The EU debate - Part III

I didn't forget. It's no longer true, in the last 500,000 miles travelled an engineer took control 69 times for instances where they felt the car had made an incorrect decision. They then go back to headquarters to analyse the decision and determine whether it was wrong. So far 13 of those occasions are believed to have been genuine chances of collision and the software was rerun through the scenario until it learnt the correct course of action. This will only get better.

 

Again you are being slightly economical with the truth, which is something you normally accuse Hull of being.
In all the cases you are now mentioning, drivers are also present within the vehicle. Therefore not truly autonomous.
So I will try to make it simple for you. Is there anywhere in the world where a truly autonomous vehicle, turns up at your property and takes you to where you want to go? Is there any delevivery vehicle in the world that will deliver a parcel from a depot to any address?

 

So 69 times, there was cause for concern where the driver had to take control. The fact that they analysed the data after the event will be a great comfort to someone whose child could potentiallly be killed!

 

Yes at present their are engineers in the car monitoring and taking over where necessary, but that isn't the aim.
Truly autonomous vehicle operate in various locations around the world, including the Greenwich GATEway project (which is where we started) where they are being monitored. The delivery vehicle part of GATEway is still at the design stage as far as Im aware.

 

I know the difference between a AGV and autonomous self driving vehicle. Where do you think the concept of the driverless vehicle came from....yes that's right, AGV technology which is now 30+ years old?

 

The point is it was caution by the engineer rather than actual threat when analysed later.

 

So it's not truly autonomous, which is where I came in.

 

A less ill informed public would have resulted in a higher percentage voting in favour of Brexit.

 

Are you now being pedantic, for pedantic sakes?

 

No, completely wrong.
The technology used today is completely alien to what was available 30 years ago and much of it stems from the 2005 DARPA challenge

 

This is one of those things where the change is more scary than the statistics. If we had had driverless vehicles from day 1 then I have no doubt that accident levels would be lower and people would be outraged if unreliable humans would be allowed to drive!

 

No I'm highlighting that the Google car is a test vehicle so rather than risk a collision they prefer to analyse the risks later. That makes the engineer more cautious than needs be the case. Why is that pedantry? Just common sense as far as I can see.

 

There are 17 incidents of humans being to blame for hitting the Google car so allowing for the 13 potentials and one actual then it's doing pretty well and will only get better.

 

Again I think you are being pedantic to try to win the argument. There has always (and I use this term loosely) a desire for driverless transportation. Unfortunately the technology needed has taken time to be developed, just like other technologies. The modern car looks nothing like the Henry Ford vehicles, but without Henry Fords vision we wouldn't have what we have today. To dismiss the early AGV technology, shows how week your argument has become. I also said concept for AGV's, not technology.

 

Its precisely this kind of attitude that is the reason why the left are getting their arses kicked all over the world at the moment, and is precisely why Brexit won.

Just to dismiss everyone that voted leave as "stupid" because it doesn't gel with your ideals, and to lump all leave voters in the same bracket, is momumentally conceited and drives people against you.
It's time the left cut out the ostentatious displays of smug self righteousness and stopped getting offended by everything that doesn't fall in with their pre conceived notions of socialism and "helping the little guy" and actually started to show people the way, instead of condemning them for not seeing it themselves.
Don't get me wrong, the left have it right.....for the most part.....but the way some people go about it. Makes people want to just smack you...

 

Cameron is a Tory. Most Tory MPs were Remainers.

You can't just dismiss all Remainers as "the left".

 

I not arguing either way whether driverless, fully atomnous vehicles will be the future. I'm challenging Steven on whether this technology is safely available today, which it is clearly not, to provide a completey automonous service.

 

Lets be real, there is no "right" in the UK.
Not in the true sense of the word.
The UK is left.
The left won, overall.

Other than a handful of dickheads like the EDL and KKKustard and Pete. Who are few in number and aren't in a position of any consequence.

 

I'm not trying to win an argument,
I'll put out what I know and give opinion. Up you if you want to play battle of wills.

I dismiss earlier technology in the same way as I dismiss the hand crank in modern vehicles. There is nothing in these vehicles that relates to 80's technology other than the aim to produce an autonomous vehicle.
It doesn't make my view weak, it shows that I can see the difference between a machine with the processing power to learn and the set of instructions hardcoded 30 years ago.

 

Really, I would say the left are very rarely in power in the UK, Labour only got in as Blair was a Center.

The loony left like yourself will never get into a seat of power, the electorate are not that stupid.