Forum Runner
BBC TV News EXPERT had the Autonomous Vehicle as a great novelty that eventually in the fullness of time have its place,.... giving dates like 2050-2070.
The reason given for British government position was the need to free up spectrum for the system to work without blackout spots.
The only way that the idea would float in UK/Europe was off the American market over flow.
something about the murray river that stops ideas working.
:Rolling: driverless beer trucks, I can see them arriving at their destination, already unloaded. :twisted: