XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science   
   From: YourName@YourISP.com   
      
   In article , Chrysi Cat   
    wrote:   
   > On 1/23/2014 6:34 PM, Robert Bannister wrote:   
   > > On 24/01/2014 4:03 am, Your Name wrote:   
   > >> In article , David   
   > >> Friedman  wrote:   
   > >>> In article <220120141849207998%YourName@YourISP.com>,   
   > >>>   Your Name  wrote:   
   > >>>>>   
   > >>>>> I once had map software on my laptop while I was entering St. Louis   
   > >>>>> via   
   > >>>>> a bridge across the Mississippi try to tell me to take a left turn   
   > >>>>> from   
   > >>>>> the divided interstate highway bridge a hundred feet up in the air   
   > >>>>> onto   
   > >>>>> the riverside jogging/bike path below.   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>> One example of NUMEROUS that prove self-driving cars simply aren't   
   > >>>> going to happen any time soon.   
   > >>>   
   > >>> I don't think that follows. As best I can tell, the Google self-driving   
   > >>> car doesn't rely on just GPS and maps. It has mechanisms for watching   
   > >>> the actual road and traffic.   
   > >>>   
   > >>> You might as well argue that human driven cars aren't going to happen   
   > >>> any time soon. They too rely on a combination of information sources,   
   > >>> one of which is often the GPS.   
   > >>   
   > >> Human drivers (hopefully) also use intelligence, common sens, and an   
   > >> ability to make decisions for themselves ...three things a computer   
   > >> simply cannot currently have, no matter how complicated the programming   
   > >> is.   
   > >>   
   > >> Human drivers can also read road signs no matter where they are placed   
   > >> (other than behind a tree!), whereas a computer will have difficulty   
   > >> doing that in EVERY instance.   
   > >>   
   > >> Then there are facts like many roads simply not having markings for the   
   > >> computer to see, or having duplicate markings where the road has been   
   > >> chaged for somereason. The possibilities for something not thought of   
   > >> in the programming are endless.   
   > >>   
   > >   
   > > Human drivers also think they can maintain a conversation on their   
   > > mobile phone, another with their passengers while listening to sport on   
   > > their car radio and drive at the same time.   
   >   
   > So wait, would you be inclined to ban _radio receivers_ in cars? Driving   
   > is boring enough that forcing people to do it in silence would lead to   
   > all sorts of fun reactions...   
      
   Yep. Drivers should be in a little compartment all by themselves,   
   separated from passengers and other distractions ... just like the old   
   London double-decker buses and taxis.   :-)   
      
   Some companies do have their own rules about such things. For example,   
   buses in New Zealand often have (or at least had when I used them)   
   signs telling you not to speak to the driver while the bus is moving.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)