I think driverless cars need to be supported and mandated by government. It's far easier and safer to make cars that drive themselves when the roads are designed for that purpose and all other cars as well. Making a car that can drive on our current roads and dodge blind old ladies is a far harder problem.
I agree. But I think it's easier said than engineered. Consider that each car in the DARPA Grand Challenge cost millions. Economies of scale will eventually kick in, but that could take generations. For instance, think of the bandwidth needed to monitor and control all the cars on the on the highway system, let alone most side roads where you're more likely to find grandma.
On a side note: I know I would be very reluctant to give up the psychological thrill of driving. The government would literally have to pry the steering wheel from my cold dead hands.
True, but the Grand Challenge cars had to find their own way, while roads and/or tunnels could have premarked paths. Any general use vehicles would still have to have the capability for human control, though, for reasons like the snowstorms we're getting here in Ottawa.
I would miss the thrill of driving a motorcycle, though.
It simply listed the next stops it was making. If it was stopping at floors 4 and 7, when the doors opened at the 4th floor, the electronic sign above the elevator doors would be displaying 7 - and people going to the 7th floor would see it and get off.
Evidentally, the "dumb people" are the engineers, and the "smart elevators" are the ones invented 100+ years ago.
I think that's the sweet spot. Engineers have to be smarter by being dumber because changing user behavior and expectations is really hard. Indeed, the hardest part is getting people to enter in their floor number before getting in.
But surely these elevators, from the users point of view, are inferior.
What if they change their mind about which floor they want once they've got in?
What if they see a closing lift and jump in, not realising it's not a general purpose lift, but one that only stops in certain predefined places. They'll have to get out at the next stop and start again.
You have to ask yourself why these lifts are a good idea for the user. If they reduce wait times by 10% I doubt the users of them will care. The convenience of being able to get a lift to stop where you want it to from the inside is more useful IMHO
The advantage they pointed out in the article was energy savings and time in the elevator. Very large buildings have express elevators that won't stop on every floor, or the poor sap on floor 52 would never get there. This is like making every elevator an express one by batching up the stops.
As for the energy savings... not really clear on that. Maybe I just misunderstood.
