Poll & Prediction: Autonomous Car Equipment at 5k by 2019

[JL Sargent]

Here is a look at the technology.

 

 

[Mallette]

Nah, JL,  it's at least 15 years away.

 

Dave

[Jeff Matthews]

Interesting how the camera views show rectangles around cars, biker and signs.  I wonder how it is able to discriminate between objects like that.

[DizRotus]

Many days it seems it can't get here soon enough.

[DizRotus]

On 7/2/2016 at 6:41 PM, Mallette said:

that didn't prevent the McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit either. 

 

Dave-

 

Have you read the details of that case? I too thought it absurd until I read the details.  If coffee is so hot it causes serious burns through clothing when accidentally spilled in your lap, imagine what it would do to the inside of your mouth.  Again, you mustn't assume the press has reported events accurately.

[ACV92]

I'm not a huge fan of autopilot.  For work, may not be bad, I go 8 1/2 hours one way sometimes.  But, the thought of an 80,000 lb semi cruising down the road driving itself doesn't excite me.  I know the technology will get there eventually.  I still like my hands on the wheel and my feet working the pedals. 

 

If you've ever seen the movie Wall-E, with kids or grandkids, we won't be to far from the people on the spaceship.  I don't want technology doing everything for me.

[Travis In Austin]

5 hours ago, Mallette said:

Nah, JL,  it's at least 15 years away.

 

Dave

For 25 percent of cars probably ten.  For 80 percent of cars on the road it is looking like 25.

 

It's going to probably require Federal legislation to consolidate a standard and provide some incentive. 

[Travis In Austin]

1 hour ago, DizRotus said:

 

Dave-

 

Have you read the details of that case? I too thought it absurd until I read the details.  If coffee is so hot it causes serious burns through clothing when accidentally spilled in your lap, imagine what it would do to the inside of your mouth.  Again, you mustn't assume the press has reported events accurately.

Once people read the facts of the case they pretty much all agree with your statement in my experience. 

 

 

[Mallette]

No further arguments from me.  There were 300 cars in the United States in 1895, 78,000 in 1905, 459,000 in 1910 and 1.7 million in 1914.  The penetration of this technology will be much, much faster.  The reasoning, economic, safety, and convenience is overwhelming.  Some will be of the "they'll get my steering wheel from my cold, dead hands" mentality.  But that's been the case for decades. 

 

Dave

 

[Mallette]

1 hour ago, DizRotus said:

Have you read the details of that case?

Of course I did.  I fully expect, and make my own coffee, as close to 212 degrees as I can get it.  It CANNOT be hotter than that, but I expect it to be as close as possible.  I cannot possibly understand yours, or this juries, reasoning.  What part of "hot coffee" don't they get?  Do you are these folks know how to make good coffee without boiling water? 

 

Reasoning eludes me.  But so much does for us older farts these days.  I suppose camp fires should be cooled down as well.  Never know when someone will want to lick one or whatever.  But I am not ready to sympathize with some idiot that sips coffee expecting it to be cold. 

 

Dave

[JBCODD]

Don't think I would care to operate an autonomous vehicle. Heck, I prefer manual over automatic transmission. But if they are packed full of Intel processors and Alterra FPGA's that will keep me busy for years, as I work in an Intel factory.

[Skelt]

I wont be getting one until they release a windowless model.

[Jeff Matthews]

3 hours ago, JBCODD said:

 

Don't think I would care to operate an autonomous vehicle.

 

Ark-ark!  "Operate" an "autonomous" vehicle.

[JJkizak]

The only one I would consider would be manufactured and designed by the old Western Electric Co. namely because they would have two systems online with one for backup within 1 microsecond. This would include all of the components manufactured by them. The affordability might be a problem with them as cost means nothing, only performance.

I figure around 2 billion per car.

JJK

[Jeff Matthews]

7 hours ago, Mallette said:

Of course I did.  I fully expect, and make my own coffee, as close to 212 degrees as I can get it.  It CANNOT be hotter than that, but I expect it to be as close as possible.  I cannot possibly understand yours, or this juries, reasoning.  What part of "hot coffee" don't they get?  Do you are these folks know how to make good coffee without boiling water? 

 

Reasoning eludes me.  But so much does for us older farts these days.  I suppose camp fires should be cooled down as well.  Never know when someone will want to lick one or whatever.  But I am not ready to sympathize with some idiot that sips coffee expecting it to be cold. 

 

Dave

A maker of a product is supposed to make it reasonably safe.  This doesn't mean you have to serve cold coffee.  The warmth of coffee is its "utility" (a legal word for "usefulness"), just as sharpness is the utility of a razor blade.  

 

In the famous McDonald's case, the coffee was so hot that it burned off the lady's skin around her crotch area.  We're not talking blisters; we're talking skin-grafting surgery to fix it. As I recall, it was suggested by Mc D's that serving it extremely hot allowed for the buyer to drive all the way to work and still enjoy the coffee after they get there.  The evidence also showed that it was common knowledge among Mc D's people that customers drink their coffee in the car, while they are still on their ways to their destinations.

 

The evidence also showed Mc D's had around 700 reports of burns over a decade caused by their coffee (including reports of burns requiring skin-grafting), so it's not one of those cases where they had no idea.  Rather than serve the coffee "blister hot" instead of "surgery hot," they paid no heed and figured 700 people was a small number compared to the millions they serve.  The evidence also showed that Mc D's serves their coffee appreciably hotter than any competing chain.  Customers expect coffee to be hot, but not too many people think their coffee is hot enough to melt your crotch off.

 

There was no dispute the coffee was way too hot to drink.

 

The legal question is, "At what temperature does coffee become unreasonably dangerous?"  If Mc D's serves an unreasonably dangerous product and it causes harm, it is liable for the damages caused.  A product is unreasonably dangerous when the risk of harm outweighs its utility.  It's so hot you can't drink it, so where's the utility?  Is the utility of 185-degree coffee in the fact that you can drive all the way to work before starting to drink it?  The jury didn't think so.

 

 

[Mallette]

Jeff, I understand the modern "all my woes are somebody else's fault" mentality.  Your legal description of the case, and the jury's deliberations, make perfect sense and the majority of folks will agree.  But I am 67 and was raised by parents who taught me better than to place hot liquids between my legs and then point a finger at another when the inevitable happens.  Same sort of thing here as the case that caused a huge settlement and the removal of the gate information signs at DFW Airports central freeway...thereby rendering the airport virtually unnavigable unless you know precisely where you are going.  All because a driver was staring at a sign rather than attending to driving. 

 

I'll not debate this, as I really understand the modern mentality...but in these cases I am not of the "modern mentality" and would make a very poor selection for a jury in such cases. 

Dave

[CECAA850]

7 minutes ago, Mallette said:

Jeff, I understand the modern "all my woes are somebody else's fault" mentality.  Your legal description of the case, and the jury's deliberations, make perfect sense and the majority of folks will agree.  But I am 67 and was raised by parents who taught me better than to place hot liquids between my legs and then point a finger at another when the inevitable happens.  Same sort of thing here as the case that caused a huge settlement and the removal of the gate information signs at DFW Airports central freeway...thereby rendering the airport virtually unnavigable unless you know precisely where you are going.  All because a driver was staring at a sign rather than attending to driving. 

 

I'll not debate this, as I really understand the modern mentality...but in these cases I am not of the "modern mentality" and would make a very poor selection for a jury in such cases. 

Dave

The defense approves of this juror.

[Travis In Austin]

10 hours ago, Mallette said:

Of course I did.  I fully expect, and make my own coffee, as close to 212 degrees as I can get it.  It CANNOT be hotter than that, but I expect it to be as close as possible.  I cannot possibly understand yours, or this juries, reasoning.  What part of "hot coffee" don't they get?  Do you are these folks know how to make good coffee without boiling water? 

 

Reasoning eludes me.  But so much does for us older farts these days.  I suppose camp fires should be cooled down as well.  Never know when someone will want to lick one or whatever.  But I am not ready to sympathize with some idiot that sips coffee expecting it to be cold. 

 

Dave

Read the part about "notice" on the part of McDonald's.  That's what the case is all about.

[Mallette]

3 hours ago, Jeff Matthews said:

The warmth of coffee is its "utility" (a legal word for "usefulness"), just as sharpness is the utility of a razor blade.  

Travis, I am not sure where the "notice" part is.  But this was the key for me.  The jury was likely predominately those of the Mr. Coffee generation.  I have to put coffee made in these devices in a microwave immediately after pouring as the coffee is too cold for those of us raised with percolators and boiled coffee.  From that standpoint, I can understand the jury saying 185 degrees is too hot.  I really understand the "merits" of this case.  Just merit as viewed by a different generational viewpoint. 

Further, to extend this to autonomous vehicles, we are entering a period where the blame for accidents will be placed on the maker in most cases, as they are the "operator."  Sort of a different take...and a valid one...on corporations as people.  The guy in the Tesla would not have won (if he'd survived and sued) as Tesla had made it clear it was not to be used as he was using it.  But once full autonomy is endorsed, the blame goes squarely on the maker for such accidents.  For those fearful of the technology that should be enough to convince them that autonomy will be FAR safer than humans. 

 

Dave

[Travis In Austin]

11 hours ago, Mallette said:

No further arguments from me.  There were 300 cars in the United States in 1895, 78,000 in 1905, 459,000 in 1910 and 1.7 million in 1914.  The penetration of this technology will be much, much faster.  The reasoning, economic, safety, and convenience is overwhelming.  Some will be of the "they'll get my steering wheel from my cold, dead hands" mentality.  But that's been the case for decades. 

 

Dave

 

The early evolution of automobile industry doesn't really fit in my view because there were no legal barriers to entry at that time.

 

There can't currently be rapid penetration of Level 4, 5 and 6 because there are legal barriers.  Those legal barriers are currently State by State. When the tech is ready and there is enough demand individual State's will begin to authorize the use of 4, 5 or 6. This almost always results in inconsistent standards and regulations across the states.  

 

The only way to have uniform regulations in the US is for Congress is to preempt the field or sector.

 

It's a pretty standard flow since the 70s.