Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
You claim the technology exists. Name a company that is making a
car that can drive itself on roads that car maker hasn't,
themselves, mapped, in the dark, in the raid, past an accident with
a cop directing traffic.

I'm going to keep asking until you admit it doesn't exist, or STFU.

Dumbass.

Unlike some I don’t do any thinking with my arse. I find the brain is
better for that purpose.


https://www.nvidia.co.uk/self-driving-cars/hd-mapping/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...usy-roads.html

https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/30/th...sees-the-road/

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...-driving-cars/




Mike Collins wrote in

nal-september.org:

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
Mike Collins wrote in

ern al-september.org:

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
Mike Collins wrote in
news:1310148336.529750377.817133.acridiniumester-gmail.com@new
s. ete rnal-september.org:

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
Chris L Peterson wrote in
:

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 12:26:25 -0700, Gutless Umbrella
Carrying Sissy wrote:

Chris L Peterson wrote in
news
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 23:19:09 -0700 (PDT), "Chris.B"
wrote:

"Micro" electric cars might offer some advantages but
are still vehicle sized. So they are still a waste of
space on grid-locked city roads and still need parking
places.

I expect that within a few decades at the most, the only
vehicles allowed inside the denser parts of cities (and
indeed, maybe everywhere else as well) will be fully
automated. There is no gridlock with such a system.

You're smoking the Kool-Aid again.

When you have 1,000,000 cars in a system designed for
500,000 (or, in the case of LA, 20,000,000 cars in a
system designed for 500,000), there is *always* gridlock.

No there isn't.

Yes. There is. There is a maximum capacity for any road
system.

You can put 10 or 20 times more vehicles on the
roads, and never experience gridlock.

It may well be higher for self driving cars for the same
number of square feet of pavement, but there's still a
maximum capacity. And when you exceed it, you will have
gridlock. Unless, of course, being a retard, you have
redefined "gridlock" to mean something that normal people
will point and laugh at you for.

Cars can drive a few
centimeters apart, at higher speeds than current driving
allows, with optimized routes, considerably reduced wait
times at intersections, and synchronized in all
directions.

Aside from your insane, retarded belief that self driving
cars will *never* *ever* suffer mechanical breakdowns,
resulting in massive, many car pileups because everything
is moving 90 miles an hour at centimeters distance, there
is still a maximum capacity to the road system. Places like
Los Angeles are *so* far behind in keeping that capacity up
with demand that no amount of automation will keep demand
from exceeding capacity.

Hint: We have cars that are, literally, inches apart *now*,
for hours at a time, and waiting lines to enter the freeway
(there are trafic lights at the on ramps to control this -
you don't get on until someone gets off somewhere down the
road). It is literally impossible to put more cars on the
road than that. Automation might make them move faster -
until there's a many car pileup with dozens dead, anyway -
but there are still more people than will physically fit on
the freeways at one time come rush hour (which lasts 3-4
hours in the morning, and usually longer in the afternoon).

Less, perhaps, with a system that has no
ego drive narcissism and road rage, but once you exceed
the capacity of the system, there will certianly be
gridlock.

Why would you exceed the capacity of the system? Cities
already have the roads necessary to carry far more traffic
than there's likely to ever be demand for.

You're smoking more Kool-Aid again, I see. No, many cities
have nowhere near the capacity to handle the amount of
traffic *now*. Average speed on the 405 freeway in Los
Angeles is less than 10 mph for six hours a day, every
weekday, and often on weekends, too. Assuming there's no
accidents. If there is one, it's more like the 405 parking
lot.

And there is *no* *possible* *way* to *ever* build enough
freeways to handle the demand *now*. Not when freeways cost
over a billion dollars a mile, and take a decade or more
worth of lawsuits to even break ground.

You are, literally, hallucinating a world you'd like to
live in, to the point of being incapable of interacting the
real world.

This is, of course, not unusual for you.

And then you have
the additional gridlock of having damaged cars blocking
traffic.)

Rare. The accident rate will drop to near zero (which will
be one factor pushing the adoption of such technology),
and the hardware is very reliable (and in most cases won't
fail catastrophically).

Keep smoking that Kool-Aid, son. Auto accidents are caused
by mechanical failures now, and always will be. Adding in
computer automation will not eliminate that.

Most accidents are caused by human error.

Plus, of course, no one alive today will live long enough
to see completely automated cars. The technology isn't even
*close*, despite the marketing claims of companies looking
for government subsidies or investment dollars for a
product they know thye have no idea how to produce. (People
like Elon Musk). There isn't a car in existance today that
can drive itself safetly on streets that haven't been
mapped down to a resolution measured in inches (or less),
much less in the raid, or snow, or anywhere near a
construction crew. Or even on a well mapped street with new
traffic signs. And there won't be, for a long time.

We already have this:

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...-registry-plan
s- th
e-basis-of-land-registry-applications/land-registry-plans-the
-b as
is-of-land-registry-plans-practice-guide-40-supplement-1

Who is making a self driving car that can use that data to
navigate?

And it says nothing about unexpected, temporary obstacles,
like construction workers or traffic cops directing traffic
around an accident.

In short, you're full of ****. As usual.

The faecal content is confined to your posts. The streets have
been mapped to the resolution you said was impossible. Self
driving cars are equipped with plenty of other sensors (lidar,
acoustic etc.). I’ve already shown that one of your
“impossibilities” already exists. The database
exists and can easily be licensed for use. Anyone in the UK
can buy a download of a map to that resolution now.

What company makes a self driving car that uses that data, and
can drive anywhere described in it?

You didn't answer that question, of course, because you know
the answer is "none."

Actually every map in the UK is based on this data. Every one of
the self driving projects in the UK uses maps.
Your point was that mapping to that precision was too difficult.
As you can see you were wrong.

And your source still didn't address unexepcted, usually
temporary obstacles, and, of course, you do not acknowled that,
either.

Try reading. Unexpected temporary obstacles are a part of normal
driving. That’s why self driving vehicles have sensors which
are better for that purpose than human senses.

The only **** you see, son, is in the mirror. And you know it.

As I already wrote the faecal content in these posts is yours.
Why are you obsessed by faeces? Is it a fetish?




This current hallucination that we're close to truly
automated cars
will last until the first death caused by something that
would have been trivial for even a bad human driver to
avoid, like running down a traffic cop directing traffic
around an accident. Then the companies making self driving
cars will go out of business, and rightly so.

That seems a contrived reason. Until self driving cars can
avoid pedestrians they won’t be allowed. In this
case the policeman is just another pedestrian.

There are already laws being enacted to allow Level 5 self
driving
cars (with no manual controls), and manufacturers talking
about having them on the road within a few years. The tech
companies behind this are as delusional as you are, and will
end up killing people before the politicians realize it. The
technology isn't there, and won't be within our lifetimes.

The technology is there for all that. It just needs refining.

So in the space of two sentences, you contradict yourself.

You *know* how full of **** you are.

What bothers me is that anyone could stop an autonomous car by
just walking in front of it. The end of playing chicken and an
easy way to rob a car.

And then you provide yet another reason why it's not happening
any time soon.

I don’t suffer from your problem, particularly common in the
USA, of taking sides and refusing to accept any fact which
doesn’t confirm your prejudices.
It’s all tied up with inability to compromise and a deep
personal insecurity.