The Spares Company
Club Shop/Regalia
Parent Website
Contact Officials
Machine Registrar
Club Secretary
Membership Secretaries
MPH Editor and Forum Administrator.
Section Newsletters
Technical Databases
Photos
Home
What's new
Latest activity
Forums
New posts
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Information
Bike Modifications
Machine Data Services
Manufacturers Manuals
Spare Parts Listings
Technical Diagrams
Whitakerpedia (Vincent Wiki)
The Club
MPH Material Archive
Flogger's Corner
Obituaries
VOC Sections
Local Sections
Local Section Newsletters
Miscellaneous
Club Assets
Club History
Club Rules
Machine Data Services
Meeting Documents
Miscellaneous
Essential Reading
Magazine/Newspaper Articles/Letters
Adverts and Sales Brochures
The Mighty Garage Videos
Bikes For Sale (Spares Company)
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Forums: Public Access
General Chat (Vincent Related)
Whatever next?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ClassicBiker" data-source="post: 91159" data-attributes="member: 1632"><p>This is just the first of many. Safety fences are placed around robots in factories for a reason. Robots do not sense humans, no sight, no hearing, nothing. They are going to go to the position indicated in the program that is currently in control, come hell or high water. Even if the robot in the factory does have some sort of proximity warning device, it takes time for that information to be processed by the controller, momentum and inertia have a lot of time to keep going before the response takes effect. By that time it is way to late the damage has been done.</p><p>I realize that the majority of drivers on the road today are dullards to put it politely. I also realize that the majority of individuals are traveling because they must do, not because they want to. But I don't understand the rush to surrender control over one's vehicle. I have very little, if any faith in complex computer programs. I always review the results of any analysis I run before releasing it to who ever requested it. So the thought of extremely complex computer programs being in control of vehicles to any extent I find worrying Intelligence is more than responding to stimuli. It requires a memory of prior experience, to begin with. A driver with experience or cognitive of all possible scenarios and ensuing consequences may have double checked before aborting the lane change, applied the brakes and allowed Mr. Nilsson to complete over taking before returning to the center of the lane. But then again that is supposition on my part.</p><p>Ultimately the owner/operator of an autonomous vehicle must accept that they are responsible for the actions of the vehicle. If not, then watch insurance premiums climb through the roof, if owners of said vehicles can even purchase insurance. Insurance after all is based on the individual's ability to operate a vehicle safely. If the individual isn't in or can't control the vehicle, who is the insured?</p><p>Steven</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ClassicBiker, post: 91159, member: 1632"] This is just the first of many. Safety fences are placed around robots in factories for a reason. Robots do not sense humans, no sight, no hearing, nothing. They are going to go to the position indicated in the program that is currently in control, come hell or high water. Even if the robot in the factory does have some sort of proximity warning device, it takes time for that information to be processed by the controller, momentum and inertia have a lot of time to keep going before the response takes effect. By that time it is way to late the damage has been done. I realize that the majority of drivers on the road today are dullards to put it politely. I also realize that the majority of individuals are traveling because they must do, not because they want to. But I don't understand the rush to surrender control over one's vehicle. I have very little, if any faith in complex computer programs. I always review the results of any analysis I run before releasing it to who ever requested it. So the thought of extremely complex computer programs being in control of vehicles to any extent I find worrying Intelligence is more than responding to stimuli. It requires a memory of prior experience, to begin with. A driver with experience or cognitive of all possible scenarios and ensuing consequences may have double checked before aborting the lane change, applied the brakes and allowed Mr. Nilsson to complete over taking before returning to the center of the lane. But then again that is supposition on my part. Ultimately the owner/operator of an autonomous vehicle must accept that they are responsible for the actions of the vehicle. If not, then watch insurance premiums climb through the roof, if owners of said vehicles can even purchase insurance. Insurance after all is based on the individual's ability to operate a vehicle safely. If the individual isn't in or can't control the vehicle, who is the insured? Steven [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What was Mr Irving's Christian Name?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Forums: Public Access
General Chat (Vincent Related)
Whatever next?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top