| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/06/2013 03:06:45 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
...I don't want to be on the 405 (San Diego Freeway) when some terrorist tells 3000 cars they're suddenly in Chicago ... |
That would throw them for a Loop, wouldn't it? ;-)
As an aside, I always smile at California-style references to freeways. They are always prefaced by "the." I don't think this is prevalent anywhere else in the country, but it CA it seems to be nearly universal. |
I hope you appreciate that I used Chicago in my example specifically as a set-up for that!
The use of "the" in freeway names is much more common in southern California -- I only used it because that's the location I was referring to ... around here we usually use just the number designation ("Take I-80 to the 580/24 split"); we'd only use "the" for named highways ("traffic on the bridge is backed up to the Waldo Grade" or "traffic is heavy on the Nimitz Freeway") ...
It might be an interesting study to listen to a variety of local stations around the country (many stream on the 'net) and compare how they refer to these things in their traffic reports. |
|
|
|
09/06/2013 03:16:21 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
the ability for a cop to tell the difference between you being distracted by one thing vs. another (GPS or Cell) while you pass him at even 35MPH is ridiculous. |
FYI, in CA, the ticket for this sort of violation is not specific to "texting" but something akin to "unlawful use of restricted electronics"; or some such vague legalese. |
|
|
|
09/06/2013 03:21:22 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
the ability for a cop to tell the difference between you being distracted by one thing vs. another (GPS or Cell) while you pass him at even 35MPH is ridiculous. |
FYI, in CA, the ticket for this sort of violation is not specific to "texting" but something akin to "unlawful use of restricted electronics"; or some such vague legalese. |
Don't get me started on the vagueness of laws. |
|
|
|
09/06/2013 03:28:55 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
the ability for a cop to tell the difference between you being distracted by one thing vs. another (GPS or Cell) while you pass him at even 35MPH is ridiculous. |
FYI, in CA, the ticket for this sort of violation is not specific to "texting" but something akin to "unlawful use of restricted electronics"; or some such vague legalese. |
Don't get me started on the vagueness of laws. |
Oh, go ahead. Get started
:-) |
|
|
|
09/06/2013 03:30:28 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by bohemka:
I don't see how the laws aren't enforceable. You can get pulled over for failing to signal, not wearing a seat belt, not having your headlights on after dark, etc. None of these require witnesses and video evidence. If you want to fight the ticket and get off without a fine, I couldn't care less, but you'll tell a dozen people about it, and you'll think twice about it before you do it again. That is raising awareness. |
Are you kidding me? Have you never been accused of breaking a law when you know you didn't? Ever tried to fight it in court when it is a matter of your word vs. the cops? Guess who always wins? Guess who NEVER does? As mentioned, the ability for a cop to tell the difference between you being distracted by one thing vs. another (GPS or Cell) while you pass him at even 35MPH is ridiculous. |
I've had plenty of problems with those situations, unfortunately, but my personal hardships don't have me thinking the police should stop enforcing laws because they sometimes screw up or have an ax to grind. No texting while driving is a law here in Massachusetts. It should be enforced. That's all I'm asking.
It's pretty damn easy to spot a texter. Just stand on a corner of an intersection for five minutes and you'll have plenty of obvious violators to choose from. |
So, let me get this straight..
You recognize that there is an issue with false convictions.
You've suffered this.
You simply don't care.
..
Did I get that right? |
|
|
|
09/06/2013 03:51:44 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I hope you appreciate that I used Chicago in my example specifically as a set-up for that! |
Dude, you're scaring me! Am I really that predictable?? Wait, don't answer that! ;-)
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The use of "the" in freeway names is much more common in southern California -- I only used it because that's the location I was referring to ... around here we usually use just the number designation ("Take I-80 to the 580/24 split"); we'd only use "the" for named highways ("traffic on the bridge is backed up to the Waldo Grade" or "traffic is heavy on the Nimitz Freeway") ...
It might be an interesting study to listen to a variety of local stations around the country (many stream on the 'net) and compare how they refer to these things in their traffic reports. |
Indeed it would be an interesting project, and probably wouldn't take all that much time. Heck a couple mornings and/or afternoons of listening to traffic reports could net data on a dozen or more cities.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2013 04:08:56 PM · #57 |
Cars are already hackable through their bluetooth connection. Anything controlled or influenced by the car's onboard computer is vulnerable. They don't need physical access to your car at all. Imagine your accelerator floored, your wheel cranked into oncoming traffic and your brakes disabled by someone in the car next to you. Or any number of other really nasty tricks.
//www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/07/24/hackers-reveal-nasty-new-car-attacks-with-me-behind-the-wheel-video/
What makes you think so-called autonomous vehicles will be any less vulnerable?
Message edited by author 2013-09-06 16:09:05. |
|
|
|
09/06/2013 04:26:44 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Cars are already hackable through their bluetooth connection. Anything controlled or influenced by the car's onboard computer is vulnerable. They don't need physical access to your car at all. Imagine your accelerator floored, your wheel cranked into oncoming traffic and your brakes disabled by someone in the car next to you. Or any number of other really nasty tricks.
//www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/07/24/hackers-reveal-nasty-new-car-attacks-with-me-behind-the-wheel-video/
What makes you think so-called autonomous vehicles will be any less vulnerable? |
(assuming you are addressing me)
Imagine you're driving home in your '66 Mustang and a car coming from the opposite direction swerves in front of you, killing both of you because that person was drunk/texting/picking up a dropped cheeseburger, etc. Imagine that happening 32,000 times a year.
What's your point?
The fact that we are vulnerable to certain things does not make them a certainty. We KNOW we are vulnerable to inattentive, drunk, distracted, stupid drivers - yet most of us survive.
And I think I already addressed this point in my reply to the General...
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I get your point, BUT if one terrorist act every so often (let's say 1 per year) = 3000 cars explode or drive off cliffs, etc. compared to the 32k currently killed in accidents with human drivers, it still may be a better option (assuming reducing the number of deaths is the priority). You can't compare the "what if" numbers to nothing - you must compare to the current reality. The problem with automation is our reluctance to give up control, but the fact is that in spite of our constant reluctance, we eventually do and things typically improve and we find other things to do. I'm not even saying we would ever jump to full automation, but what if when you are driving along and you got a text msg and wanted to reply that you could click a button and let your car's computer take over so you can respond - or maybe it only automatically takes over when it senses you are being a moron? :) |
Personally, I accept that we have this situation and I'll do what I can to mitigate the risks as far as things that are within my control. If technology solves this problem and creates other problems, I've stated that's the nature of the world we live in, but on average I think we solve more than we create. We just need to stay ahead of the curve and make sure there are failsafes in place. And kudos to the hackers who expose these vulnerabilities! |
|
|
|
09/06/2013 04:31:33 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
Laws are in place to prevent this irresponsible behavior but they're not enforced. At least not in Boston, but then again these are the most self-centered drivers I've ever seen in my life, and even the cops drive around staring at the touchscreen devices set up in their cars instead of the road.
I walk all over this town with a stroller and it is impossible to make eye contact with any driver around a crosswalk. They are all texting/surfing/whatever. The same camera used to snap photos of people that run red lights should be used to enforce this as well. |
Come to Africa. Stop streets, road rules and seat belts are completely ignored as are pedestrian crossing. No visible policing. One of the highest accident rates in the world. Licences are bought and drivers are incredibly arrogant. Both male and female.
Message edited by author 2013-09-06 16:35:19. |
|
|
|
09/06/2013 04:32:55 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by HarveyG:
Originally posted by bohemka:
Laws are in place to prevent this irresponsible behavior but they're not enforced. At least not in Boston, but then again these are the most self-centered drivers I've ever seen in my life, and even the cops drive around staring at the touchscreen devices set up in their cars instead of the road.
I walk all over this town with a stroller and it is impossible to make eye contact with any driver around a crosswalk. They are all texting/surfing/whatever. The same camera used to snap photos of people that run red lights should be used to enforce this as well. |
Come to Africa. Stop streetsm road rules and seat belts are completely ignored as are pedestrian crossing. No visible policing. One of the highest accident rates in the world. |
Sounds a lot like Miami Beach... And that's just the police - you should SEE what the civilians get up to.
When riding my bike there my thought pattern was very clear: Trust no-one, don't even make it possible for someone to smash you, because if you do, they will.
Message edited by author 2013-09-06 16:33:50. |
|
|
|
09/06/2013 04:35:28 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
...I don't want to be on the 405 (San Diego Freeway) when some terrorist tells 3000 cars they're suddenly in Chicago ... |
That would throw them for a Loop, wouldn't it? ;-)
As an aside, I always smile at California-style references to freeways. They are always prefaced by "the." I don't think this is prevalent anywhere else in the country, but it CA it seems to be nearly universal. |
I hope you appreciate that I used Chicago in my example specifically as a set-up for that!
The use of "the" in freeway names is much more common in southern California -- I only used it because that's the location I was referring to ... around here we usually use just the number designation ("Take I-80 to the 580/24 split"); we'd only use "the" for named highways ("traffic on the bridge is backed up to the Waldo Grade" or "traffic is heavy on the Nimitz Freeway") ...(snip) |
Glad this got clarified. Hackles were in the process of being raised!
:) |
|
|
|
09/06/2013 04:45:55 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
Glad this got clarified. Hackles were in the process of being raised!
:) |
We used to raise hackles, but feeding them every couple of hours and cleaning the cages was just too much trouble ... :-( |
|
|
|
09/06/2013 04:54:21 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by sfalice:
Glad this got clarified. Hackles were in the process of being raised!
:) |
We used to raise hackles, but feeding them every couple of hours and cleaning the cages was just too much trouble ... :-( |
Well, that's Berkeley for ya.
On this side of the Bay, we're good to our hackles. And raise many of them...and cherish them. |
|
|
|
09/06/2013 05:05:31 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Cars are already hackable through their bluetooth connection. Anything controlled or influenced by the car's onboard computer is vulnerable. They don't need physical access to your car at all. Imagine your accelerator floored, your wheel cranked into oncoming traffic and your brakes disabled by someone in the car next to you. Or any number of other really nasty tricks.
//www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/07/24/hackers-reveal-nasty-new-car-attacks-with-me-behind-the-wheel-video/
What makes you think so-called autonomous vehicles will be any less vulnerable? |
(assuming you are addressing me)
Imagine you're driving home in your '66 Mustang and a car coming from the opposite direction swerves in front of you, killing both of you because that person was drunk/texting/picking up a dropped cheeseburger, etc. Imagine that happening 32,000 times a year.
What's your point?
The fact that we are vulnerable to certain things does not make them a certainty. We KNOW we are vulnerable to inattentive, drunk, distracted, stupid drivers - yet most of us survive.
And I think I already addressed this point in my reply to the General...
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I get your point, BUT if one terrorist act every so often (let's say 1 per year) = 3000 cars explode or drive off cliffs, etc. compared to the 32k currently killed in accidents with human drivers, it still may be a better option (assuming reducing the number of deaths is the priority). You can't compare the "what if" numbers to nothing - you must compare to the current reality. The problem with automation is our reluctance to give up control, but the fact is that in spite of our constant reluctance, we eventually do and things typically improve and we find other things to do. I'm not even saying we would ever jump to full automation, but what if when you are driving along and you got a text msg and wanted to reply that you could click a button and let your car's computer take over so you can respond - or maybe it only automatically takes over when it senses you are being a moron? :) |
Personally, I accept that we have this situation and I'll do what I can to mitigate the risks as far as things that are within my control. If technology solves this problem and creates other problems, I've stated that's the nature of the world we live in, but on average I think we solve more than we create. We just need to stay ahead of the curve and make sure there are failsafes in place. And kudos to the hackers who expose these vulnerabilities! |
No, it wasn't specifically in reply to you. Your assumption is that instances of people attacking automated cars remotely in that manner would be rare or isolated. I'm sure it would at first, just like computer viruses were rare when computers were less common. Now, how many computers get infected, compromised and/or otherwise attacked? The numbers are huge. With cars the controls on such vulnerabilities have to be made far tighter than they are now because the potential consequences are a lot more significant than just losing all of the baby's pictures or your latest spreadsheet. People have lost computers, networks have crashed, e-commerce sites have lost money, CC numbers stolen and so on but as far as I know, no one has been killed directly by computer hacking. Leave the vulnerabilities and develop autonomous cars and someone will wreak havok just because they can.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2013 05:20:05 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
No, it wasn't specifically in reply to you. Your assumption is that instances of people attacking automated cars remotely in that manner would be rare or isolated. I'm sure it would at first, just like computer viruses were rare when computers were less common. Now, how many computers get infected, compromised and/or otherwise attacked? The numbers are huge. With cars the controls on such vulnerabilities have to be made far tighter than they are now because the potential consequences are a lot more significant than just losing all of the baby's pictures or your latest spreadsheet. People have lost computers, networks have crashed, e-commerce sites have lost money, CC numbers stolen and so on but as far as I know, no one has been killed directly by computer hacking. Leave the vulnerabilities and develop autonomous cars and someone will wreak havok just because they can. |
You are making my point - we would not give up the POSITIVE things computers bring us because of the hacking, phishing, etc. It just creates new industries and opportunities for someone to work on securing and preventing. Same will be true of automated cars. Again, to be clear, I am not advocating for this to happen, I am saying it WILL happen - eventually - it's inevitable. |
|
|
|
09/06/2013 05:24:31 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by sfalice:
Glad this got clarified. Hackles were in the process of being raised!
:) |
We used to raise hackles, but feeding them every couple of hours and cleaning the cages was just too much trouble ... :-( |
Well, that's Berkeley for ya.
On this side of the Bay, we're good to our hackles. And raise many of them...and cherish them. |
Good to see that the Domestic Hackle is not an endangered species... and glad to help raise them, by the way 8-o |
|
|
|
09/06/2013 05:48:14 PM · #67 |
| We don't raise hackles in Canada. I miss their rudenesses. I seem to remember one was called Her Royal Rudeness but then she crossed some sort of line. |
|
|
|
09/06/2013 06:48:33 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by tnun:
We don't raise hackles in Canada. I miss their rudenesses. I seem to remember one was called Her Royal Rudeness but then she crossed some sort of line. |
Did you ever figure out why? was she texting at the time? |
|
|
|
09/06/2013 07:59:57 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
...Again, to be clear, I am not advocating for this to happen, I am saying it WILL happen - eventually - it's inevitable. |
I do believe you are correct, and for exactly the reasons you advance. Eventually, the benefits will far outweigh the costs, and it will just happen. Not all at once but gradually. As you have stated earlier, it has already started. Automatic parking, lane deviation warnings, automatic emergency override (braking) first for back-up avoidance and now during normal driving, car-to-car networking, pedestrian avoidance based on tracking the pedestrians by GPS... the list will grow, and automation's role will grow, until full automation is not an oddity, but the norm and direct driver control is the oddity. In some ways I do hope I never see the day, but fear I will. |
|
|
|
09/06/2013 08:08:11 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
...Again, to be clear, I am not advocating for this to happen, I am saying it WILL happen - eventually - it's inevitable. |
I do believe you are correct, and for exactly the reasons you advance. Eventually, the benefits will far outweigh the costs, and it will just happen. Not all at once but gradually. As you have stated earlier, it has already started. Automatic parking, lane deviation warnings, automatic emergency override (braking) first for back-up avoidance and now during normal driving, car-to-car networking, pedestrian avoidance based on tracking the pedestrians by GPS... the list will grow, and automation's role will grow, until full automation is not an oddity, but the norm and direct driver control is the oddity. In some ways I do hope I never see the day, but fear I will. |
All part of the Decepticons' plans.
 |
|
|
|
09/06/2013 08:39:03 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
...Again, to be clear, I am not advocating for this to happen, I am saying it WILL happen - eventually - it's inevitable. |
I do believe you are correct, and for exactly the reasons you advance. Eventually, the benefits will far outweigh the costs, and it will just happen. Not all at once but gradually. As you have stated earlier, it has already started. Automatic parking, lane deviation warnings, automatic emergency override (braking) first for back-up avoidance and now during normal driving, car-to-car networking, pedestrian avoidance based on tracking the pedestrians by GPS... the list will grow, and automation's role will grow, until full automation is not an oddity, but the norm and direct driver control is the oddity. In some ways I do hope I never see the day, but fear I will. |
Yes, it will happen. I saw an advance preview a year or so ago when, driving down near San Jose on a well populated freeway, I was passed by a driverless Prius with a rotating device on the roof. After the initial double take, I tried to keep up with this wonder for a bit. While driving without incident (well by my standards, but maybe "it" was tailgating just a tad), it vanished quickly. And, (forgive me for boasting) I am no slouch in freeway driving.
Um, I don't go down to the San Jose area much any more.
Message edited by author 2013-09-06 20:39:49. |
|
|
|
09/06/2013 08:42:37 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
Um, I don't go down to the San Jose area much any more. |
That's good. They've mostly been replaced by cyborgs and the ones that haven't have been enslaved. Best to avoid the area. ;-) |
|
|
|
09/06/2013 08:46:32 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by sfalice:
Um, I don't go down to the San Jose area much any more. |
That's good. They've mostly been replaced by cyborgs and the ones that haven't have been enslaved. Best to avoid the area. ;-) |
We are of one mind. (er, or maybe I shouldn't say that) |
|
|
|
09/06/2013 08:48:46 PM · #74 |
| In thinking about this, I am very disappointed at the potential that we will have ubiquitous self-driving cars before we have the affordable flying cars we were promised as kids! |
|
|
|
09/06/2013 09:05:34 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
In thinking about this, I am very disappointed at the potential that we will have ubiquitous self-driving cars before we have the affordable flying cars we were promised as kids! |
You're too young to remember Buck Rogers.
He had all this stuff long before the current kerfluffle |
|
