Discussion:
Hey, Flying Car Fans, Check This Out!
(too old to reply)
Garrison Hilliard
2017-01-22 14:54:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
http://www.airfarewatchdog.com/blog/32047815/airbus-ceo-says-flying-cars-ready-for-takeoff-soon/%20/?source=45568&nltv=&nl_cs=32088389%3A%3A%3A%3A%3A%3A
Sylvia Else
2017-01-23 03:26:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Garrison Hilliard
http://www.airfarewatchdog.com/blog/32047815/airbus-ceo-says-flying-cars-ready-for-takeoff-soon/%20/?source=45568&nltv=&nl_cs=32088389%3A%3A%3A%3A%3A%3A
The Airbus CEO is dreaming. They'll cost too much to run, too much to
make, and the only way to avoid mass carnage would be to make then
completely automatic, not self-piloted.

Sylvia.
Bob Casanova
2017-01-23 20:21:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 14:26:26 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Garrison Hilliard
http://www.airfarewatchdog.com/blog/32047815/airbus-ceo-says-flying-cars-ready-for-takeoff-soon/%20/?source=45568&nltv=&nl_cs=32088389%3A%3A%3A%3A%3A%3A
The Airbus CEO is dreaming. They'll cost too much to run, too much to
make, and the only way to avoid mass carnage would be to make then
completely automatic, not self-piloted.
Yep. I watch the antics of drivers in 2 dimensions; thinking
what they'd do in 3 is the stuff of nightmares.
--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov
BruceS
2017-01-23 23:38:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Casanova
On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 14:26:26 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Garrison Hilliard
http://www.airfarewatchdog.com/blog/32047815/airbus-ceo-says-flying-cars-ready-for-takeoff-soon/%20/?source=45568&nltv=&nl_cs=32088389%3A%3A%3A%3A%3A%3A
The Airbus CEO is dreaming. They'll cost too much to run, too much to
make, and the only way to avoid mass carnage would be to make then
completely automatic, not self-piloted.
Yep. I watch the antics of drivers in 2 dimensions; thinking
what they'd do in 3 is the stuff of nightmares.
Watching those antics from two wheels is even more "interesting" than
from four. Today I was approaching a T intersection along the
straight, non-stopping part. I saw a driver waiting at the stop sign.
He clearly looked right at me, but he still started to pull out across
my path to make a left going the other way, just before I reached the
intersection. This is the main kind of bike/non-bike wreck---having
the non-bike make an illegal left turn into the bike's path---so I
always cover my clutch and brakes when approaching one. The driver
seemed to only register my presence when I braked, at which point he
stopped halfway across the road. The MC community has a lot of concern
about automated vehicles, since it isn't clear enough attention will be
paid to having the systems recognize bikes. For my part, I have a hard
time imagining software, even from India, that isn't better than most
of the drivers out there.
Bob Casanova
2017-01-24 17:26:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 16:38:37 -0700, the following appeared
Post by BruceS
Post by Bob Casanova
On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 14:26:26 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Garrison Hilliard
http://www.airfarewatchdog.com/blog/32047815/airbus-ceo-says-flying-cars-ready-for-takeoff-soon/%20/?source=45568&nltv=&nl_cs=32088389%3A%3A%3A%3A%3A%3A
The Airbus CEO is dreaming. They'll cost too much to run, too much to
make, and the only way to avoid mass carnage would be to make then
completely automatic, not self-piloted.
Yep. I watch the antics of drivers in 2 dimensions; thinking
what they'd do in 3 is the stuff of nightmares.
Watching those antics from two wheels is even more "interesting" than
from four. Today I was approaching a T intersection along the
straight, non-stopping part. I saw a driver waiting at the stop sign.
He clearly looked right at me, but he still started to pull out across
my path to make a left going the other way, just before I reached the
intersection. This is the main kind of bike/non-bike wreck---having
the non-bike make an illegal left turn into the bike's path---so I
always cover my clutch and brakes when approaching one. The driver
seemed to only register my presence when I braked, at which point he
stopped halfway across the road. The MC community has a lot of concern
about automated vehicles, since it isn't clear enough attention will be
paid to having the systems recognize bikes. For my part, I have a hard
time imagining software, even from India, that isn't better than most
of the drivers out there.
I know *exactly* what you mean. I've been a rider off and on
since the '60s (sold my last bike in '06 when I retired and
moved from MD to AZ), and it's amazing how many drivers just
don't see motorcycles. And they're not lying; they genuinely
don't register motorcycles. The AMA did at least one study
on this a couple of decades back, and concluded (as you
have) that eternal vigilance and constant situational
awareness is the price of not being turned into road paste.

As for automated vehicles, I think they *could* be better
than human drivers, but only if, as you note, the sensors
and software are up to the task. We'll just have to see...
--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov
BruceS
2017-01-26 00:10:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Casanova
On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 16:38:37 -0700, the following appeared
Post by BruceS
Post by Bob Casanova
On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 14:26:26 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Garrison Hilliard
http://www.airfarewatchdog.com/blog/32047815/airbus-ceo-says-flying-cars-ready-for-takeoff-soon/%20/?source=45568&nltv=&nl_cs=32088389%3A%3A%3A%3A%3A%3A
The Airbus CEO is dreaming. They'll cost too much to run, too much to
make, and the only way to avoid mass carnage would be to make then
completely automatic, not self-piloted.
Yep. I watch the antics of drivers in 2 dimensions; thinking
what they'd do in 3 is the stuff of nightmares.
Watching those antics from two wheels is even more "interesting" than
from four. Today I was approaching a T intersection along the
straight, non-stopping part. I saw a driver waiting at the stop sign.
He clearly looked right at me, but he still started to pull out across
my path to make a left going the other way, just before I reached the
intersection. This is the main kind of bike/non-bike wreck---having
the non-bike make an illegal left turn into the bike's path---so I
always cover my clutch and brakes when approaching one. The driver
seemed to only register my presence when I braked, at which point he
stopped halfway across the road. The MC community has a lot of concern
about automated vehicles, since it isn't clear enough attention will be
paid to having the systems recognize bikes. For my part, I have a hard
time imagining software, even from India, that isn't better than most
of the drivers out there.
I know *exactly* what you mean. I've been a rider off and on
since the '60s (sold my last bike in '06 when I retired and
moved from MD to AZ), and it's amazing how many drivers just
don't see motorcycles. And they're not lying; they genuinely
don't register motorcycles. The AMA did at least one study
on this a couple of decades back, and concluded (as you
have) that eternal vigilance and constant situational
awareness is the price of not being turned into road paste.
As for automated vehicles, I think they *could* be better
than human drivers, but only if, as you note, the sensors
and software are up to the task. We'll just have to see...
As with many things (current political situation being a big one) I
choose the path of cautious optimism, with a healthy dose of skepticism
thrown in for good measure.
Bob Casanova
2017-01-26 18:42:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 17:10:30 -0700, the following appeared
Post by BruceS
Post by Bob Casanova
On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 16:38:37 -0700, the following appeared
Post by BruceS
Post by Bob Casanova
On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 14:26:26 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Garrison Hilliard
http://www.airfarewatchdog.com/blog/32047815/airbus-ceo-says-flying-cars-ready-for-takeoff-soon/%20/?source=45568&nltv=&nl_cs=32088389%3A%3A%3A%3A%3A%3A
The Airbus CEO is dreaming. They'll cost too much to run, too much to
make, and the only way to avoid mass carnage would be to make then
completely automatic, not self-piloted.
Yep. I watch the antics of drivers in 2 dimensions; thinking
what they'd do in 3 is the stuff of nightmares.
Watching those antics from two wheels is even more "interesting" than
from four. Today I was approaching a T intersection along the
straight, non-stopping part. I saw a driver waiting at the stop sign.
He clearly looked right at me, but he still started to pull out across
my path to make a left going the other way, just before I reached the
intersection. This is the main kind of bike/non-bike wreck---having
the non-bike make an illegal left turn into the bike's path---so I
always cover my clutch and brakes when approaching one. The driver
seemed to only register my presence when I braked, at which point he
stopped halfway across the road. The MC community has a lot of concern
about automated vehicles, since it isn't clear enough attention will be
paid to having the systems recognize bikes. For my part, I have a hard
time imagining software, even from India, that isn't better than most
of the drivers out there.
I know *exactly* what you mean. I've been a rider off and on
since the '60s (sold my last bike in '06 when I retired and
moved from MD to AZ), and it's amazing how many drivers just
don't see motorcycles. And they're not lying; they genuinely
don't register motorcycles. The AMA did at least one study
on this a couple of decades back, and concluded (as you
have) that eternal vigilance and constant situational
awareness is the price of not being turned into road paste.
As for automated vehicles, I think they *could* be better
than human drivers, but only if, as you note, the sensors
and software are up to the task. We'll just have to see...
As with many things (current political situation being a big one) I
choose the path of cautious optimism, with a healthy dose of skepticism
thrown in for good measure.
Good choice: "Hope for the best but plan for the worst".
--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov
Sylvia Else
2017-01-24 01:11:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Casanova
On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 14:26:26 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Garrison Hilliard
http://www.airfarewatchdog.com/blog/32047815/airbus-ceo-says-flying-cars-ready-for-takeoff-soon/%20/?source=45568&nltv=&nl_cs=32088389%3A%3A%3A%3A%3A%3A
The Airbus CEO is dreaming. They'll cost too much to run, too much to
make, and the only way to avoid mass carnage would be to make then
completely automatic, not self-piloted.
Yep. I watch the antics of drivers in 2 dimensions; thinking
what they'd do in 3 is the stuff of nightmares.
Even if self piloting were restricted to competent individuals, I think
it would still be impossible. The reason general aviation works at the
moment is because it's relatively sparse, so that conflicts between
aircraft are infrequent, and easily handled when they occur (though we
still see occasional mid-air collisions). With a much higher traffic
density the task of avoiding other aircraft would be beyond human
ability. Some sort of centralised control and coordination system would
be needed - together with some way of dealing with failures of same.

Sylvia.
BruceS
2017-01-24 17:05:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Bob Casanova
On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 14:26:26 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Garrison Hilliard
http://www.airfarewatchdog.com/blog/32047815/airbus-ceo-says-flying-cars-ready-for-takeoff-soon/%20/?source=45568&nltv=&nl_cs=32088389%3A%3A%3A%3A%3A%3A
The Airbus CEO is dreaming. They'll cost too much to run, too much to
make, and the only way to avoid mass carnage would be to make then
completely automatic, not self-piloted.
Yep. I watch the antics of drivers in 2 dimensions; thinking
what they'd do in 3 is the stuff of nightmares.
Even if self piloting were restricted to competent individuals, I think
it would still be impossible. The reason general aviation works at the
moment is because it's relatively sparse, so that conflicts between
aircraft are infrequent, and easily handled when they occur (though we
still see occasional mid-air collisions).
Don't discount the level of training required. I've been through
training for automobile, light aircraft, and motorcycle, and can assure
you that (in the U.S.) automobile and motorcycle were trivial in their
difficulty and comprehensiveness, but private pilot orders of magnitude
better. FTR, I didn't complete my private pilot's license, for reasons
unrelated to the difficulty. I agree that the extremely low density
outside terminal areas helps enormously, though the use of airways has
counteracted this safety a lot, but if a pilot's license had the same
low requirements as the driver's license needed to control a large
panel truck, we'd be seeing CFIT and mid-air collisions on a frequent
basis.
Post by Sylvia Else
With a much higher traffic
density the task of avoiding other aircraft would be beyond human
ability. Some sort of centralised control and coordination system would
be needed - together with some way of dealing with failures of same.
Automated avoidance systems are at least in part based on a "see and
avoid" concept. With no centralized system, each vehicle can see and
recognize potential threats. That's the core of the concern in the MC
community for the auto systems, that the designers are focusing too
much on those per-vehicle systems visually recognizing cars and trucks,
and not enough on also recognizing vehicles with radically different
profiles, especially motorcycles. The well-publicized Tesla crash into
a semi demonstrated that the systems aren't nearly sufficient *yet*,
but that doesn't mean we won't get there. What we have now, with
untrained, distracted, and too often inebriated humans in control,
certainly isn't sufficient either, and it's unlikely that the humans
will improve much. On top of that, humans are very bad at dealing with
three-dimensional space, whereas an automated system can be
specifically designed to handle that.
Bob Casanova
2017-01-24 17:31:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 12:11:27 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Bob Casanova
On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 14:26:26 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Garrison Hilliard
http://www.airfarewatchdog.com/blog/32047815/airbus-ceo-says-flying-cars-ready-for-takeoff-soon/%20/?source=45568&nltv=&nl_cs=32088389%3A%3A%3A%3A%3A%3A
The Airbus CEO is dreaming. They'll cost too much to run, too much to
make, and the only way to avoid mass carnage would be to make then
completely automatic, not self-piloted.
Yep. I watch the antics of drivers in 2 dimensions; thinking
what they'd do in 3 is the stuff of nightmares.
Even if self piloting were restricted to competent individuals, I think
it would still be impossible. The reason general aviation works at the
moment is because it's relatively sparse, so that conflicts between
aircraft are infrequent, and easily handled when they occur (though we
still see occasional mid-air collisions). With a much higher traffic
density the task of avoiding other aircraft would be beyond human
ability. Some sort of centralised control and coordination system would
be needed - together with some way of dealing with failures of same.
You're probably right, even given the "big sky" meme. The
problem wouldn't be in the relatively open areas, but in
those in which most drivers would tend to inhabit, which
would be anything but "open".

I don't know if you ever watched "The Fifth Element", but
the city "flying cars" scenes are probably a good picture of
how it would all look. Scary as hell...
--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov
Loading...