Is this the first commercial on TV for self-driving cars?
proxy browser:Does anyone else remember how Americans were promised jet packs, Bush Jr. said we would have hydrogen-powered vehicles, and Newt Gingrich said we'd have full-body medical scanners in every home, and bases on the moon?
It was an idealistic fantasy meant to sell us on science and technology, make our lives easier, and where we could buy into the latest gadget or fad.
I usually find commercials a waste of time, but the makers of Cadillac showed clips from popular science fiction shows and movies over at least a 50-year period, the song was good, only 30 seconds and left me wanting more, such is the way advertisers play into feelings of our needs vs. our wants.
The push for self-driving vehicles, (as with any new technology), will have pros and cons, and failures over time could be forgotten when changes or advancements lead to what some would call progress.
My understanding of the concept is that there will be fewer accidents, and because these types of cars will better be able to reduce or eliminate congestion through the ability of vehicles to communicate in real time with other vehicles, get us to where we want to be more quickly.
Then there is the debate how insurers and law makers might address who is at fault if the vehicle is involved in an accident.
proxy browser :A recent story about a woman who jaywalked and was hit and killed by a car in self-driving mode during an experiment being conducted by the company Uber raised questions as to what could have been done to prevent this tragedy.
And while someone was in the vehicle, but who had insufficient time to take over or react, I wondered if a machine could respond faster than a human, is over time or in the long run the trade-off between how many lives self-driving vehicles can save, could be offset by any liabilities incurred when those same machines fail?
In the example, and where a human is driving and kills a person after jaywalking, the driver might be convicted of manslaughter, not that it has always been the case, because humans and circumstance weigh in, (that the law is not consistent within interpretations), but how would the law interpret a machine that is well maintained, and therefore considered consistent within its operating parameters?
And in the commercial the person in the car drinks something from a bottle; however, and currently, it's against the law to drive and do anything else (talk or text on the phone, eat or drink), but if the car was driving, how would the law then be interpreted?
web proxy: A couple of months ago, I was returning to my car after shopping and noticed a Tesla, the owners were getting into their car, and I asked them questions.
Their car was considered self driving with optional add-ons or apps, but they told me two things.
Their car wouldn't drive itself without the person behind the wheel maintaining constant contact with the steering wheel, and the sensors in the car sometimes didn't read the lines painted on the road if the lines weren't clear enough due to lack of maintenance.
Meaning, can a vehicle be constructed and programmed to eliminate with certainty the need for some types of insurance, or, is the technology not sufficient enough to address unknowns where insurers are concerned?
Which leads me to another concern where some manufacturers want to eliminate the steering wheel altogether, and so when you buy a product that has software/hardware, have you ever had a glitch-free experience with any of those devices?
Now apply that same question to self-driving vehicles.
Comments
Post a Comment