XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science   
   From: robban@clubtelco.com   
      
   On 24/01/2014 2:23 pm, Your Name wrote:   
   > 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.   
   >   
      
   And yet I often see the drivers talking to other drivers on their... -   
   is it a radio or a kind of phone?   
      
   --   
   Robert Bannister - 1940-71 SE England   
                       1972-now W Australia   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)