Uber’s reply to the new laws.

  • rekabis
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    in order to not need lane markers at all during adverse weather conditions

    Considering that this is still in bleeding pre-alpha and nowhere near production-ready, much less actually in any consumer vehicles whatsoever, makes it a non-option.

    And we have these things called snowstorms and fog, which can obscure buildings, and things called snowdrifts that can radically alter the look of the landscape.

    Once this tech is actually in a production vehicle, then we can talk. But they have been working on “driverless tech” for almost 70 years now, and it’s still a crayon-munching, glue-sniffing menace to safety, capable of going totally off the rails at the slightest provocation. Hell, it has been shown to accelerate the car TOWARDS stationary obstacles.

    • BlameThePeacockOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Vancouver has snowstorms once every 3-5 years, its not a common problem, and even most people around here don’t try to drive when it happens.

      I really don’t think this is as far out as you think. I suspect we’ll see pilots in Canada before 2030

      • rekabis
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Vancouver has snowstorms once every 3-5 years,

        The GVR all the way up to Hope represents 0.8% of British Columbia and 2% of the total length of roads in BC.

        Your argument is supremely unpersuasive.

        • BlameThePeacockOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          The GVR represents something like 30% of BCs population.

          I don’t see why the total area matters at all.