Jump to content

Alphabet's Wing delivery drone takes out suburbs power grid, 2358 electricity customers lose power.

Dirtyshado
15 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

That can be further complicated if your wire has to pass thru your neighbors yard and your neighbor is a dick and keeps running over the cable with a lawn mower. 

If an underground cable can be damaged by a lawnmower then it isn't an underground cable. Properly installed underground infrastructure isn't going to be damaged by your neighbour mowing their lawn.

 

If you're digging deep enough to risk damaging underground cables you're also digging deep enough to risk damaging water and sewer pipes, yet I've never heard anyone make the argument that sewer pipes should be installed over head to prevent a neighbour running over a buried pipe with their lawnmower.

CPU: Intel i7 6700k  | Motherboard: Gigabyte Z170x Gaming 5 | RAM: 2x16GB 3000MHz Corsair Vengeance LPX | GPU: Gigabyte Aorus GTX 1080ti | PSU: Corsair RM750x (2018) | Case: BeQuiet SilentBase 800 | Cooler: Arctic Freezer 34 eSports | SSD: Samsung 970 Evo 500GB + Samsung 840 500GB + Crucial MX500 2TB | Monitor: Acer Predator XB271HU + Samsung BX2450

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Donut417 said:

I never said it was. On top of that you know full well Im from the US. Why did you try to debate me on the whole underground utilities?

Because you replied to me, basically with counter points mostly unique to your country and with as I must guess mostly experiences living where there are not burred cables 🤷‍♂️

 

You debated me on my point first, you also know I'm not from the US so why would I care about US specific problems about a general point that ducted burred cables are always better but more expensive which is a statistically true statement so in my mind a factually true statement.

 

I'm not complaining about you talking about your own country, just don't tell me I need to understand your country when you replied to me about something I said that had nothing to do with your country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Donut417 said:

Im pretty sure I read somewhere that the FAA bans people from flying drones near Airports. My sister used to live in the landing path of Detroit Metro Airport, Im pretty sure they dont want people flying drones around those parts. So there would be areas where no drones would be allowed. 

 

Also, I recall seeing a concept where the delivery truck would be the one deploying the drones. Where the smaller/lower weight packages would be delivered by drone, but the driver could handle the heaver stuff. So, not really replacing UPS and the gang, but augmenting their ability to delver packages faster. 

I see the same issue, so many people who would take an opportunity to steal shit. 

 

Since we're talking about the States, there's restricted air space all over the place. I believe you can't event legally fly kites in a few spots. This does make sense since interactions in the air tend to be fairly catastrophic. I say that, but I've also literally been at a stop sign that had a "look both ways for Airplanes" sign. (Something I don't think anyone outside of the USA would appreciate is just how many airports the USA has had at one point. It's something like 10k at its peak. They were everywhere in the 30s to the 60s. Especially in the pre-jet engine age.  If you ever wonder why everyone just assumed flying cars would be "The Thing" in the future, at least in the States, this is why.)

 

As for the airspace above American property, the FAA has "regulatory authority" over the airspace. They classify all space below 400 feet as uncontrolled. That doesn't mean the government owns it. It regulates in the same way boats and cars are regulated. This is an important distinction because there's actually a US Supreme Court case about a plane buzzing a farm at 80 feet and causing the chickens to all die in a panic. The farmer won his case on the fact it was trespassing. Which is why no US State or the Federal Government wants to bring too many cases to the court over the rights of the space above properly. Given US Law and the legal system, it's entirely likely the Courts would be left to conclude that an American property owner owns the entire air space above their property, all the way to space.

 

There's also the case of Manhattan. Where "Air Rights" for buildings are about 1/2 the value of the properties, at this point. (This is down to the need for high rise buildings to allow light & airflow down to the ground.) Since there is a sellable market for these defined rights, it's clearly a property of the physical space.

 

As for deliver drones, it's really a question of distance & terrain. Having 2 on top of an Amazon truck that could do two deliveries to the hard outlier location while the truck does the normal route, and they simply pick them back up after a point, could make useful economic sense. Anyone that's every needed to get from one side of a river to another can appreciate the utility of just going straight across. There's a lot of the world this makes sense. (See my other point about transit across a Bay or River.)

 

But the noise pollution issue will be probably the biggest one. In a lot of locations, many things are banned because of the noise they cause. So, it's going to end up being down to simply the jurisdictions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Spotty said:

an underground cable can be damaged by a lawnmower then it isn't an underground cable. Properly installed underground infrastructure isn't going to be damaged by your neighbour mowing their lawn.

Comcast like all other cable companies sends another person out the bury the cable. Basically until they bury it sits on your lawn. Which is why I was saying it takes months of poking and prodding to getting cables buried. 

 

So basically you get service installed, they lay the cable across your lawn and maybe your neighbors, depending on where the tap is located. They then close the ticket and you have to bitch and moan for months for them to reopen a ticket to get it buried. In that time, the cable probably has been replaced multiple times. 

I just want to sit back and watch the world burn. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Donut417 said:

Comcast like all other cable companies sends another person out the bury the cable. Basically until they bury it sits on your lawn. Which is why I was saying it takes months of poking and prodding to getting cables buried. 

 

So basically you get service installed, they lay the cable across your lawn and maybe your neighbors, depending on where the tap is located. They then close the ticket and you have to bitch and moan for months for them to reopen a ticket to get it buried. In that time, the cable probably has been replaced multiple times. 

 

Yeah 99% sure that wouldn't be legal here in the UK for phone lines, (they are shallow buried somtimes for the final run, but it has to be armoured as well as the shallow bury), and 100% wouldn't be ok for electricity. Same applies to most of he rest of the world.

 

  

7 hours ago, Taf the Ghost said:

As for deliver drones, it's really a question of distance & terrain. Having 2 on top of an Amazon truck that could do two deliveries to the hard outlier location while the truck does the normal route, and they simply pick them back up after a point, could make useful economic sense. Anyone that's every needed to get from one side of a river to another can appreciate the utility of just going straight across. There's a lot of the world this makes sense. (See my other point about transit across a Bay or River.)

 

Depends heavily on where your talking about. US as far as i can tell is packed with straight lines and small towns in most of the country. Getting from one house to another is a fairly straightforward affair within a single community. Europe at least is full of all kinds o twisty, dead end filled and other random crap streets that can slow things down more. I also did some maths, raw travel time at maximum range is 14 minutes plus take off and landing. Assuming average range is 10km that adds up to 10 minute round trip time. Depending on day and route that can actually be less time between stops than deliveries here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 9/30/2022 at 11:58 AM, Spotty said:

We all just need to stop ordering so much damn crap.

Everyone: Yes! ... ... So let's see what's on Amazon today ...

 

8 hours ago, divito said:

People are way worse.

On one hand yes, but on the other hand I'd assume almost any kind of human controlled transportation does better. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Senzelian said:

On one hand yes, but on the other hand I'd assume almost any kind of human controlled transportation does better. 

I think you are severely overestimating how good humans are as drivers. 

 

3 people in Australia alone dies every single day in car accidents.

More than half of all drivers on Australia have been in a car accident. 

It's hard to even find data on small accidents because they are so common, but it seems to be around 4000 a year. So about 11 a day. 

 

 

Humans are horrible drivers, and computers will be better than us. Arguably they might already be better than us overall, but humans have some specific use cases still like very poor weather when we realistically shouldn't drive anyway but might have to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I think you are severely overestimating how good humans are as drivers. 

 

3 people in Australia alone dies every single day in car accidents.

More than half of all drivers on Australia have been in a car accident. 

It's hard to even find data on small accidents because they are so common, but it seems to be around 4000 a year. So about 11 a day. 

If you take private drivers into consideration and not only professional drivers, then you should probably also consider private drone owners.

My point was specifically about professional drivers and pilots - I didn't make that clear in my previous post.

 

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Humans are horrible drivers, and computers will be better than us. Arguably they might already be better than us overall, but humans have some specific use cases still like very poor weather when we realistically shouldn't drive anyway but might have to. 

Humans aren't horrible drivers by default. It's all a matter of training and dedication, e.g. Formula 1, Rallye, etc.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Senzelian said:

If you take private drivers into consideration and not only professional drivers, then you should probably also consider private drone owners.

My point was specifically about professional drivers and pilots - I didn't make that clear in my previous post.

 

Humans aren't horrible drivers by default. It's all a matter of training and dedication, e.g. Formula 1, Rallye, etc.

The problems with humans aren't a lack of experience...

Also, we are not talking about Formula 1 drivers here. Stop being silly.

 

The facts are that humans are bad at driving cars. It is one of the leading causes of death in healthy people. 1,3 million people die yearly from traffic accidents. Since we began our conversation 12 hours ago, an estimated 1800 people have died in traffic accidents.

Among the most common causes of crashes is the driver being distracted or sleepy, with happens both professional drivers like truck drivers as well as Formula 1 drivers. But it does not happen with a computer controlled car.

 

 

It is very naive to think that car accidents happen because people aren't good enough drivers. It happens because of human factors that will occur regardless of how skilled you are with driving, or how fast reflexes you got.

 

 

Even if we look at professional drivers like truck drivers, large truck crashes resulted in almost 150,000 injuries or deaths in the US alone in 2020. That's professional drivers mind you, and does not include accidents like some truck driver breaking something by backing into it, or driving into a bridge because their truck is too tall.

 

Being a truck driver, a professional driver, is classified as one of the deadliest jobs in the US. The only job that is more dangerous in terms of deaths is construction trade worker. And mind you, if a truck and a passenger car collides then it's very little risk of the truck driver. So you can't blame the high death rate on private drivers either.

 

 

Truck drivers often drive 8 hours straight, and 70 hours a week in the US.

It is ridiculous to claim that they have 100% focus at all times and never gets distracted or a bit sleepy.

Self driving cars however, will not have that issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Computers don't get sleepy.  They just can't tell what a motorcycle is--and slam into them at speed, killing the cyclist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, IPD said:

Computers don't get sleepy.  They just can't tell what a motorcycle is--and slam into them at speed, killing the cyclist.

Yes, because as we know no human in history has ever driven into a motorcycle and killing the rider.

Computers just have to be better than humans in order to be worth using, and that is an extremely low bar as we have established. 

 

 

And since you tried to distance yourself from the fear mongering anti-technology group that used to say elevators were dangerous and only a human could ever operate them safely, not a computer. Please keep in mind that they made similar arguments to what you are doing now, and they were proven dead wrong.

Human drivers will be as silly as human operated elevators in the future. It's hard to say how far into the future, but the result will be far less deaths and injuries because that is mostly caused by human errors these days. Errors that computers won't make. They might make other errors, but I'll rather have 20 deaths caused by incorrect identification of a bicycle, than 2000 deaths caused by the driver being sleepy or distracted.

 

I am sure those 20 deaths caused by a self driving car will get all the headlines though. Especially in circles that try and appeal to the millions upon millions of professional drivers who are scared they will lose their jobs (which they will) once self driving takes over. Just like elevator operators probably bought into a lot of FUD and shortsightedness regarding automated elevators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh please.  Saying that cars will replace human-driven vehicles is like saying that guns cannot be used recreationally.  This may come as a shock to you, but some people enjoy driving for pleasure.  Nobody has ever said "I really want to operate an elevator recreationally".  Kids may fuck around with them, pushing random buttons, blocking the doors, etc--but that's not the same.

 

The myth of "superior computer driving" has gotten out of control.  Computers are really only effective on highways.  Dense, urban traffic (i.e. driving to work in NYC) is a no-go for them.  And those of us on the streets don't appreciate being the guinea pigs whose lives are at risk while they beta-test their tech.  I know what times of day to stay at home (eg. 0100-0500) if I want to avoid drunk drivers and other above-average risks.  I know how to defensively drive around humans (for the most part).

 

What I can't defend against is my tail-lights being identified as a car in the distance because computer + only cameras = too stupid to have depth perception.

 

Nor is it "20 deaths vs 2000 deaths".  How many cars are even capable of autopilot?  How many driving situations will it actually work in--vs the situations where a trained human is always going to be better?

 

Sorry, but operating a motor vehicle on public roads is not a right.  And using autopilot makes you a Karen along the lines of people applying makeup in the vanity mirror while driving, texting while driving, and trying to eat soup while driving.

 

---

I'm a fan of many tech advancements.  That said, this is something that is dangerous, makes the population stupider, and will never ultimately work because you aren't ever going to convince everyone to give up manually operated transportation--permanently.  So there will always be a human in the loop--increasing the potential for computers to fuck it up.  Not to mention that in closed systems where computers do everything--accidents still happen (jams, crashes, etc).  Don't believe me?  Ever used an office printer?  Yeah.

 

And don't get me started on how stupid it would be to suggest that computers could replace the human driver in RV's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, IPD said:

Oh please.  Saying that cars will replace human-driven vehicles is like saying that guns cannot be used recreationally.  This may come as a shock to you, but some people enjoy driving for pleasure.  Nobody has ever said "I really want to operate an elevator recreationally".  Kids may fuck around with them, pushing random buttons, blocking the doors, etc--but that's not the same.

Nobody is saying "no human will ever drive again".

There are some places with lift operators still as well. Some people ride recreationally as well.

When I talk about self driving cars replacing human drivers, I am talking about the 99,9% of use cases. The people who has driving as a hobby and does it for fun, and have the money to keep doing that once self driving takes over, is very small. 

 

Human driven cars will be like horses. Some people still ride horses even though we got cars, but people will not drive (or own horses) as a means of transportation.

 

 

24 minutes ago, IPD said:

The myth of "superior computer driving" has gotten out of control.  Computers are really only effective on highways.  Dense, urban traffic (i.e. driving to work in NYC) is a no-go for them.  And those of us on the streets don't appreciate being the guinea pigs whose lives are at risk while they beta-test their tech.  I know what times of day to stay at home (eg. 0100-0500) if I want to avoid drunk drivers and other above-average risks.  I know how to defensively drive around humans (for the most part).

Yes, because as we know technological progress is a myth and things doesn't improve...

Notice how I said "in the future" in my post? Cars didn't replace horses overnight either. 

 

 

25 minutes ago, IPD said:

What I can't defend against is my tail-lights being identified as a car in the distance because computer + only cameras = too stupid to have depth perception.

 

So let me get this straight.

There have been two accidents involving motor cyclists and a Tesla, one of which we don't even know if "autopilot" was used, and your take away from that is "it will never be better and self driving cars are a danger to motorcyclists"?

Did you know that there are over 5000 motorcycle deaths in the US alone each year? There were also 83,000 motorcycle-related injuries.

 

 

Like I said before, self driving cars might cause 20 deaths, but if it prevents 2000 deaths that would have happened with human drivers then it is still a good thing. 

 

It is very easy to get caught up in the "but sometimes...!" fallacy that I linked a video to earlier in the thread. You have to weight the pros and cons, and as it stands right now, human errors are the main cause of traffic accidents. Computers will be better drivers than humans. Arguably they already are. Whether you like it or not.

 

I would recommend you watch less Youtube videos that only look at isolated incidents, trying to drum up drama, and instead look at more statistics and studies.

I shouldn't have to tell you how statistically insignificant two incidents are in the grand scheme of things. By the time you read this post, human drivers have most likely already killed 2 motorcyclists. According to this source, there are more than 380,000 motorcycle accident reports every year worldwide. So about 1041 every day, or 43 every hour.

75% of all motorcycle accidents in the US involves a collision with another vehicle, and I guarantee that like 90% of those are caused by human errors. The sources I have found all lists "careless driving" from both the motorcyclists and car driver as the main reason for accidents.

 

So with a bit of napkin math we can estimate that about 700 motorcycle accidents every day where a human causes a motorcycle to collide with another vehicle and it leads to the death of the rider.

Yet 2 accidents happens in Tesla in a year, once of which we don't even know if autopilot was used, and the world suddenly loses it shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

The statistics of "less accidents per mile" is already a lie--as FortNine showed.

 

The issue with human-caused accidents is that every retard can get a license (and many more drive without one).  When it takes 10 months to study for and obtain your license--and that can be taken away for minor infractions--the stupid will work its way out of the system.  We should be creating a better human product--not trying to end-run around the dearth of driver skill by insisting on a computer doing it all for us.

 

For fuck's sake--that's why we still have PILOTS in COMMERCIAL AVIATION.  Too many variables.  And that's with radar tracking everything, IFF transponders stating position data, and all the VORTAC and ILS systems you can shake a stick at.  TOO.  MANY.  VARIABLES.

 

It's the same moronic reason people think we have "authoritative" science on the climate.  Or the human body.  And the truth is--our modelings of these things is even now shockingly rudimentary.  Hell, we've been trying to predict the weather for centuries--and we still can't get an accurate forecast outside of maybe 48h ahead of time.

 

Humans have the capacity to adapt.  To absorb countless reference points of data and to make determinations of the best course of action based on those.  Just because you can't make an AI smart enough--doesn't mean that the way to make it pass the Turing test is to have it tested by someone with a 73 IQ; precisely like the way to fix accidents on the road isn't to push for automation which clearly still isn't ready for primetime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can know and anticipate human drivers.  I know that I should wait a couple seconds at a green light before touching the gas pedal--just in case someone is running a red light.  I know that if I don't make visual contact with a driver--that they may not see me or know that I"m there.  I know that it's better to allow vehicles to keep merging into your safety margin behind the vehicle in front of you--rather than trying to tailgate to prevent people from creeping into it.  The behavioral mechanics of driving with other humans can largely be known, quantified and taught.  Driving defensively; covering the brake pedal; etc.

 

The heuristics of AI driving is an unknown and will remain as thus.  Multiple reasons for this.  First, it's proprietary to each company--so they will all compute differently--meaning that what works for one may not work the same way with another.  Second, it's a moving goalpost, since they're constantly trying to update/improve it.  So what you think you know today about staying safe with AI driving--may not apply tomorrow.

 

I know human stupid.  I can adapt to human stupid (mostly).  I cannot anticipate, counter, or avoid AI stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just gonna drop this here:

 

"A high ideal missed by a little, is far better than low ideal that is achievable, yet less effective"

 

If you think I'm wrong, correct me. If I've offended you in some way tell me what it is and how I can correct it. I want to learn, and along the way one can make mistakes; Being wrong helps you learn what's right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Also, we are not talking about Formula 1 drivers here. Stop being silly.

It was meant as an example of someone becoming a good driver if they actually want to. Relatively speaking of course.

 

5 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Please keep in mind that they made similar arguments to what you are doing now, and they were proven dead wrong.

What?

 

I said that I assume that professional drivers / pilots have a better success rate than 75000/1 and that people with training and dedication to driving / flying are generally better, which is why I specifically mentioned professionals.

 

So what the hell are you assuming right now?

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, IPD said:

The statistics of "less accidents per mile" is already a lie--as FortNine showed.

 

The issue with human-caused accidents is that every retard can get a license (and many more drive without one).  When it takes 10 months to study for and obtain your license--and that can be taken away for minor infractions--the stupid will work its way out of the system.  We should be creating a better human product--not trying to end-run around the dearth of driver skill by insisting on a computer doing it all for us.

 

For fuck's sake--that's why we still have PILOTS in COMMERCIAL AVIATION.  Too many variables.  And that's with radar tracking everything, IFF transponders stating position data, and all the VORTAC and ILS systems you can shake a stick at.  TOO.  MANY.  VARIABLES.

 

It's the same moronic reason people think we have "authoritative" science on the climate.  Or the human body.  And the truth is--our modelings of these things is even now shockingly rudimentary.  Hell, we've been trying to predict the weather for centuries--and we still can't get an accurate forecast outside of maybe 48h ahead of time.

 

Humans have the capacity to adapt.  To absorb countless reference points of data and to make determinations of the best course of action based on those.  Just because you can't make an AI smart enough--doesn't mean that the way to make it pass the Turing test is to have it tested by someone with a 73 IQ; precisely like the way to fix accidents on the road isn't to push for automation which clearly still isn't ready for primetime.

Sounds to me like you believe you are above average when it comes to driving.

The funny thing is that humans are extremely good at overestimating their own driving ability. In fact, 80-90% of US drivers believe themselves to be safer drivers than the average person.

 

If you think you are a better driver than (in your words) "retards", then you most likely aren't. 

 

 

Also, a large portion of accidents are completely unrelated to your driving skills. In a lot of cases it's just bad luck. We all loses focus every once in a while, especially if we drive a lot. If you are unlucky, something happens at the exact moment you lose focus and then you are in an accident. Doesn't matter how good of a driver you are in an animal jumps out on the road in front of you just as you change radio channel or whatnot. A computer will not make that mistake however.

That applies to your arguments as well @Senzelian.

Being in a car accident does not mean you are a bad driver. The belief that it is show a severe lack of understanding of how accidents occur. 

 

In fact, I don't even think you can quantify what a "good driver" is. Young adults typically have more confidence, better reflexes, and better understanding of traffic rules than older drivers, yet young drivers are disproportionally represented in accident statistics. That indicates that there is certainly a relation between a certain group of people and accidents, but it is hard to quantify what defines a good driver.

 

Do you two always drive at or below the speed limit? Because statistically speaking, a large portion of accidents are caused by people who drive above the speed limit.

"Oh, but it's okay when I do it because I can handle it"

-Everyone who has caused a traffic accident

 

Do you always leave an appropriate gap to the car in front of you? You never get annoyed and drive too close?

That is also a significant reason why accidents happen. The car in front for some reason has to break suddenly, and you don't have time to react. Remember to leave a least 3 seconds to the car in front of you. Never less. Also, keep in mind that 3 seconds is the minimum recommended when idle driving in good weather conditions. In for example rain you should have more than 3 seconds to the car in front of you.

 

Do you never overtake someone in a slightly risky situation? That is also another significant reason for accidents.

 

 

I am sure you both are doing all these things all the time, but for some reason you don't think of it as an issue when you do it, because you probably view yourselves as better than other drives even though you most likely aren't. Almost everything think they are better drivers than they are. Most people are shit at driving. Even Formula 1 drivers are shit at driving. They might be good when driving their race, but not when driving 8 hours straight to get to some vacation, or when they have to drive to the grocery store after a long day at work when they are exhausted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

That applies to your arguments as well

It doesn't.

I still have no idea what you're going on about.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Senzelian said:

It doesn't.

I still have no idea what you're going on about.

Maybe I misunderstood you, but the way I read your posts gave me the impression that you think professional drivers will not cause as many accidents as "private drivers" because of a higher "driver skill".

You then further strengthened my interpretation of this by bringing up for example Formula 1 and rally drivers as examples of drivers that "aren't horrible".

 

My point was that accidents often don't occur because a lack of driving skills. They occur because of bad luck as well as human factors that applies to everyone, including truck drivers are highly trailed motor sports drivers. 

Truck drivers are professional drivers, and yet they are involved in a large portion of car accidents.

 

I don't think car accidents are a "driver skill" problem. It's a human problem. We humans have inherent flaws that makes us unsuitable to operate cars. As a result, thousands of accidents happen every single day. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Maybe I misunderstood you, but the way I read your posts gave me the impression that you think professional drivers will not cause as many accidents as "private drivers" because of a higher "driver skill".

You then further strengthened my interpretation of this by bringing up for example Formula 1 and rally drivers as examples of drivers that "aren't horrible".

 

My point was that accidents often don't occur because a lack of driving skills. They occur because of bad luck as well as human factors that applies to everyone, including truck drivers are highly trailed motor sports drivers. 

Truck drivers are professional drivers, and yet they are involved in a large portion of car accidents.

 

I don't think car accidents are a "driver skill" problem. It's a human problem. We humans have inherent flaws that makes us unsuitable to operate cars. As a result, thousands of accidents happen every single day. 

 

I'm saying that right now professional drivers and pilots are doing better than automated delivery drones. Someone specifically mentioned 1 accident in 75000 deliveries for this drone. I'm not talking about 22yo Joe in his Mustang.

 

________

Now to your points:

 

I say accidents are partially a skill problem. You mentioned luck or losing focus to be a cause of accidents, but I say both can be optimised with skill. There is a skill to focusing on something and there is also a skill to avoiding situations that might put you in a bad situation, which some consider to simply be bad luck.

 

Either way, there are many reasons for accidents. Improving on all fronts willl help. Of course a fully automated computer controlled system will do best, but right now we're far from there.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Lightwreather JfromN said:

Just gonna drop this here:

 

About 99 bazillion problems with this video, but I'll point out a few highlights.

 

-Self driving cars cannot and should not ever be used figure-8-racing style.  Even without man-in-the-loop, that's WAY too many variables and risks.

 

-Roads are the problem.  Drivers are the problem.  If you only have cities designed around Stroads and not a proper "residential, commercial, interstate" 3-tier road system...you are going to have jams and bottlenecks regardless.

 

-Why not blame the traffic lights?  Why not take to task the lack of smart technology involved in timing our traffic lights so that they better meet the needs of the actual traffic flows--rather than just saying "Fuck it, good enough"?  If you're in a turn lane and you have to wait through more than 1 light to get through the intersection--that's a clear indication that the traffic signal is fucked up.

 

-The solution is mass transportation.  VIABLE mass transportation, not the bullshit that is mass transit in most of the USA.  If traffic was like Nederland, and most got around on bicycles and/or trains--then the issues with traffic are already reduced.  And in order to do that, you'd need another "tiered" system of trains.  Interstate (express), commercial, and residential. 

 

This is pretty much what everyone commented on the video; it's just trains with extra steps.  And no....no matter what kinds of wet dreams this content creator has--or you personally feel--eliminating people out of the system in order to maximize its potential efficiency--will NEVER be possible.  You will NEVER stop people from wanting to be able to drive recreationally.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Sounds to me like you believe you are above average when it comes to driving.

The funny thing is that humans are extremely good at overestimating their own driving ability. In fact, 80-90% of US drivers believe themselves to be safer drivers than the average person.

 

If you think you are a better driver than (in your words) "retards", then you most likely aren't. 

 

 

Also, a large portion of accidents are completely unrelated to your driving skills. In a lot of cases it's just bad luck. We all loses focus every once in a while, especially if we drive a lot. If you are unlucky, something happens at the exact moment you lose focus and then you are in an accident. Doesn't matter how good of a driver you are in an animal jumps out on the road in front of you just as you change radio channel or whatnot. A computer will not make that mistake however.

That applies to your arguments as well @Senzelian.

Being in a car accident does not mean you are a bad driver. The belief that it is show a severe lack of understanding of how accidents occur. 

 

In fact, I don't even think you can quantify what a "good driver" is. Young adults typically have more confidence, better reflexes, and better understanding of traffic rules than older drivers, yet young drivers are disproportionally represented in accident statistics. That indicates that there is certainly a relation between a certain group of people and accidents, but it is hard to quantify what defines a good driver.

 

Do you two always drive at or below the speed limit? Because statistically speaking, a large portion of accidents are caused by people who drive above the speed limit.

"Oh, but it's okay when I do it because I can handle it"

-Everyone who has caused a traffic accident

 

Do you always leave an appropriate gap to the car in front of you? You never get annoyed and drive too close?

That is also a significant reason why accidents happen. The car in front for some reason has to break suddenly, and you don't have time to react. Remember to leave a least 3 seconds to the car in front of you. Never less. Also, keep in mind that 3 seconds is the minimum recommended when idle driving in good weather conditions. In for example rain you should have more than 3 seconds to the car in front of you.

 

Do you never overtake someone in a slightly risky situation? That is also another significant reason for accidents.

 

 

I am sure you both are doing all these things all the time, but for some reason you don't think of it as an issue when you do it, because you probably view yourselves as better than other drives even though you most likely aren't. Almost everything think they are better drivers than they are. Most people are shit at driving. Even Formula 1 drivers are shit at driving. They might be good when driving their race, but not when driving 8 hours straight to get to some vacation, or when they have to drive to the grocery store after a long day at work when they are exhausted.

That is an epic number of assumptions about my habits while operating a motor vehicle.  I'm impressed.

 

Your logic is flawed:

 

First, accidents can to an extent be prevented by DRIVING DEFENSIVELY.  That means in general you are giving yourself a margin of error that allows for you to compensate for random occurrences, dangerous situations, and the like.  Even "losing focus" has less potential danger if you are already well in the habit of giving yourself a greater margin of error than the average; you'll likely still have time to react when you "snap out of it".  So no, being in an accident doesn't make you a bad driver, but it IS an indication of your ability to compensate for random chance; and that's also why actuaries base your insurance premiums off of how many accidents you have had.  Because even if you aren't officially "At fault", after a certain number of accidents (that you allegedly aren't at fault for) the actuaries are going to infer that you are a risk factor.

 

If defensive driving didn't work--the DMV/DOT wouldn't have classes on it, or require people to attend them in order to remove points on their licenses.

 

Quote

I don't even think you can quantify what a "good driver" is. Young adults typically have more confidence, better reflexes, and better understanding of traffic rules than older drivers, yet young drivers are disproportionally represented in accident statistics. That indicates that there is certainly a relation between a certain group of people and accidents, but it is hard to quantify what defines a good driver.

Sure I can.  A good driver drives defensively as second nature.  A good driver has the experience of many years on the road--of the situations that can happen--has prepared accordingly, and has adapted behavior to suit.  Young adults do have more confidence; everything else you said is malarky.  Reflexes can decline with age--but this becomes a "problem" only past maybe the age of 60 or so.  That is incidentally why mandatory retirement age for pilots is 65--so clearly reflexes isn't the issue before this age (I would argue).  Nor do the young have a better understanding of the traffic rules.  All you get with "driver's ed" is "this sign means X".  Understanding why certain roads have certain speed limits, where blind corners exists, sections of a road that are potentially more of a threat for accidents--these are things that come with experience.

 

That's why you see young people overepresented in accident statistics.  Youth, inexperience, distracted driving, lack of appreciation for the task at hand, dangerous situations previously not encountered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, IPD said:

The solution is mass transportation

Ahahah

LOL, sure if you don't value your time

One day I will be able to play Monster Hunter Frontier in French/Italian/English on my PC, it's just a matter of time... 4 5 6 7 8 9 years later: It's finally coming!!!

Phones: iPhone 4S/SE | LG V10 | Lumia 920

Laptops: Macbook Pro 15" (mid-2012) | Compaq Presario V6000

 

<>EVs are bad, they kill the planet and remove freedoms too some/<>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×