Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ExciteBike66

(2,700 posts)
22. I do accept automated control over cars, sure.
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 02:00 PM
Jul 2017

There is almost zero chance that computers could drive worse than humans, and any life saved by an automated car would be worth it imo. I also want to point out that I am a committed manual-transmission BMW enthusiast, so I have plenty of skin in the game.


"OTOH a criminal wouldn't have to "force" a gun to malfunction. A criminal would only have to hack the gun. A criminal could just steal one of the 300+ million existing dumb guns. "

Well, yes and no. Not many gang-bangers out there with coding experience, much less actual hacking expertise. Sure, some criminal enterprise could hack the guns and then sell them, but I would imagine the costs would be very much higher for one of those hacked guns than for "normal" guns on the black market right now. The economics would change, at least.

As to "dumb" guns, it is true that they would still be "out there". But having "smart" guns at least would not enlarge the problem any more than it already is.


"Back to a minor point: A failing automated system doesn't always know that it's failing. Software uses binary numbers for calculations. An "8" would be 1000 in binary. A speed limit of 85 would be "10000101". Imagine the consequence of the left most "1" being a "0". Suddenly the speed limit changes from 85 to 5."

This is not too different in the world of human-controlled cars today. We all have computers in our cars, and they all run on those same ones and zeros. I guess a car could mess up and read the limits wrong (or be hacked), but that doesn't mean FULL control need be given to the human occupant. Perhaps the car could respond to the "Hazard Lights" button by pulling over and stopping at its earliest convenience. That way, if the speed was messed up the car would at least try to stop once the driver noticed. So long as the car can get safely to the edge of the roadway, no need to allow the driver to exceed the speed limit. I can understand allowing SOME control to the driver in an emergency, but I don't see the need to allow the car to exceed the speed limit.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Smart guns - survey... sort of [View all] discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2017 OP
It's an interesting analogy, ExciteBike66 Jul 2017 #1
I thought governors had drivers? Throck Jul 2017 #5
What do you think money grows on trees? ExciteBike66 Jul 2017 #6
As I understand the technology... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2017 #7
I agree wrt guns, they are different than cars, ExciteBike66 Jul 2017 #9
re: "...perhaps a malfunctioning driverless car could just have a set speed limit that is low..." discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2017 #11
I think we are getting out of hand here. ExciteBike66 Jul 2017 #17
I agree about the thread taking a tangent discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2017 #20
I do accept automated control over cars, sure. ExciteBike66 Jul 2017 #22
re: "...no need to allow the driver to exceed the speed limit." discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2017 #24
I agree in part ExciteBike66 Jul 2017 #25
Side benefits (to autonomous cars) would be... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2017 #26
I understand the reasoning but bluecollar2 Jul 2017 #2
I don't know, ExciteBike66 Jul 2017 #3
I prefer to be driving away from the mayhem bluecollar2 Jul 2017 #10
But you are less safe in front of the drunk driver... ExciteBike66 Jul 2017 #18
what part of driving AWAY from a dangerous bluecollar2 Jul 2017 #27
And what part of ExciteBike66 Jul 2017 #28
I'll repeat myself bluecollar2 Jul 2017 #29
I understand you want him behind you, ExciteBike66 Jul 2017 #33
Pardon my intrusion here discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2017 #30
Ok, but ExciteBike66 Jul 2017 #34
I imagine most people... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2017 #36
The discussion is not about sacrificing freedom, ExciteBike66 Jul 2017 #37
Speed limits are an evolving aspect of the motor vehicle code discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2017 #39
I am unfamiliar with the Ultima GT-R, ExciteBike66 Jul 2017 #40
Yes it has seat belts along with a 240 MPH max speed discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2017 #41
A separate post for the gun thing ExciteBike66 Jul 2017 #35
See my embedded replies below discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2017 #38
I agree discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2017 #8
I think there are too many variables presented while driving. justhanginon Jul 2017 #4
Just a question discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2017 #12
That is a damn good question. I was mulling over some possible justhanginon Jul 2017 #13
Einstein was pretty big on thought experiments discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2017 #14
It seems to me that when you got to full on autonomy you really lose justhanginon Jul 2017 #15
re: "I've been retired for almost twenty years..." discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2017 #16
The human "ability" is over-rated... ExciteBike66 Jul 2017 #19
Speed loses much of its value when their is no human moral justhanginon Jul 2017 #21
I don't see it that way at all... ExciteBike66 Jul 2017 #23
I like to move with the speed of the traffic. ... spin Jul 2017 #31
Sounds like a safe plan discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2017 #32
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Smart guns - survey... so...»Reply #22