Apple Receives Permit From California DMV to Test Self-Driving Cars [Updated]

[I7guy]

Last time I checked, you gassers were polluting the air outside my front door. Landfills are a long way away. Environment is important, but public health is a major issue too.

Landfills are still a big public issue and most of the country still uses fuel, natural gas and or nuclear for its electric . Although I guess nuclear fuel polluted the atmosphere the least. As a gasser I don't have to worry about taking a 500 mile trip on the spur of the moment.

 

[Jarrodbcall]

Seems like the electricity needed to charge teslas batteries come from fossil fuels, coal or nuclear. Or in Iceland geothermal springs.

While this is largely true, there is still an efficiency gain when large power plants are creating the electricity, rather than each car being its own "power plant." EVs are certainly not the end-all-be-all solution, but they are an important step. The rest needs to come as more of the initial energy is produced in renewable ways such as wind and solar.

 

[Piggie]

i am sure, i am driving my bmw for the next 20 or 30 years. i dont care about autonomous driving.

But you WILL do.
And you and I and many others pobably one day will be incredibly thankful, by then driverless cars are around for us.

Wonder how many fathers would rather their young daughters would go out down the town for the evening with their boyfriend/friends in a driverless car, as opposed to one of their friends driving?

 

[Eric5h5]

On the same note I wish you electric car owners wouldn't poison our environment and landfill with chemicals from the battery manufacture and disposal.

Batteries are recycled.

What's even worse is claiming charging an electric car is completely environmentally friendly, which it's not especially if you live in an area which gets its power from coal, fossil fuels or nuclear reactors.

Nobody's claimed that, so knock it off with the straw men. That fact is that electric is significantly more environmentally friendly, period. Not 100%, but much more than any gasoline car. Solar/wind is an ever-increasingly large part of electricity generation, but even in the worst coal-powered areas, it's still more efficient to power electric cars that way, from a single source, rather than many individual fuel-burning engines.

--Eric

 

[alecgold]

i am sure, i am driving my bmw for the next 20 or 30 years. i dont care about autonomous driving.

Brought to you by the people that said trains would kill by the sheer speed, if you needed to fly God would have given you wings (or swim/fins) and that did say in 1997 that mobile phones where not needed, they had land lines and answering machines.

On a more serious note, most economic/ecological might be to use a car for a long time until it is not safe or not viable to repair anymore.

Unless you drive a 700bhp atmospheric V8 5,6 liter, then the balance might tip over a few weeks after it left the factory
[doublepost=1492337489][/doublepost]

Batteries are recycled.

But are serious polluting in the production process and recycling isn't free either.

 

[SoyCapitanSoyCapitan]

You can have and there are several deep shaft landfills far far far from eco-systems, wildlife and civilisation. America is lucky in this regard because it's a vast country with huge empty spaces. As activists you have to pressure companies to make those sites are used instead of being lazy and irresponsible.

 

[I7guy]

Batteries are recycled.


Nobody's claimed that, so knock it off with the straw men. That fact is that electric is significantly more environmentally friendly, period. Not 100%, but much more than any gasoline car. Solar/wind is an ever-increasingly large part of electricity generation, but even in the worst coal-powered areas, it's still more efficient to power electric cars that way, from a single source, rather than many individual fuel-burning engines.

--Eric

Yes, that is exactly what is being claimed when it is said x% of electric is hydro. Electric is all well and good if you're the typical "Larry David".

 

[Abazigal]

i am sure, i am driving my bmw for the next 20 or 30 years. i dont care about autonomous driving.

I expect that one day, it will be illegal for human beings to drive because they would be deemed to be too unsafe, outside of controlled areas like race car rallies.

 

[I7guy]

Meet Galileo, 1meter unencrypted, 1cm encrypted.
Non-Galileo-braclet wearing animals and nog smartphone using humans will become really rare....
Joking aside, Galileo, super accurate maps in combination with UHD Lidar and machine learning is able to do great things in a really short timeframe, just ask George Hotz who has just a limited budget and resources iirc.

Already assisted driving and self driving cars bring down the number of accidents per 1000miles significant. So even with this alpha software and technology it is outperforming humans on several subjects. on highways and motorways....
Now the hard part are inner cities especially like Amsterdam with all the pedestrians, bicycles, or small English rural towns with winding roads where you can't look around the corner.

I keep thinking the day that pilots are replaced by computers I will feel safe in getting into a driverless car; although if you've ever been in a NYC taxicab a computer could drive better.

 

[AppleScruff1]

Why else would I use it if it weren't?

Because it's Apple. It's good enough, even when it isn't.

 

[Abazigal]

Because it's Apple. It's good enough, even when it isn't.

That makes completely no sense.

 

[Col4bin]

Nah. In my area, on the opposite side of the country from Cupertino, Apple Maps has fewer errors than Google Maps, though neither are perfect.


Your personal interests don't actually matter, though. The facts here are every year there's untold millions of dollars in damage, and many lives lost, through driver error—far too many distracted, drunk, and just plain bad drivers. That's a problem that "doesn't exist"? (Also the "problem" in industries that pay drivers, of having to pay drivers.)

--Eric

Eric I think the challenge here will be proving that self-driving cars can reliably run autonomously in a 100% reliable manner, otherwise the safety concerns you cite will be the same regardless. This is still a short-term cash grab no matter how well intentioned you feel the automotive industry is. Sorry you can't see the big picture.

 

[magicman32]

That makes completely no sense.

He and "blade runner" are to be mostly ignored. There's a part of the anti-Apple faction here that wouldn't give Apple credit for anything even if it was proven to work 100% of the time. It's just how some of these people are. It won't change.

Their subjective opinions are "alternative facts" to them and nothing you or anyone else can say will change that. Apple sucks to to them. Even when they don't.

More on topic - I actually use both. Apple's nav GUI is way cleaner to use and look at while navigating. Google is too cluttered for my liking. I think Google has the edge in traffic data and POI datasets but as long as I have the proper address (sometimes found using Google Maps), Apple Maps performs as well as anything else here on the east coast (and they few times I've used it for cross-country road trips).

So the bottom line is: I use both. But prefer Apple's GUI to GM by a long shot. But GM has an amazing POI dataset that cannot be ignored. Both are equal in accuracy in my usage cases.

 

[AppleScruff1]

He and "blade runner" are to be mostly ignored. There's a part of the anti-Apple faction here that wouldn't give Apple credit for anything even if it was proven to work 100% of the time. It's just how some of these people are. It won't change.

Their subjective opinions are "alternative facts" to them and nothing you or anyone else can say will change that. Apple sucks to to them. Even when they don't.

ROFLMAO!!! I guess it's difficult to comprehend that some here own and like Apple products without worshiping the company, and *gasp* actually see room for improvement.

 

[Eric5h5]

Eric I think the challenge here will be proving that self-driving cars can reliably run autonomously in a 100% reliable manner, otherwise the safety concerns you cite will be the same regardless. This is still a short-term cash grab no matter how well intentioned you feel the automotive industry is. Sorry you can't see the big picture.

The mistake you're making is thinking it needs to be 100%, which is in fact not possible. All it needs is to be noticeably better than humans, which is certainly possible. Don't try to make the perfect the enemy of the good.

But are serious polluting in the production process and recycling isn't free either.

It's still a lot better than the pollution generated by gasoline cars. Also, research has been finding ways to make batteries last much longer. Again, we see people trying to make the perfect the enemy of the good—just because something isn't 100% free of any type of pollution whatsoever doesn't mean it's not better than fossil fuels.

--Eric

 

[I7guy]

The mistake you're making is thinking it needs to be 100%, which is in fact not possible. All it needs is to be noticeably better than humans, which is certainly possible. Don't try to make the perfect the enemy of the good.


It's still a lot better than the pollution generated by gasoline cars. Also, research has been finding ways to make batteries last much longer. Again, we see people trying to make the perfect the enemy of the good—just because something isn't 100% free of any type of pollution whatsoever doesn't mean it's not better than fossil fuels.

--Eric

As I said, when an aircraft doesn't need pilots, I'm all in for self-driving cars. Using aircraft as an example, perfect is the enemy of good. I'm not going in a self-driving car that is just good enough, most of the time. But that is a different conversation than pure electric vehicles and their limited use cases with associated downsides.

 

[magicman32]

ROFLMAO!!! I guess it's difficult to comprehend that some here own and like Apple products without worshiping the company, and *gasp* actually see room for improvement.

That's not what you're doing when you and people of your ilk like "blade boy" take people to the woodshed for actually having *gasp* good experiences with said products. Apple Maps is very competitive at this stage in the US in my neck of the woods anyway. And for many others. But that still isn't good enough for you. You think it sucks and that is that. It doesn't work for you, it couldn't possibly work for anyone else and they are wrong for having such a decent experience with [insert product of choice here].

No debate, no leeway otherwise.

EVERYTHING has room for improvement. Google Maps' GUI included. I honestly couldn't use one or the other exclusively since neither is the holy grail in my usage cases.

Please stop with the faux indignation. It's transparent and intellectually dishonest.

I haven't bought a new Mac since my 2011 MBP. Nor will I until they become a little more open and upgradable again on the user-side. So while I prefer Apple products on the whole, I'm hardly a "fanboy" yet see that everything they do isn't garbage.

 

[developer13245]

Wonder how many fathers would rather their young daughters would go out down the town for the evening with their boyfriend/friends in a driverless car, as opposed to one of their friends driving?

Yeah right... So their daughters can spend more time in the back seat with their boyfriends?

Not quite sure what you mean by "go out down the town".....
... go down on the town?
... do the town?
or... go out/down on the town?

No matter what you may have meant, most fathers would prefer the boyfriend's hands are on the wheel, and not elsewhere.

 

[Eric5h5]

As I said, when an aircraft doesn't need pilots, I'm all in for self-driving cars. Using aircraft as an example, perfect is the enemy of good. I'm not going in a self-driving car that is just good enough, most of the time. But that is a different conversation than pure electric vehicles and their limited use cases with associated downsides.

None of that made any sense. Also, pure electric vehicles don't have any limited use cases.

--Eric

 

[I7guy]

None of that made any sense. Also, pure electric vehicles don't have any limited use cases.

--Eric

Except the distance. I can get nearly 600 miles out of a Prius before refueling or considering to go on a trip.

 

[itguy06]

Nobody's claimed that, so knock it off with the straw men. That fact is that electric is significantly more environmentally friendly, period. Not 100%, but much more than any gasoline car. Solar/wind is an ever-increasingly large part of electricity generation, but even in the worst coal-powered areas, it's still more efficient to power electric cars that way, from a single source, rather than many individual fuel-burning engines.

--Eric

If you discount the nasty mining for the battery metals, the rare Earth magnets for the motors and even the manufacturing and upkeep of solar/wind/whatever. But it tells a good story about being environmentally "friendly" though.

Heck, even recycling isn't all it's cracked up to be. Electronics recycling isn't really that economical or even all that friendly. They say it's easier ane better to use virgin glass than recycled. Steel and aluminum seem to be good though.

 

[developer13245]

Self driving cars will never be able to cross a mountain pass on a highway covered in a foot of snow - or travel on a city street in similar conditions.
And no, people will not accept the pass or road being closed until "conditions allow".

 

[Abazigal]

ROFLMAO!!! I guess it's difficult to comprehend that some here own and like Apple products without worshiping the company, and *gasp* actually see room for improvement.

Is Apple Maps perfect? No.

Is it good enough for my needs? Yes.

Having room for improvement does not mean a product is entirely without merit, nor does it preclude a product from being good enough to do the job that it was designed to do.

Credit where credit is due.

 

[Eric5h5]

Except the distance. I can get nearly 600 miles out of a Prius before refueling or considering to go on a trip.

Nobody actually drives 600 miles straight, though, or at least it's a bad idea. You should stop for at least 30 minutes every few hours, so you might as well use that break time to recharge. Practically speaking it's a non-issue in almost all cases. Logically it makes no sense to hold off on something that's better for 99% of people just because of that...here we are with making the perfect the enemy of the good once again.

If you discount the nasty mining for the battery metals, the rare Earth magnets for the motors and even the manufacturing and upkeep of solar/wind/whatever. But it tells a good story about being environmentally "friendly" though.

You can either pollute a lot with fossil fuels, or less with electric cars. It's not that hard to understand. Also, electricity is electricity and the car doesn't care how it was generated, so over time as electric power becomes more cleanly generated, the cars are inherently cleaner to run. So it makes sense to get the infrastructure going now. No point waiting for some mythical 100% pure zero-impact power source.

--Eric

 

[I7guy]

Nobody actually drives 600 miles straight, though, or at least it's a bad idea. You should stop for at least 30 minutes every few hours, so you might as well use that break time to recharge. Practically speaking it's a non-issue in almost all cases. Logically it makes no sense to hold off on something that's better for 99% of people just because of that...here we are with making the perfect the enemy of the good once again.


You can either pollute a lot with fossil fuels, or less with electric cars. It's not that hard to understand. Also, electricity is electricity and the car doesn't care how it was generated, so over time as electric power becomes more cleanly generated, the cars are inherently cleaner to run. So it makes sense to get the infrastructure going now. No point waiting for some mythical 100% pure zero-impact power source.

--Eric

Convenient, your use case fits an electric car perfectly. My use case is to drive for 3 hours, take a 3 minute break and continue. I dont know anyone who takes continual 30 minute breaks. I don't know where this is better for 99% of
the "people". Seems like in CA where people can drive for 300 miles r/t it isn't better for 99% of the people. For taxis better off with a Prius, less down time means more money made.