Jalopnik asks if self-driving cars will actually happen.

[redpoint5]

Many quadcopters don't even include controls. Instead, they have an app you can install on your phone to control it.

Manual control will always be a necessary option. As I've pointed out, if an angry mob is trying to kill you, you need the ability to over-ride the vehicle and run people over. More commonly there will be instances where sensors are fooled into thinking something isn't safe to proceed, but a human will have to over-ride the sensors. Perhaps there will be a phone app that allows you to take control of the vehicle in emergency situations. Steer by holding the phone like a steering wheel and use the accelerometers to provide the input. Tilt forward for acceleration and backward for braking?

[jakobnev]

Perhaps there will be a phone app that allows you to take control of the vehicle in emergency situations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smvR7ocyNkM

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Controlling a car with a smartphone, like in that 007 movie, sounds quite interesting. Some years ago a guy in Saudi Arabia fitted a W140 Mercedes-Benz S-Class with a similar system, but IIRC he used a laptop instead. But anyway, it still sounds more likely to happen than a fully-autonomous car. Only problem would be drunk drivers eventually trying to circumvent the risk of being arrested, driving from a passenger seat and when stopped over by police they might try to claim they're doing anything else on their phones.

[freebeard]

Requiring a smart phone is a deal killer for me.

The Arcimoto FUV is supposedly 'autonomous ready" but I don't see how that could be the case with manual steering.

[Xist]

I am waiting to be able to drive my car with an Xbox controller--or even an old NES controller. Directional control and two buttons! Who needs more?!

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Requiring a smart phone is a deal killer for me.

You can buy 'em new for $10, and you wouldn't have to get a cell plan. Just use the Bluetooth to control the vehicle.

I find it silly that auto manufacturers still sell cars with standalone nav systems and wifi hotspots. They are inferior to what apps on a phone can provide, and come at a much greater expense. I think the company that provides nav for my Acura charges $200 for map updates.

Sure, some people don't want Google to know where they are, and there are great GPS units out there by Garmin and Tom Tom.

[freebeard]

'Required' was the weasel-word. If I had an FUV, the Enlighten app would start to appeal to me. Not for driving out of town or state, but for riding the green wave.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

You can buy 'em new for $10, and you wouldn't have to get a cell plan. Just use the Bluetooth to control the vehicle.

It's not the money, it's that I don't want to have to deal with a touch screen. All else aside, they can either not respond at all to my fingers, or over-react, frantically doing dozens of things in response to one touch.

I find it silly that auto manufacturers still sell cars with standalone nav systems and wifi hotspots. They are inferior to what apps on a phone can provide...

Until you happen to be someplace where there's no cell service :-)

Though I think that nav systems and wifi in cars are both silly, and one of the reasons I hope my current vehicles last forever.

[freebeard]

Though I think that nav systems and wifi in cars are both silly, and one of the reasons I hope my current vehicles last forever.

I see the FUV being mid-transition from a personal vehicle to a mobile cage; electric but manual.

[Xist]

Meanwhile, advertisers claim that their systems have larger antennae and stronger signals than cell phones.

Supposedly some guy in a huge pickup used to run cars off of the road near a dead spot outside of Payson. One day, he walked up to taunt a lady in a Cadillac saying there was nothing she could do, she did not have coverage.

She hit her OnStar button.

Did it happen? Probably at least once since OnStar was invented.