dakotafred"Personal ... rather elitist" ... and, in the post above that, "idiosyncratic." I also stand accused of thinking I "own the roads." All because I question the camel we are being asked to swallow in radical changes proposed for the roads and public safety.
No. Not a personal attack. And not because of the "camel." It was entirely because of what you said:
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
mudchicken You expect that manual to be understandable? Probably written by one of the fellow classmates of one of those "newsworkers" (ie - an otherwise unemployable english major that is completely unfamiliar with the vehicle or an automotive engineer geek who has never carried-on an intelligent conversation outside the sheltered hive in the real world.) Manual(s) may have some recycling value, but little else.
Both my manuals (an older ford and newer GM) are fine. Tech writers did them, probably - a very useful application of the English studies. Plus tons of sources online for anything missing. *shrugs*.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
RME Euclid Imagine getting run over by a smiling self-driving car. There's worse, you know.
Euclid Imagine getting run over by a smiling self-driving car.
There's worse, you know.
My thought is that self-driving vehicles will very quickly become part of the national landscape - but in a limited application for the next several decades.
Unfortunately, the most likely application will hit the railroads right in their bread-and butter market - long-range transit. I could easily see our interstates become SDV zones outside of urban areas. As an example - one of my drivers picks up a two-drop load at my plant in the Atlanta area - part destined for a customer in St Louis, the rest for my West Coast distribution center in the Bay area. He/she secures the load, negotiates the complex Atlanta area traffic, fuels up at a self-service fueling center or a truck stop on the north side of town, then enters I-75 and accesses a SDV lane just north of town. They then rest while the satellite drives the truck for the next ten hours on exclusive - through-traffic lanes or whenever they reach approach St. Louis. They exit the SDV lane, exit the Interstate, and drive the customer's location After dropping the portion of the load at the customer's dock, repeat the prior cycle upon entering I-70 enroute to a supplier in the Denver area. Repeat the cycle in Denver, enter I -70, and allow the SDV function to pilot the truck to my distribution center in, say, Sacremento. Transportation companies will line up to fund the SDV lanes via a user fee =if= the ability to efficently use a single driver instead of a team operation will offset the addition fuel costs and the capital investment in additional tractors transiting rural areas. Less time-senstive freight wouldn't justify the added cost - but it would certainly skim off the high-profit intermodal segment (and drag a lot of less-time-sensetive freight with it on backhauls and "load fill". :(
Ulrich We recently replaced our family van with a new one. The old 2003 van had ONE thin owner's manual. This new thing has two thick manuals. It has all kinds of gizmos that supposedly make driving easier and safer.. I guess we'll see.
We recently replaced our family van with a new one. The old 2003 van had ONE thin owner's manual. This new thing has two thick manuals. It has all kinds of gizmos that supposedly make driving easier and safer.. I guess we'll see.
EuclidImagine getting run over by a smiling self-driving car.
dakotafred schlimm dakotafred Cars are for people who can DRIVE, not for those who can't. Introducing mindless robots into the mix for the sake of a decided minority -- adult persons unable to safely pilot a car -- is the worst kind of imposition on the rest of us for whom the automobile was designed... Asking these folks to plan a little ahead seems more fair to me than requiring everybody else to mix 24/7 with unlicensed robots that are only programmed, not sentient. As I said above, your objection seems personal and also rather elitist. You do not own the roads. "Personal ... rather elitist" ... and, in the post above that, "idiosyncratic." I also stand accused of thinking I "own the roads." All because I question the camel we are being asked to swallow in radical changes proposed for the roads and public safety. This follows a pattern. When Schlimm runs out of arguments, he takes up personal attacks.
schlimm dakotafred Cars are for people who can DRIVE, not for those who can't. Introducing mindless robots into the mix for the sake of a decided minority -- adult persons unable to safely pilot a car -- is the worst kind of imposition on the rest of us for whom the automobile was designed... Asking these folks to plan a little ahead seems more fair to me than requiring everybody else to mix 24/7 with unlicensed robots that are only programmed, not sentient. As I said above, your objection seems personal and also rather elitist. You do not own the roads.
dakotafred Cars are for people who can DRIVE, not for those who can't. Introducing mindless robots into the mix for the sake of a decided minority -- adult persons unable to safely pilot a car -- is the worst kind of imposition on the rest of us for whom the automobile was designed... Asking these folks to plan a little ahead seems more fair to me than requiring everybody else to mix 24/7 with unlicensed robots that are only programmed, not sentient.
As I said above, your objection seems personal and also rather elitist. You do not own the roads.
"Personal ... rather elitist" ... and, in the post above that, "idiosyncratic."
I also stand accused of thinking I "own the roads." All because I question the camel we are being asked to swallow in radical changes proposed for the roads and public safety.
This follows a pattern. When Schlimm runs out of arguments, he takes up personal attacks.
The next thing you know, you will be accused of having obsessive internal dialogues.
a recent book discussed the fallacy that various technologies will naturally evolve toward some ultimate end. That there will be self-driving cars beyond those that might be self-braking.
that book discussed various technologies also including underwater submersibles, aircraft and spacecraft and how much of their mundane operation can be automated but their main purpose is ultimately accomplished with the help of humans.
it also seems fallacious to assume that cars can self drive in all types of weather from hugh downpours, snow storms, icy roads and contentious traffic.
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
For innovation, you can’t beat the smiling car. Massive confusion about pedestrian law has pedestrians stepping into the road and asserting their right of way over approaching cars. So expert guidance is for pedestrians to make eye contact with drivers to make sure the driver realizes that they must yield.
But making eye contact with a person in a self-driving car cannot assure a pedestrian that the automatic car will not run them over. So the self-driving car recognizes pedestrians, and displays a big smile on the front grill of the car to assure the pedestrian that it sees them and will stop for them. Of course, pedestrian recognition is not 100% foolproof. Imagine getting run over by a smiling self-driving car.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INqWGr4dfnU
dakotafredCars are for people who can DRIVE, not for those who can't. Introducing mindless robots into the mix for the sake of a decided minority -- adult persons unable to safely pilot a car -- is the worst kind of imposition on the rest of us for whom the automobile was designed... Asking these folks to plan a little ahead seems more fair to me than requiring everybody else to mix 24/7 with unlicensed robots that are only programmed, not sentient.
dakotafredI meant what I said. I'm operating off Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition. You are correct about the Latin root, but not about the first usage, which is conciousness, per Webster's.
You are mistaken. The online version of it says: "of, having, or capable of feeling or perception; conscious."
http://www.yourdictionary.com/sentient#websters#beq9ZgyUmrHUgdGx.99 (the first entry)
Most other major dictionaries (you could Google) such as OED, Cambridge, also list sense or feel first.
Your major point is that you can think and thus manage a greater variety of situations. 1. As software improves, more variations are considered at greater speed. 2. The reaction times of the self-driving vehicles are far superior to that of humans.
Your objection to self-driven vehicles seems idiosyncratic. Better get used to them. They're coming (for you)!
Better urban planning, different lifestyle choices, more bike lanes, and a beefed up transit system are more realistic options than waiting for the self drive car to arrive. I bike and/or walk to almost everywhere I need to be other than in the winter months when I drive or take public transit. My kids cycle to school and to their various activities. I probably drive once or twice a week for work related activiities like meetings. Overall we drive very little.. I even walk to buy groceries. I notice alot of our neighbours are going the same way. There's freedom in NOT being encumbered by four tons of metal on wheels!
greyhoundsNo one can really predict the progress or adoption rate of a new technology. The railroads and their unions need to accept that some day trucks will be operated without humans.
AS WILL MANY RAILROAD TRAINS. Shorter, more frequent operation, safer, tighter headways, thus more efficient and with much lower labor costs.
dakotafredI still say: There are plenty of options for those who can't drive, including the help of public transportation, relatives and friends
Show me where I can get any of those options. There is no public transportation within 40 miles of where I live. My closest relative who is able to drive is well over 400 miles away. And my neighbors, the closest of which is over 1/2 mile away, are busy with their jobs (most are farmers which is a 30 hour a day job). A self driving car would be perfect for my wife who is legally blind and relies on me to take here anywhere.
zugmannA lot of people don't.
Let me offer a second on that.
It's thirteen miles of rural between my house and the city limits. Bus? Never happen. I could get a taxi, but it'll hit me square in the pocketbook.
There was an intercity bus that came through some years ago, but that ended. Now it's your car, or a friend's (unless you relish a buggy ride - the Amish do travel into the city for shopping). The closest we come to Uber, etc, is those friends.
If there's going to be an issue with self-driving cars, it's going to be the difference in driving styles between the autobot and real drivers. Probably first and foremost is speed. The self-driver will be conforming to the rules of the road. Around here, on our mostly rural roads, the posted speed limit may be 55 MPH, but most folks are cruising at around 60 MPH. I'm sure it's the same (or higher) in many other places. And "slow" drivers are just as disruptive for traffic flow as fast drivers - maybe moreso.
In the afternoon ("rush hour") in my hamlet, you can always tell when someone who's been running 55 MPH all the way from the city comes through town - they've got a substantial line of cars behind them.
Imagine an autobot doing 100 KPH (about 62 MPH) when everyone else is running 135 KPH (85 MPH) in four lanes of bumper to bumper traffic... Was in that kind of traffic across Toronto on the 401 once...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
dakotafredCars are for people who can DRIVE, not for those who can't. Introducing mindless robots into the mix for the sake of a decided minority -- adult persons unable to safely pilot a car -- is the worst kind of imposition on the rest of us for whom the automobile was designed.
The cars are being driven. Just by software instead of a person. If cars are to be driven - then why have taxis, ubers, or busses? Why don't those people just drive?
Part of what allowed this country to become what it is is mobility. Autobot cars are just the another link in the mobility chain that incudes horses, bicycles, carriages, steamships, canal boats, trains, trolleys, busses, taxis, Uber/Lyft, etc. It's great you live in a populated area. A lot of people don't. Our bus system is a joke and the paratransit services lacking. Friends and relatives (if a person even has any nearby) aren't always avaliable. There must be a great enough need (projected or current) for these companies to venture into this field. Just becuase you personally don't like it, doesn't mean it isn't needed.
greyhounds Take a look at this one. Follow the white tractor trailer to the left and see what happens about 13 seconds in to the video: http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/lake-county-news-sun/crime/ct-lns-gurnee-crash-update-video-st-0922-20160921-story.html That is the exit I take from I-94 on my way home from work. Traffic almost always backs up for the exit. Could a computer controlled truck do worse? No one can really predict the progress or adoption rate of a new technology. The railroads and their unions need to accept that some day trucks will be operated without humans.
Take a look at this one. Follow the white tractor trailer to the left and see what happens about 13 seconds in to the video:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/lake-county-news-sun/crime/ct-lns-gurnee-crash-update-video-st-0922-20160921-story.html
That is the exit I take from I-94 on my way home from work. Traffic almost always backs up for the exit.
Could a computer controlled truck do worse?
No one can really predict the progress or adoption rate of a new technology. The railroads and their unions need to accept that some day trucks will be operated without humans.
Some drivers are dumb and make mistakes. Some drivers are smarter than even you and I and shake their heads at our mistakes. Look on the highway experience as a battle of wits, if you like. But we play games all the time -- for fun, money, even our lives. What else is new?
At least we have familiarity with the common mistakes of others and learn to anticipate them, on the highway and elsewhere. We have no experience dealing with the perceptions or "thinking" of a computer chip. Or are likely to acquire any.
I still say: There are plenty of options for those who can't drive, including the help of public transportation, relatives and friends. Robot cars -- and anything else on the highway to freedom, like trucks -- are a strategy for salesmen, not the greater good.
I meant what I said. I'm operating off Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition. You are correct about the Latin root, but not about the first usage, which is conciousness, per Webster's.
My point was surely clear (even to obfuscators). We think, computers don't. This can come in handy when distinguishing between seemingly identical physical circumstances that are however quite different, not to say fast-moving.
dakotafred Not the same thing as CONSCIOUSNESS, the first definition of sentience. (Sorry for so often using CAPS for emphasis. The forum will not allow my italics to stand.)
Not the same thing as CONSCIOUSNESS, the first definition of sentience.
(Sorry for so often using CAPS for emphasis. The forum will not allow my italics to stand.)
Incorrect. You can look in many dictionaries and find that sentient/sentience refers to senses. From the Latin sentiens = sensing, feeling. When it refers to consciousness, it is the undifferentiated form, which you surely did not mean. Perhaps you meant sapience (thinking)?
dakotafred dehusman ndbprr Once it is perfected it will be a tremendous asset to us older people. Many older people drive far beyond when they should out of necessity. It could allow seniors to stay in their homes for a decade or more with a self driving car for trips to the supermarket or church services And people with disabilities. My son has a part time job and a disability. He cannot drive. A driverless car would give him independence from having to rely on us for transportation. If he wanted to go the movies, he could go to the movies, if he wanted to go to the store he could go to the store, if he wanted to go to church he could go to church. Of all the arguments for robot cars, these are the lamest. Cars are for people who can DRIVE, not for those who can't. Introducing mindless robots into the mix for the sake of a decided minority -- adult persons unable to safely pilot a car -- is the worst kind of imposition on the rest of us for whom the automobile was designed. It's not that alternatives for the disabled and too-old don't exist. We're a twin cities of less than 100,000, yet we have a fixed-route bus service plus door-to-door for those who make telephone arrangements a day in advance. All but the smallest of small towns have at least weekly services. Asking these folks to plan a little ahead seems more fair to me than requiring everybody else to mix 24/7 with unlicensed robots that are only programmed, not sentient.
dehusman ndbprr Once it is perfected it will be a tremendous asset to us older people. Many older people drive far beyond when they should out of necessity. It could allow seniors to stay in their homes for a decade or more with a self driving car for trips to the supermarket or church services And people with disabilities. My son has a part time job and a disability. He cannot drive. A driverless car would give him independence from having to rely on us for transportation. If he wanted to go the movies, he could go to the movies, if he wanted to go to the store he could go to the store, if he wanted to go to church he could go to church.
ndbprr Once it is perfected it will be a tremendous asset to us older people. Many older people drive far beyond when they should out of necessity. It could allow seniors to stay in their homes for a decade or more with a self driving car for trips to the supermarket or church services
And people with disabilities. My son has a part time job and a disability. He cannot drive. A driverless car would give him independence from having to rely on us for transportation. If he wanted to go the movies, he could go to the movies, if he wanted to go to the store he could go to the store, if he wanted to go to church he could go to church.
They are sentient, maybe far better than some of us. "A self-driving car is capable of sensing its environment and navigating without human input. To accomplish this task, each vehicle is usually outfitted with a GPS unit, an inertial navigation system, and a range of sensors including laser rangefinders, radar, and video."
Self-driving cars are rather ironically, the natural evolution of public transit, which was earlier made obsolete by manually operated motor vehicles. Like public transit, self-driving cars are now championed as the solution to gridlock, highway safety, and environmental degradation. However, self-driving cars will be more like public transit than the manually operated motor vehicle.
However, the very same technology that has made possible the self-driving car will next lead to a new advancement, which will sweep in and eliminate the need for travel. This will amount to the just in time home delivery of everything. You won’t need a self-driving car to take you grocery shopping. Running a grocery cart up and down store aisles will be as obsolete as a buggy whip.
Bring back streetcars, radials and good frequent commuter train service, and lots of bike lanes, and the need for cars, self driving or otherwise, is greatly reduced. Of course, if you live in the styx you'll probably still need a car. Cars provide the illusion of freedom, but unless you're wealthy and have alot of time on your hands, you can't just pickup and go. Think about this when your monthly payment comes due: your car is parked and unused 90% of the time unless you're using it as a courier service or taxi. And you're likely spending 40+K for something that sits unused, unsecured, and out in the elements most of the time.
ndbprrBy the way, I believe the Ohio turnpike and I94 in Michigan both have a wire imbedded in the roadway as a steering reference for future usage.
I might have mentioned it earlier in the thread, but I remember seeing demos of that technology in the 1960's at GM's Proving Grounds.
With self-driving cars, there is a need to know exactly where the car is at all times. This roadway location knowledge could simply be built into the vehicle control program, so the program guides the vehicle and the roadway will be there for it.
The only problem would be the driver-operated vehicles mixed into the system. The self-driving program will not be connected to the driver-operated vehicles, so it cannot know where they are. Therefore, what is needed is a way to sense where the driver-operated vehicles are at every instant, so the self-driving vehicle can properly interact with them.
I am not sure how this issue is being addressed today, but I assume there are sensors on the self-driving vehicle that detect and react to all external variables such as traffic lights and driver-operated vehicles. Nevertheless, this seems like the area of greatest challenge for perfection.
One way to ease that challenge would be to add controls and regulation to the driver-operated vehicles. It might even begin with mandating them to carry new technology to help assure their successful integration with the self-driving vehicles. In the beginning, it might also include a new rule that requires everyone in conventional cars to yield to self-driving cars just like yielding to police cars traveling in emergency mode.
The ultimate solution will be to either equip every inch of the roadway infrastructure with fixed sensors that will know where all operator-driven vehicles are; or to take them off the road, thus leaving a purely self-driven car environment.
One point that is being made now is that self-driving cars will have to be entirely self-driving with no necessary input or backup by a human occupant. I believe a second point will be that self-driving cars will need an environment that does not include interacting with operator-driven vehicles.
So this raises the question of whether those not sold on self-driving cars will have a choice to do their own driving like we do now.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.