Terry Pedwell reports in the Toronto Sun, Driverless cars would mean 'a lot more sex' behind the wheel: expert:
Federal bureaucrats are raising concerns about distracted driving in semi-autonomous cars that don't require much input from the driver.
And at least one expert is anticipating that, as the so-called 'smart' cars get smarter, there will eventually be an increase in an unusual form of distracted driving: hanky-panky behind the wheel.
"I am predicting that, once computers are doing the driving, there will be a lot more sex in cars," said Barrie Kirk of the Canadian Automated Vehicles Centre of Excellence.
"That's one of several things people will do which will inhibit their ability to respond quickly when the computer says to the human, 'Take over.'"
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:28PM
Lets hope curtains are mandatory equipment.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:31PM
This is an automated car. The curtains should be drawn automatically by an electric motor once sexual activity is detected in the vehicle.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Touché) by jdavidb on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:55PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Thursday May 05 2016, @12:54AM
The car's twitter feed and tumblr will be... nsfw.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:33PM
For years the media has been promising us flying cars, robotic house cleaners and more sex behind the wheel. I have yet to see any of those.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @10:31PM
robotic house cleaners
It's called Roomba.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05 2016, @12:11AM
Sure, and the General Lee [wikipedia.org] is a flying car.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05 2016, @01:45AM
For years the media has been promising us flying cars, robotic house cleaners and more sex behind the wheel.
Instead you gave me Facebook!
- Buzz A.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:45PM
In the event of an emergency, the driverless car panics, deploys external airbags, and bounces to a stop. Problem solved.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday May 04 2016, @10:08PM
How about if it just pumped the brakes... Oh, oh God, oh YES!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday May 04 2016, @10:11PM
What if the driverless car was also a sex robot?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @10:32PM
"Hey there stud, insert cock into ignition," it says, but you're too drunk to get it up, and if your car isn't turned on, you're not going anywhere.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @11:09PM
Do you realize that these external airbags need to be quite large and also have to get deflated quickly and absorb the kinetic energy slowly enough for the rest of it including any humans to survive?
And what happens if the vehicle is traveling at more than 10km/h? How about 140km/h? Do you know of any airbags that would absorb the energy of 1000+kg (excluding occupants) in short distance (1 metre?) without crushing the occupants?
I suggest ejection seats:
So you're enjoying the fleshlight, and suddenly you're up in the air holding your dick in your hand.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Arik on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:56PM
You can't have a driverless car until the computer is capable of taking over 100%.
You can't have the driverless car driving along and then just drop the job back on the guy sitting behind the wheel. That's never going to work. Human psychology ensures it.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Gravis on Wednesday May 04 2016, @10:14PM
yeah and so have all the nerds that have been working on making driverless cars. why do you think they wanted to make driverless cars to start with, safety? (≧∇≦)/
(Score: 1) by Arik on Thursday May 05 2016, @03:56AM
Hmmm citation needed.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 4, Funny) by Nuke on Wednesday May 04 2016, @10:31PM
That font, let me guess ...... you're logged in on an 1960 Olympia SF Portable with the two-tone finish..
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @10:58PM
(Score: 2) by TheLink on Thursday May 05 2016, @02:04PM
I mentioned this before but I'll say it again, a driver has more responsibility than merely driving.
Either the laws have to changed/clarified/reinterpreted or driverless cars have to be able to do a lot more than just drive a car well.
In many places drivers are required to ensure that passengers are buckled up (or in a child seat).
So if the minors or kids don't stay buckled up, who gets fined? The car manufacturer? The parents?
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=27001-28000&file=27360-27368 [ca.gov]
27360. (a) Except as provided in Section 27363, a parent, legal
guardian, or driver shall not transport on a highway in a motor
vehicle, as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section
27315, a child or ward who is under eight years of age, without
properly securing that child in a rear seat in an appropriate child
passenger restraint system meeting applicable federal motor vehicle
safety standards.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=27001-28000&file=27302-27317 [ca.gov]
(d) (1) A person shall not operate a motor vehicle on a highway
unless that person and all passengers 16 years of age or over are
properly restrained by a safety belt. This paragraph does not apply
to the operator of a taxicab, as defined in Section 27908, when the
taxicab is driven on a city street and is engaged in the
transportation of a fare-paying passenger.
Even if you are driving a taxicab or limo, there are still some responsibilities see: http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/811458.pdf [nhtsa.gov]
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=27001-28000&file=27302-27317 [ca.gov]
(3) The operator of a limousine for hire or the operator of an
authorized emergency vehicle, as defined in subdivision (a) of
Section 165, shall not operate the limousine for hire or authorized
emergency vehicle unless the operator and any passengers eight years
of age or over in the front seat, are properly restrained by a safety
belt.
(4) The operator of a taxicab shall not operate the taxicab unless
any passengers eight years of age or over in the front seat, are
properly restrained by a safety belt.
I'm sure many states and countries have similar laws.
That's why it'll be better to do driverless trucks first. No passengers, stick to safe cargo and known "AI friendly" routes. Increase the routes and cargo types as the trucks get better.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday May 05 2016, @07:36PM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by TheLink on Monday May 09 2016, @03:42AM
The F35 seems more like a money extraction project to me :). Plenty of other war planes that are better.
Given a not too incompetently designed system (sensors) you might be less likely to be side-swiped or rammed by a computer controlled semi than a semi controlled by an average or even slightly above average human driver. In any case I wouldn't want to drive side by side a semi for long whether it's controlled by a computer or a human.
A computer-controlled semi could be quite safe within the limited routes and operating scenarios. It's less of a PR disaster if a semi rolls over a toddler running on the highway than if a robot car rolls over a toddler in a suburb. Since most people would be saying "parents fault" for the former case.
In fact if I designed a computer controlled system I might add sensors at bumper height to more easily spot (legs/wheels/underside of) objects that may be moving behind other parked/stationary vehicles in a potentially intersecting trajectory (e.g. kid running across street but masked by a parked van/bus- you can see the legs from bumper height but maybe not at human driver height).
Bugs would probably be more likely to kill tail-gaters- since the truck is more likely to be programmed to stop to avoid collisions whether real or "imaginary". Even if the cars behind could theoretically stop much faster, the human drivers might not be able to stop their cars in time - not paying attention.
Some trucks can stop fairly quickly even if loaded: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ridS396W2BY [youtube.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TrumpetPower! on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:59PM
Under no circumstances should a "for real" non-development production self-driving car rely on an human as a safety backup device. If there's an option for humans to take over when the human thinks it's necessary, fine...but for the human to be an essential, relied-upon safety device? That way madness lies.
The set of instances in which things are bad enough that the computer can't deal but there's still enough time for an human to become aware that there's a problem and react in a superior way...that's the null set. Pick any scenario you might have in mind that would satisfy those conditions, and the correct answer, instead, is for the computer to turn on its hazards and come to a stop, preferably off the roadway, just as any human is supposed to do.
If, after the car has pulled over, the computer still can't deal but the human can...great. Let the human take over. Or if the human wants to override the computer's decision to pull over, sure, let the human have at it. But the computer still needs to have the wherewithal to pull over by itself when the need arises, and not rely on the human to guide it to the side of the road.
Basically, robot cars need to have the same level of competency as a taxi driver. Even if you're in the front passenger seat, there's no expectation that the driver is going to say, "Sorry, but you're on your own, and, unless you do something in five seconds, we're going to crash."
And, of course, once robot cars are a that point, there's no reason why people so inclined shouldn't be able to have sex while the car drives itself, or even take a nap when they're done. And maybe send the car back home, empty, so it can take the kids to soccer practice -- without any way for the kids to take control and drive the car without adult supervision. The car could even stop by grandpa's and pick him up, even though his license has been revoked due to his failing vision and coordination.
All of that makes perfect sense with robot cars, but only once we get past this idiocy of expecting humans to be involved in the operation.
Cheers,
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by isostatic on Wednesday May 04 2016, @11:02PM
You are coming at it from a sensible point of view. A robot that can do everything.
Instead come at it from an enhanced-cruise-control point of view. More incremental improvements, but more blurred line between computer assist and computer control.
At what point do we have a car that's able to handle it all? Cruise? Auto breaking? Auto steering? Auto navigation? The old gag about the man going into the back of the camper van on cruise control becomes real, but well before you have "an deal with all cases" computer control.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday May 04 2016, @11:42PM
At what point do we have a car that's able to handle it all?
I'd guess that would be when the manufacturers are willing to take the risk of removing all controls except an Off and ON switch and some way to indicate a destination. Maybe seats that face backwards so you don't feel compelled to micromanage the drive.
Maybe a windscreen made by the people who make Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses which have been specially designed to help people develop a relaxed attitude to danger. At the first hint of trouble, they turn totally black and thus prevent you from seeing anything that might alarm you.
But essentially, when the manufacturer will assume all the risk.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by TrumpetPower! on Thursday May 05 2016, @12:49AM
Clearly, this is a transition that's, of necessity, going to have to be abrupt. For what should be reasons, a car that's safely reliable for 99.9% of miles driven is going to be an utter catastrophe.
Figure 25 miles a day total for the typical commuter...which works out to the driver needing to take over once every 40 days. Who on Earth is going to maintain the necessary constant attention on every commute for something that's not even going to happen once a month? Yet, in a city with a mere 1,000 such commuters, that's one such crash every day. You're far less safe with the sorta-robotic car and all its so-called "safety" figures than you would be in the archetypal exploding Pinto.
Fortunately, it's a transition that's likely to actually happen pretty quickly. It seems that there're lots of companies wanting to get driverless cars on the road right now, and all the super-duper advanced adaptive lane-keeping auto-braking cruise control features are, in the mean time, something pretty much restricted to the most expensive models.
What we're likely to see is more trickle-down of computers overriding humans in dangerous systems, but very little in the way of computers taking over the drudgery of driving. I can easily see an auto maker's lawyers recognizing all these risks, and having the engineers move away from a car that automatically keeps its position in the lane to one that makes it easier to steer the car down the center of the lane and harder -- but not too much harder -- to change lanes unless you've got the turn signal on. Think of it more like adaptive wheel alignment than cruise control. And especially things that detect sleepiness or other forms of inattention that try to get the driver back on focus or off the road safely.
At the same time, Google and Tesla and Uber and Apple and especially the long-haul trucking industry will burn the midnight oil to get robot cars on the road before many more "advanced" "features" can be developed.
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 2) by jcross on Thursday May 05 2016, @01:19PM
Actually, just the other day I thought of a scenario where this transition doesn't have to be abrupt. What if you extend self-parking to drive the car some distance with no passengers inside? In this case it becomes a bit like automatic valet service. The advantage here is that the car can drive autonomously, but optimized in a different way from how it would be if passengers were on board. It could drive very cautiously, and in the event of an unavoidable collision could prefer to sacrifice itself since it has no occupants to be harmed. I think it's generally less hard to avoid running into things than it is to avoid being run into, since the answer to most situations is to stop, and in more extreme cases to steer for a clear area.
I can imagine several uses for this. One is for driving into a city and letting the car park itself and then pick you up wherever you wind up, basically like valet service anywhere at no additional cost. The other is for shared vehicles like the Zipcar service. Currently, the cars wind up wherever users of the service decide to park them, and a car parked far enough away is essentially useless when you need it. With this service, it would be more like using a ride-hailing service, except that you would do the driving yourself, which presumably should make it even cheaper.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday May 06 2016, @08:11AM
This is the issue though, it won't be abrupt. More and more cars have technology that allows this. Have adaptive cruise control and lane keeping - which all work right now - and you can be the driver but spend all your time playing on your phone, reading, making tea, or having sex.
This is possible now at your local dealer.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Thursday May 05 2016, @01:28AM
there's no reason why people so inclined shouldn't be able to have sex while the car drives itself,
Perfectly reasonable.
or even take a nap when they're done.
Danger, danger, Will Robinson!
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday May 05 2016, @09:40AM
It also lower the liability of the manufacturer... "it wasn't the AI that crashed the car, it was the user".
Wanna bet which side the wind (aka political donations and lobby) will blow?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05 2016, @09:57PM
Real-time human control must be limited to people with driver's licenses, but other people will still need some control over the car. Here are 3 methods:
1. The car comes to a stop, then asks the user some questions. For example, a human could confirm that an object on the road (for example a balloon) is harmless to push aside or run over. Note that the human never takes real-time control.
2. As above, but with a remote human. This could be the owner or a paid service.
3. The car supports power-assisted pushing. You get out, place two hands on the bumper, and push. The power-assist allows for steering and going up/down steep hills. You can push the car into a parking spot on unmarked grass, you can go up on the sidewalk a bit to get past an obstruction, you can shove the car up a ramp into a truck, etc.
(Score: 2) by darnkitten on Friday May 06 2016, @03:52AM
That would make a great short film...
(Score: 2) by ticho on Wednesday May 04 2016, @10:03PM
In other news, water is wet.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @10:24PM
That's not the only thing that's wet!
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday May 04 2016, @10:31PM
mod parent Touchy
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @10:35PM
Touch me, grope me, lick me out.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday May 05 2016, @12:26AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05 2016, @02:03AM
in college, who was doing a late life career change. In his previous life he'd been a class b bobtail truck driver. He said that most people didn't pay attention to the fact that commercial trucks were often 2-4 feet higher visibility, and that you saw all sorts of sick shit looking down into cars as you passed or were parked at stoplights.
The most common two he said were guys leaving their pants open and occasionally whacking it, and (I assume in cars with bench seats) people getting oral sex (usually men by either men or women).
Long story short, he said the kind of crap people do thinking they have privacy in a vehicle is pretty whack.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Thursday May 05 2016, @08:10AM
What does this imply for the meaning of "Metro-sexual"?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05 2016, @02:17PM
It's pronounced in such a way as to rhyme with "heterosexuals", and is usually proceeded by "must be one of them".
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Thursday May 05 2016, @01:16AM
My older relatives told me that people used to make out in horse drawn carriages. The horse knew the way and once started would keep walking towards home, taking all the correct turns.
A person could also get incapacitated with drink. Only needed someone to put the drunkards on their horses and start them home.
It's not like hanky panky while on the road is anything new. I mean, this bureaucratic anxiety fest is like a patent on some unpatentable routine activity appended with "on the Internet", only this is "while in a driverless car". Surely that's one of the points of using a limo. Don't most limos have an interior partition that blocks sight and sound so that the passengers can be somewhat private even from the driver?
(Score: 1) by tftp on Thursday May 05 2016, @06:10AM
Don't most limos have an interior partition that blocks sight and sound so that the passengers can be somewhat private even from the driver?
Of course not. The partition is needed to ensure privacy of the driver :-)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by MostCynical on Thursday May 05 2016, @04:06AM
a genuinly "driverless" car would be able to do the school or weekend sport run.
Parents say "bye" to the car and kids.. and have the house to themselves.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday May 05 2016, @02:20PM
This scene [youtube.com] came instantly to mind. Watch it, and rethink having sex in a car.
Washington DC delenda est.