Hey, there! Log in / Register
Do androids dream of electric sheep driving cars in the Seaport?
By adamg on Mon, 11/21/2016 - 12:54pm
WBZ reports a Cambridge company plans to begin testing self-driving cars in the South Boston Waterfront by the end of the year. But a company honcho cautions not to expect widespread use of the vehicle in Boston, because, you know:
Boston’s a city with some challenging weather and some complex traffic patterns.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Challenging weather and some complex traffic patterns
Understatement of the century. Seriously though, best of luck to them. The sooner cars drive themselves the better.
I agree. Come to the seaport
I agree. Come to the seaport on any given Friday around 5 and witness the gridlock. You'll constantly see drivers pulling into the intersection knowing they can't get out of the way of the opposing traffic instead of waiting a few minutes. I do wish at the very least that particular law was enforced.
Not too bad
At Forest Hills this happens at every traffic-lighted intersection from around 6:45 am up to 9 pm on weekdays. Red lights are treated as just a suggestion to stop.
dont mean to one up you...
the sooner we ban (or close to it as possible) cars from the city the better.
i like driving myself
thanks tho
My city could use some of these
I think this would be an excellent way to create dynamic traffic calming. Send them out to circle in school zones and other problem areas with speeding and box blocking issues.
Count me among those opposed to self driving cars
Just like those self checkouts everywhere now days. How about letting the little guy keep a job for once.
Storrowing is obsolete
Cuz regulatory mandated inefficiency worked so well for the post office?
Self driving cars might actually fix Boston's traffic and notoriously dangerous driver problem.
How about letting the little
How about letting the little guy keep his life? Over 90% of vehicular deaths are caused by human error. Self driving cars can't get here soon enough.
90% caused by human error because only humans are driving?
I'll just leave this here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/business/self-driving-tesla-fatal-cras...
Did you bother reading that article?
The truck that took a left turn across the path of the Tesla caused the accident.
Yep, read the article
Yes, a truck passed in front of the car, but the car never applied the brakes because it literally could not sense a white truck against a pale sky.
I've got nothing against self driving cars, but the gap between what they can do and what's necessary for safe travel is pretty big right now. And, yes, the same could probably be said of human drivers, too. :)
I'm not trying to be rude,
I'm not trying to be rude, but I honestly don't know what you're asking with "90% caused by human error because only humans are driving?" Can you clarify that?
And I guess you were trying to drop the mic with that link, but I don't think your point is valid. Are you saying that because 1 person died while beta testing an autonomous driving system that they should scrap the whole idea? Do you realize how many people die in car crashes every day?
I still think this will be the problem
As I have said before to anyone who will listen, the first time a self-driving car runs over a 4 year old kid who darts into it's path, the media and the public will go crazy. Laws will be passed that make self-driving cars either illegal in cities or so heavily regulated that car makers will just give up.
It may not be right, but that's my take on what'll happen.
Possibly, but that hasn't
Possibly, but that hasn't been the reaction to human driven cars doing that.
I suppose the argument is that with human driven cars you can go after the one human who made the mistake where others would not, whereas as all robot cars are essentially the same driver and would all make that mistake?
You know teenagers will go
You know teenagers will go flinging themselves in front of these cars for funsies. There's already a video of some genius jumping in front of a car that turned out never to have the emergency auto-brake feature installed to begin with. Spoiler alert: the car didn't stop.
These things might look like a good idea from the dazzling white confines of the software company campuses, but human nature ain't changing. Making people even less attentive in and around cars is a terrible idea. Improve public transportation, maybe set up rail lines that people can hook their personal pod-cars up to for the long freeway hauls, but don't expect software to save us from ourselves.
Been thinking of this one for years
Jaywalking will create total gridlock, so my plan is 1 out of say 200 cars will be programmed to not stop for pedestrians when the car has a green light. And make this perfectly legal. That would keep people honest and cities moving.
For those that say ban cars, the same problem would present it self for buses or other automated transit vehicles. Banning cars is a guarantee that all new public transit would use roads as there would be no more reason for dedicated transit ways.
oh thank goodness
for i second i thought these self driving cars were programmed and engineered by humans, at least this removes the potential for human error to cause any fatalities.
i suppose you'll be the first in line for samsung's entry into the self driving car market?
If you are so lazy and/or
If you are so lazy and/or incompetent that you need a car that drives itself than hire an Uber.
Not Exactly....
I can think of a lot of people for whom a self-driving car would be helpful. It would be good for the elderly who may not have the vision or reflexes to drive safely but are still capable of running errands, want to go out to meet friends or get to various appointments. My grandma had to give up her car[1], it was really difficult for her, since she was always very independent.
And my husband, who lived in a city his entire life and never got around to getting a license. He's chomping at the bit for a self-driving car (though since most self-driving cars still require a human to be there to take over, you'd still have to be licensed). In that case, I'd love it because I hate driving.
While the cost of Uber and owning a car may break even, there's no substitution for being independent.
[1]Long story short, she had a senior moment, pressed the gas instead of the brake and almost went off a cliff. She also was starting to go blind and was basically driving using muscle memory, having lived in the same home, shopped at the same stores, etc. for 50 years.
I'll bet you said the same
I'll bet you said the same thing about elevators that don't need operators back in the '40s too.
Let the little guy keep his
Let the little guy keep his job! Oh, and let's bring gas pumpers too.
Re Uber
Uber is a major promoter of self-driving cars. Uber apparently see themselves (in the future) as owning a fleet of self-driving cars without the need to 'employ' those costly drivers.
So if a pedestrian is hit by
So if a pedestrian is hit by a self driving car , who is at fault ? i think this is one of those ideas that sound better in your head , or after 5 beers and 2 hours watching Youtube car crashes.
well
i'm no scientist
but
the car probly has some sensors on it, what for to see the road around it
and it probably stores some of that somewhere
so maybe we can look at that, and figure out if the pedestrian did something illegal
or if the car did
If a pedestrian gets hit right now
the driver usually gets away with it. If anything, the law will probably be tougher on self-driving cars.
You know what's wrong with
You know what's wrong with all these hypothetical "what if" questions you naysayers are proposing? You haven't done a second of research into the matter, you can't fathom that teams of programmers and lawyers smarter then you have discussed many corner cases. You just post your dumb comment and then point to it and say "here, that's why autonomous cars won't work!"
'Flavors' of Self-Driving Cars
My understanding is that there are two 'flavors' of self-driving cars being tested in various locations.
The 'neighborhood' flavor involves the car memorizing the streets in a neighborhood, and not going outside that neighborhood. It's the easier of the two. I think this flavor is being tested in the Seaport. It's also being tested for buses in some places (e.g., Helsinki).
The 'free range' flavor can go almost anywhere. I understand that's what Uber is testing in Pittsburgh. It's also what Tesla false sold their car as having.
There is also the long-haul
There is also the long-haul variety, a retrofit of existing and new semi-truck cabs to have entirely autonomous operation on highways. Just ran a few tests in CO. This one will probably hit market first, since highways are pretty much the easiest set of variables to control and there is a huge cost pressure behind it to get it done.
Um...
...no. I'm not onboard with this. Over reliance on technology has potential to cause serious issues. Nvm Illuminati theories and what not. Big brother is everywhere. Stay the f away from my car...I ENJOY the madness of Boston driving. It's liberating. I fear the inevitable though smh
yeah
me too, pal, me too
Time's ticking, soon you will
Time's ticking, soon you will only be able to practice your mad driving skills on a closed track. Maybe you and scummy will liberate one another.
KITT
I kind of want a KITT car. One I can choose to drive when I want (in the twisties or in the city) or choose to sleep when I want (the long overnight slogs).
Nothing says "liberating"
Nothing says "liberating" like people getting heart disease because they sit in a little box stuck in traffic for 3 hours per day.