Self-driving vehicles are complete B.S. How about a self-driving airplane ? How about a self-driving Tank ? How about an electric Tesla crashing into the back of a parked Fire Engine in Utah ? "Advanced technology" is a synonym for moron vehicle .
Regardless, they are here and that is where our auto industry is looking right now.
Good answer . Except what will you do when you are a driver in a self-driving Jeep , and some kid chases a ball into your lane ? Like the Uber self-driving car in Arizona when the pedestrian walked in front ? If you are not actually driving , the vehicle will be a total moron .
No such thing as a minor traffic offense . All police ought to have a minimum of 2 officers in each police car , and probably another police car with another 2 officers for back-up , to watch while the first police car and first 2 officers make the initial stop , and to pull in front to block suspect in after the suspect is finally stopped . Then you can watch suspect more closely , because his vehicle is dangerous in itself .
Actually, a "self-driving" aircraft is easier to implement than a self-driving car. The autopilot systems on commercial aircraft already make the pilot just a backup for the computer and in case of an emergency. With some CAT III approaches, you are pretty damn close to the runway and need very little visibility before the pilot has to make a decision on whether to abort the landing. There's a lot more to it than this, but here's some information if you are curious:
All true . But you always want a thinking human controller to be present , either in the cockpit or on the carrier . If a pilot was unfortunately completely disabled , you would need to balance the desire to land the uncontrolled aircraft , vs. the real danger to all of the sailors and crew should a fuel-laden and/or explosives-laden aircraft crash into the also fueled and armed parked aircraft on the carrier , a la Forrestal , etc.Actually, a "self-driving" aircraft is easier to implement than a self-driving car. The autopilot systems on commercial aircraft already make the pilot just a backup for the computer and in case of an emergency. With some CAT III approaches, you are pretty damn close to the runway and need very little visibility before the pilot has to make a decision on whether to abort the landing. There's a lot more to it than this, but here's some information if you are curious:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_landing_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoland
Hell, I seem to remember that we had a system that would allow us to land an aircraft on a carrier with a pilot that was completely disabled even back in "ancient times" when I was in the Navy.
The thing is, aircraft do not have to travel as close to each other as cars do. And, of course, they have RADAR and transponders. And, when all else fails, it's a case of "big sky, small plane" -- a philosophy that works pretty good until you get to places like airports where planes tend to be found in higher concentrations.
Unless the vehicle in front is turned the wrong way in traffic, it cannot watch the suspect more closely. From a tactical standpoint, you don't want to be pulling in front of the other vehicle, that's why the police pull behind you and walk up on you from behind. Now, if it started to become common for cars to have the gull-wing or rear-hinged (aka "suicide") doors, I have to wonder if some of the tactical advantage might be lost though.
All true , but from the police lives point of view , never take any chance ! So many officers have been ambushed during "minor traffic offense" , I would treat any "minor" traffic stop as a major reason for caution !
There's also a lot more ground (or ship) based infrastructure involved in automated aircraft landings than we have at our disposal for automated cars. You can't just go by GPS position even if you have the most accurate GPS available at the fastest refresh rate and it is 100% accurate since road changes occur on a daily basis either from major road construction projects or from smaller ones that are just closing off a lane due to them fixing a single pothole or their periodic cleaning of debris with the street sweeper machines. As such, it is the car itself that must have all the sensors and processors in order to be able to make the correct decision. Even with optical, IR, and RADAR based sensors, I would not want to trust my life on them. Sure, it would be "nice" to be able to get on a highway, turn on the autopilot, and catch a nap while on a long trip, but I just don't see it happening without a complete reworking of our road system to embed electronics in it to work with the electronics in the vehicles.
Well, I suspect that an equal blame could be put on their departments for pushing for "revenue enhancement" duties.
All true . When the golfer's plane went off course in uncontrolled cruise , possibly the pilot and pax were disabled by depressurization and/or oxygen deprivation . It would probably have been foolhardy to try to automatically land the plane because of the risk to innocent others on the ground .
All true . As far as "revenue enhancement" is concerned , the local councils in UK are far more successful in speed trapping using cameras on roads .
I wont do anything because if I can help it I wont be driving a self driving car. I'm not supporting self driving technology, as I stated previously. But like it or not its coming. My point was that advanced technology is where the focus is rather than European lighting regulations. I'm not sure why you think I support self driving vehicles.
As I mentioned before, whether or not I, you or anyone else agrees with the concealed carry law, it remains that it was a law. The Oklahoma officer was enforcing the laws which he was expected to enforce. Police do not make the laws, or even necessarily agree with them, they simply enforce them.
Has the government killed innocent people? Absolutely, there are tons of examples, especially going further back into history. War is violent and unfair. It doesn't make either side right. However the idea of "they did it, so it's okay for me to do it too" is stupid. That's like saying "their gang killed our guys, now our gang is going to kill some of theirs in retaliation". They're both wrong, and nobody learns anything from it. It's gang violence.
Right on. A well armed society is a polite society. Not just in regards to one another, but in regards to government too. The point behind "a well armed militia" was not to protect the people from each other, but to protect the people from the government. That stands true today, and we are a very well armed nation.
Ha ha. I get the point, but people complain enough about police. Can you imagine the complaints about wasting tax payer's money if two cars drove around together, with 4 officers to stop someone doing something like 10 over the limit?
What's funny is that "us vs them" mentality is perpetuated by the "news" and social media. How many actual police officers have you spoken with who are anti people, vs how may people you've talked to who are anti police? I see posts, and hear news reports all the time saying how people hate police, allege police are racist, abusive, sexist, etc. I've yet to see a post or news reports where an officer is saying they hate people and they're out to harass as many people as they can?
Yup. Aim the LED's down a hair, and wave as you go by the other Jeeps.
