When Will Electric Cars Become Mainstream?

[Fungus]

OTA updates means we'll all become beta testers then?

Oh, FFS...   

"YES!"

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

OTA updates means we'll all become beta testers then?

Oh, FFS...   

"YES!"

And that's another + for Tesla in your opinion?

[Fungus]

And that's another + for Tesla in your opinion?

Nope. It's a benefit for society as a whole.

If you think it isn't then please turn off all your computing devices, they have bugs/exploits in them, guaranteed!   

What's it to be?
a) Continue posting in this forum and take the risk that one day your computer might crash and lose data?
or
b) Switch everything off, just in case.

[wraper]

At least we always see the trailers.

Really?   

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

And bricking a truck/bus/car/train/plane is about as bad as bricking a fucking tablet. Ooopsie!

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

At least we always see the trailers.

Really?   

Really, yes. And we can even drive perfectly on roads with no or blurry lines.

[wraper]

At least we always see the trailers.

Really?   

Really, yes. And we can even drive perfectly on roads with no or blurry lines.

For some reason road accidents contradict the statement of human drivers always seeing the trailers.




Or this: http://livetrucking.com/california-man-killed-after-crashing-into-parked-semi/

[Fungus]

(snip)

If you're continuing to post here then you're continuing to use computers, ie. You know what a cost/benefit analysis is.

Now you just need to realize that three innocent people were killed by drunk drivers while you were typing that reply and a hundred others did something incredibly stupid while driving.

Feel free to come back when you've grokked that.

[Fungus]

Really, yes. And we can even drive perfectly on roads with no or blurry lines.

For some reason road accidents contradict the statement of human drivers always seeing the trailers.

The idea that they can drive perfectly on roads with neatly painted/visible lines is also not supported by the evidence.

[JohnnyMalaria]

[It's unlike aviation in that an update can be transmitted all over the world while people are sleeping.

Well, we all know what forced pushed updates can do. I'm not just talking laptops and phones.

My wife was driving her 3 month old MINI on the highway at 65mph when the engine cut out. She managed to get to the shoulder. She called me to get our AAA info. I said half-jokingly that BMW must have pushed a firmware update. Well, she called the dealership while waiting for the tow truck. Yup, that's exactly what happened. They bricked her car at 65mph.

If that's true then this will have lead to a new procedure/practice at BMW.

nb. I'm not sure that is the reason. It could just as easily be a loose wire or something, car dealers aren't famous for rigor.

They confirmed it had just been updated at that point.


There's not much that the dealership does with the car arrives from the UK. It's been thoroughly tested at the plant and is road ready. I've been around MINI's plant in Oxford. It is amazing. One car a minute and each one is custom. They've never made two cars the same.

The car has the OnStar-type radio communication system that you can subscribe to. When my wife ordered the car (built to her specificiations), she declined it but clearly the system is always active and BMW are in constant communication with the car. Who knows what information is sent back and forth. There's nothing to indicate the system is active and nothing in the paperwork to say that it is either. Yet, small updates occur in stealth-like Microsoft fashion. Weird shit has happened such as the wipers stopped working. She called the dealership, waited a couple of minutes and then they worked again. Similar thing with the interior mood lighting. The former is potentially dangerous, the latter is annoying.

If a firmware update can brick the car, disable the wipers or mess up the interior lighting (and who knows what else), I sure as hell wouldn't trust an autonomous system to understand the difference between a tree and a truck.

[DougSpindler]

Really, yes. And we can even drive perfectly on roads with no or blurry lines.

For some reason road accidents contradict the statement of human drivers always seeing the trailers.

The idea that they can drive perfectly on roads with neatly painted/visible lines is also not supported by the evidence.

No one said humans wee perfect.  But do the math....  Per driven mile, autodrivng cars get in far more accidents than humans do.  And we are not talking about a factor of 2 or 3.  Not even 10 or 100.  The math telescope us humans are far better drivers by a factor of well over 100 million.

[wraper]

No one said humans wee perfect.  But do the math....  Per driven mile, autodrivng cars get in far more accidents than humans do.  And we are not talking about a factor of 2 or 3.  Not even 10 or 100.  The math telescope us humans are far better drivers by a factor of well over 100 million.

What math? You just pulled this BS out of a thin air  .

[Fungus]

No one said humans wee perfect.  But do the math....  Per driven mile, autodrivng cars get in far more accidents than humans do.

...and you're incapable of seeing past today. We get it.

You're incapable of seeing that future savings could massively outweigh short term losses if they're given a chance (by a factor of well over 100 million!)

[DougSpindler]

No one said humans wee perfect.  But do the math....  Per driven mile, autodrivng cars get in far more accidents than humans do.  And we are not talking about a factor of 2 or 3.  Not even 10 or 100.  The math telescope us humans are far better drivers by a factor of well over 100 million.

What math? You just pulled this BS out of a thin air  .

Just using the published data from the selfdriving car companies have published. Interesting you call the actual data the self-driving car software companies have collected as BS.

Have you even loooked at the data?  Or do you just call everything you don't agree with as BS?






 

[wraper]

No one said humans wee perfect.  But do the math....  Per driven mile, autodrivng cars get in far more accidents than humans do.  And we are not talking about a factor of 2 or 3.  Not even 10 or 100.  The math telescope us humans are far better drivers by a factor of well over 100 million.

What math? You just pulled this BS out of a thin air  .

Just using the published data from the selfdriving car companies have published. Interesting you call the actual data the self-driving car software companies have collected as BS.

Have you even loooked at the data? 

What published data? For example, Tesla reports reduced crash rate with autopilot. https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/19/14326258/teslas-crash-rate-dropped-40-percent-after-autopilot-was-installed-feds-say

Or do you just call everything you don't agree with as BS?

No, only when I see a bold claim based on nothing.

[DougSpindler]

No one said humans wee perfect.  But do the math....  Per driven mile, autodrivng cars get in far more accidents than humans do.  And we are not talking about a factor of 2 or 3.  Not even 10 or 100.  The math telescope us humans are far better drivers by a factor of well over 100 million.

What math? You just pulled this BS out of a thin air  .

Just using the published data from the selfdriving car companies have published. Interesting you call the actual data the self-driving car software companies have collected as BS.

Have you even loooked at the data? 

What published data? For example, Tesla reports reduced crash rate with autopilot. https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/19/14326258/teslas-crash-rate-dropped-40-percent-after-autopilot-was-installed-feds-say

Or do you just call everything you don't agree with as BS?

No, only when I see a bold claim based on nothing.

Dude you are mixed up.  We have been talking about self-driving car software and offer a link to semi-autonomous Autopilot software.

Now that's BS.   

[wraper]

Dude you are mixed up.  We have been talking about self-driving car software and offer a link to semi-autonomous Autopilot software.

Now that's BS.   

Then please provide a link to your true "self driving" statistics with extraordinary number of accidents reported.

[DougSpindler]

Dude you are mixed up.  We have been talking about self-driving car software and offer a link to semi-autonomous Autopilot software.

Now that's BS.   

Then please provide a link to your true "self driving" statistics with extraordinary number of accidents reported.

Dude stop with the BS already.  Never said there were an extraordinary number of accidetns.

What I did say a human driver would not mistake trees or a parked car as being a road.  At least the humans try and avoid hitting the tree where as the selfdriving cars are driving right into them.  Per mile driven the autodriving car software is doing a much worse job.

You could start here for Waymo.  https://waymo.com/safety/

And since you asked for a link why not give me a link to data you used to call the data the selfdriving car softare companies as BS.

[wraper]

You could start here for Waymo.  https://waymo.com/safety/

Where is the report on huge number of self driving car accidents, FFS? There is none in that document.

And since you asked for a link why not give me a link to data you used to call the data the selfdriving car softare companies as BS.

Because burden of proof is on person who made the claim. And where is the freaking data you are talking about? You made an extraordinary claim about self driving cars being involved in a lot of accidents, being orders of magnitude worse than real people. Therefore it's you who need to back that claim with evidence. Where FFS are all of those accidents? You provided zero evidence so far. I did not even need to provide a link about Tesla autopilot, which is the closest as it gets to see how technology works in real life with regular people using it. And I don't call the data being BS (there is no such data to begin with) as you are implying. I call BS your claim which is not backed by any data.

[DougSpindler]

You could start here for Waymo.  https://waymo.com/safety/

Where is the report on huge number of self driving car accidents, FFS? There is none in that document.

And since you asked for a link why not give me a link to data you used to call the data the selfdriving car softare companies as BS.

Because burden of proof is on person who made the claim. And where is the freaking data you are talking about? You made an extraordinary claim about self driving cars being involved in a lot of accidents, being orders of magnitude worse than real people. Therefore it's you who need to back that claim with evidence. Where FFS are all of those accidents? You provided zero evidence so far. I did not even need to provide a link about Tesla autopilot, which is the closest as it gets to see how technology works in real life with regular people using it. And I don't call the data being BS (there is no such data to begin with) as you are implying. I call BS your claim which is not backed by any data.

Dude read my post.  I said this is where you can start.  THere's data there all you need to do is a couple of simple math calculations.

Seems you have a chip on your shoulder and have preconsciend beleifs which are based on ficticious facts.  Appears You Can't Handle the Truth!

[wraper]

Dude read my post.  I said this is where you can start.  THere's data there all you need to do is a couple of simple math calculations.

Nice, now you are saying it's up to me to research and prove your BS claim. Well done, it just proves yet again that you have nothing to back your claim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor

[DougSpindler]

Dude read my post.  I said this is where you can start.  THere's data there all you need to do is a couple of simple math calculations.

Nice, now you are saying it's up to me to research and prove your BS claim. Well done, it just proves yet again that you have nothing to back your claim.

Nope what I've alway been saying is tell me why you think the data the software comapnes has collected and pubished, some of which I have shared with you is BS.

You are one saying the data is BS.  Yet you can't provide any data.  You obviouly have an agenda and are quick any data whihc you don't agree with as BS.

Sorry mate, but you need to learn critical thinking skills.

[wraper]

Nope what I've alway been saying is tell me why you think the data the software comapnes has collected and pubished, some of which I have shared with you is BS.

You have shared nothing on autonomous car crash statistics so far. Open that document yourself and show us the place where it is written. Yet again, I have nothing against data, the issue is there was no data provided so far. Is it that difficult to post a quote from the document where such statistics are given? So far you made nothing but tried to twist what I'm saying. Straw man at it's best. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

You are one saying the data is BS.  Yet you can't provide any data.

Though I didn't need to, I provided statistics on Tesla autopilot which shows that autopilot reduces the number of accidents. Yet for you Tesla autopilot is not kosher enough to show that self driving cars reduce accidents not increase them. As for "true" self driving cars (which you cannot buy BTW as they are in testing stage), I cannot provide statistics which are not available to general public (yet somehow are available to your imagination). It's that simple.

[wraper]

Sorry mate, but you need to learn critical thinking skills.

No I don't need to. Critical thinking is exactly the reason why I'm asking to provide evidence for your extraordinary claims. It's people who don't have critical thinking accept arguments without asking for any proof.

[nctnico]

For some people critical thinking equals to 'everything must be wrong'. 

By the way the ACEA (European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association) has released an interesting statement about the adoption (or lack thereof) of EVs:
http://www.acea.be/press-releases/article/post-2020-co2-targets-cars-must-be-affordable-and-rechargeable-auto-industr
What they are saying is that the EU should be more realistic about their goal which says that 30% of the cars sold should be electric by 2030 (12 years from now) because it would mean that the sales of EVs has to go from less than 1% to 30% in 12 years. The biggest problem the ACEA sees is that people simply can't afford EVs and charging infrastructure is lacking in many parts of europe.