Driverless cars

:lol: Nothing my family has is larger than a 2.5 liter, so I'd like something a bit bigger However, we all have manuals and having learned on a stick, I think that roads would be much safer if people learned to drive manuals

 

Same, kind of.

I drive a RWD '84 MB 190D 2.2L naturally aspirated 4 cylinder diesel with a 5 speed manual.
My mom drives a FWD '12 Mazda 2 1.5L naturally aspirated 4 cylinder gasoline with a 5 speed manual.
My sister drives a FWD '08 Scion Xd 1.8L naturally aspirated 4 cylinder gasoline with a slushbox. :c
My dad drives a RWD '14 Toyota Tacoma 2.7L naturally aspirated 4 cylinder gasoline with a slushbox. :c

I WANT to swap the 602.911 5 cylinder turbo diesel into my car. I would love to swap the OM603 3.0L turbo diesel, but it's a very very hard swap with lots of custom fab work.

This is why I couldn't have a driverless car. I LOVE driving my car. I love cruising at night. I love shifting gears. I love doing doughnuts and drifting. I can't give that up.:icon_bigg

 

As far as my family goes:
I have a FWD 2002 Mazda Protégé LX 2.0 liter N/A with a 5-speed manual
My mom has a AWD2013 Subaru Outback 2.5i Limited N/A with a 6-speed manual
My dad has a FWD 2013 Mazda 3i Touring N/A with a 6-speed manual

This bold part describes me as well. I'm not so big on the donuts and drifting part, for me a perfect apex or making a late braking move into a corner stick is much more satisfying, but the feeling of shifting gears and feeling the car respond is awesome. It's these feelings that are why, even though we are in the minority, car manufacturers still make stick-shift cars

 

Car will be able to perfectly drive in icy-roads when people program it to in future. "computer currently isn't able to think in a "counter-intuitive" way." This is kind of misunderstanding the problem on intelligence. I think your confusing it with the "common sense problem" which it's really relevant here. What we describe as "counter-intuitive" is just us saying a certain situation requires logic that in similar situation would be inappropriate. There is a technique to drive on icy roads and a computer with far more precise measuring equipment than humans and with a lower chance of making a mistake would make the computer better than humans once they able to drive on icy roads at all.

Moore law isn't really that relevant here because I don't think it's a hardware problem rather more of a software problem. Even though the increase in hardware has made it possible. This whole "machines will never be able to do what humans do" dates back to when people said that a machine would never be able to do calculations as well as humans. This is just like that. The number of tasks humans can do that machines can not is an ever decreasing list.

 

Perhaps an ideal situation might be where every car is connected to the same network, so in essence, one computer is driving all the cars, and they're all able to communicate with each other. While I'm in favour of driverless cars - most of the objections here entirely miss the point, and cars would be easily programmed to drive in icy and rural conditions - I'm extremely wary of the network issue I mentioned above. Computers are less prone to error than humans, but any error could then affect the entire network. I'm firmly of the belief that cars ought to be controlled from within, and rely on visual sensors like a human driver would, rather that just 'knowing' where all the other cars are.

That said, some communication could be helpful. During a crash, for example, cars could communicate to minimise damage.

The new google taxis have no override controls, except for an emergency stop button.