I mean, it's go to be an order of magnitude or two harder to drive on a road than on tracks, right?
Maybe, in exchange for their products getting a couple of years' head start, they should get companies to do driverless trains successfully first?
I mean, it's go to be an order of magnitude or two harder to drive on a road than on tracks, right?
Maybe, in exchange for their products getting a couple of years' head start, they should get companies to do driverless trains successfully first?
Because the infrastructure for trains in our county at least is not nearly as good as Europe and we depend on driving ourselves more than public transportation. This is for anyone living in suburbs or rural areas.
That is a logical thought that I understand. It's probably easier to make more money. It's always about the money.
We will jave self flying planes first.
Like this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQbj9uvYL8I
ISTR hearing that only about one in ten landings involve the pilot these days, the smooth ones are all automatic. I can't confirm that, though.
Opinion
4Opinion
There’s R&D on unmanned cars, but they’re still a ways away and largely pointless anyway. Trains and boats largely are self driving, crews are mostly there to monitor everything, which is what you’re SUPPOSED to do in self driving cars
Man I wish America had trains.
If you come here don't rely on public transport.
What does the country have more of? Cars or trains? Whichever quantity is higher is the one that gets self-driving tech first
I was going to say politics, but I also know that as bad as car crashes are, train wrecks are usually even much worse.
They're self driving in Seattle and Vancouver.
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions