Nevada passes a law to explicitly make driverless cars legal on the roads: http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/nevada-oks-robotic-cars.php
What's the purpose of a driverless car?
Quote from: Zoupa on June 28, 2011, 11:32:52 PM
What's the purpose of a driverless car?
1. Some people like the comfort of a private car but don't want to drive.
2. Reduces accidents.
3. Improves traffic flow. If a substantial number of cars are centrally coordinated, I can see some improvement. They won't go too slowly. They will know the optimal route to use. Etc.
Quote from: Monoriu on June 28, 2011, 11:37:33 PM
1. Some people like the comfort of a private car but don't want to drive.
2. Reduces accidents.
3. Improves traffic flow. If a substantial number of cars are centrally coordinated, I can see some improvement. They won't go too slowly. They will know the optimal route to use. Etc.
Actually, most of the practical applications I've seen so far are for commercial applications. Volvo rolled out a system a few years ago where a single pilot driver could control several tractor cabs by infrared or laser targets "painted" on the backs of the trailers, frex. I've heard of a couple car manufacturers who have driverless systems in testing, but the closest (that I know of) that's actually made it to the market is "active park assist" in some Fords.
As to your "centrally coordinated," I remember reading some fiction in either Asimov or Amazing Tales back in the 90s that dealt with the potential for disaster: a guy whose daughter is hit by a careless driver develops a centralized driverless system, makes sure the system is put in all parts of the country, and then shuts it off at rush hour. "The Day the Streets Ran Red," or something like that.
Sweet. What about robot wives? Because I want both.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 29, 2011, 12:20:21 AM
Sweet. What about robot wives? Because I want both.
Shouldn't you be worried about all those poor drivers that these things will put out of work?
Quote from: Habbaku on June 29, 2011, 12:54:57 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 29, 2011, 12:20:21 AM
Sweet. What about robot wives? Because I want both.
Shouldn't you be worried about all those poor drivers that these things will put out of work?
Why would I want poor drivers to keep their jobs driving? :hmm:
Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 28, 2011, 11:50:10 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on June 28, 2011, 11:37:33 PM
1. Some people like the comfort of a private car but don't want to drive.
2. Reduces accidents.
3. Improves traffic flow. If a substantial number of cars are centrally coordinated, I can see some improvement. They won't go too slowly. They will know the optimal route to use. Etc.
Actually, most of the practical applications I've seen so far are for commercial applications. Volvo rolled out a system a few years ago where a single pilot driver could control several tractor cabs by infrared or laser targets "painted" on the backs of the trailers, frex. I've heard of a couple car manufacturers who have driverless systems in testing, but the closest (that I know of) that's actually made it to the market is "active park assist" in some Fords.
As to your "centrally coordinated," I remember reading some fiction in either Asimov or Amazing Tales back in the 90s that dealt with the potential for disaster: a guy whose daughter is hit by a careless driver develops a centralized driverless system, makes sure the system is put in all parts of the country, and then shuts it off at rush hour. "The Day the Streets Ran Red," or something like that.
:huh: Active park assist is far from the closest thing that made it to the market. Mercedes S-Class is a test-bed for all sorts of gizmos that will gradually make up a robot car. Active cruise control that automatically accelerates or brakes is pretty nifty, and much more advanced than a park assist.
The adaptive cruise control actually trickles down by now. It is available in mid-level exec cars like the Merc C class or Audi A4 by now. Give it three or four more years and all cars will have it as option.
It works fine but still has room for improvement as it only drives based on distance to the next car, not optics AFAIK. So if it senses a gap on the freeway it will accelerate even if a human driver would see that it is pointless because there is a long line of slow-moving cars in front so closing the gap a second or two faster won't gain you anything. It also breaks and accelerates rather hard for my taste. And it's limited to 200 kph, which may not be such a big problem in most markets. ;)
The next generation of the system will have a dense traffic assistant that will just follow the car in front of you and also steer the car. It will only work at a rather low speed though. Not for technical, but for legal reasons.
Quote from: Monoriu on June 28, 2011, 11:37:33 PM
3. Improves traffic flow. If a substantial number of cars are centrally coordinated, I can see some improvement. They won't go too slowly. They will know the optimal route to use. Etc.
You don't really need a robot car for that though. It would be enough to implement car-to-car networking for the micro-level and GPS or mobile phone signal tracking combined with intelligent routing systems on the road or in navigation systems to control the macro-level of traffic flows.
Quote from: Zanza on June 29, 2011, 02:03:23 AM
The adaptive cruise control actually trickles down by now. It is available in mid-level exec cars like the Merc C class or Audi A4 by now. Give it three or four more years and all cars will have it as option.
It works fine but still has room for improvement as it only drives based on distance to the next car, not optics AFAIK. So if it senses a gap on the freeway it will accelerate even if a human driver would see that it is pointless because there is a long line of slow-moving cars in front so closing the gap a second or two faster won't gain you anything. It also breaks and accelerates rather hard for my taste. And it's limited to 200 kph, which may not be such a big problem in most markets. ;)
Yeah, okay, score one for Europe. :P
Although that's an interesting aspect of robot cars: once truly mature systems are married with sufficiently high-performance vehicles, there's no rational reason for them to obey a 70mph speed limit. (Well, except the fuel economy reason.)
Quote from: Ideologue on June 29, 2011, 02:17:14 AM
Quote from: Zanza on June 29, 2011, 02:03:23 AM
The adaptive cruise control actually trickles down by now. It is available in mid-level exec cars like the Merc C class or Audi A4 by now. Give it three or four more years and all cars will have it as option.
It works fine but still has room for improvement as it only drives based on distance to the next car, not optics AFAIK. So if it senses a gap on the freeway it will accelerate even if a human driver would see that it is pointless because there is a long line of slow-moving cars in front so closing the gap a second or two faster won't gain you anything. It also breaks and accelerates rather hard for my taste. And it's limited to 200 kph, which may not be such a big problem in most markets. ;)
Yeah, okay, score one for Europe. :P
Although that's an interesting aspect of robot cars: once truly mature systems are married with sufficiently high-performance vehicles, there's no rational reason for them to obey a 70mph speed limit. (Well, except the fuel economy reason.)
Only after all cars on the road have the same system.
Quote from: Slargos on June 29, 2011, 03:19:33 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 29, 2011, 02:17:14 AM
Quote from: Zanza on June 29, 2011, 02:03:23 AM
The adaptive cruise control actually trickles down by now. It is available in mid-level exec cars like the Merc C class or Audi A4 by now. Give it three or four more years and all cars will have it as option.
It works fine but still has room for improvement as it only drives based on distance to the next car, not optics AFAIK. So if it senses a gap on the freeway it will accelerate even if a human driver would see that it is pointless because there is a long line of slow-moving cars in front so closing the gap a second or two faster won't gain you anything. It also breaks and accelerates rather hard for my taste. And it's limited to 200 kph, which may not be such a big problem in most markets. ;)
Yeah, okay, score one for Europe. :P
Although that's an interesting aspect of robot cars: once truly mature systems are married with sufficiently high-performance vehicles, there's no rational reason for them to obey a 70mph speed limit. (Well, except the fuel economy reason.)
Only after all cars on the road have the same system.
Which is inevitable of course. While I would hate to totally relinquish control over my vehicle, I sure wouldn't mind just saying "Kit, take me home" after a hard day of work every once in a while.
Can you be done for being drunk in charge of a driverless car? Over here, you don't actually have to be driving to be "in charge".
QuoteWhat is the legal definition of being in charge?
There is no legal definition for the term "in charge" so each case will depend on its exact circumstances and facts. Generally, a Defendant is "in charge" if he was the owner/in possession of the vehicle or had recently driven it. He is not in charge if it is being driven by another person or is "a great distance" from the vehicle.
Matters are more complicated where a person is sitting in the vehicle or "otherwise involved with it". In charge can include attempting to gain entry to the vehicle and failing, having keys to the vehicle, having intention to take control of the vehicle or even "being near the vehicle".
http://www.drinkdrivinglaw.co.uk/offences/in_charge_of_a_vehicle_with_excess_alcohol.htm (http://www.drinkdrivinglaw.co.uk/offences/in_charge_of_a_vehicle_with_excess_alcohol.htm)
Quote from: Tamas on June 29, 2011, 04:04:02 AM
Quote from: Slargos on June 29, 2011, 03:19:33 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 29, 2011, 02:17:14 AM
Quote from: Zanza on June 29, 2011, 02:03:23 AM
The adaptive cruise control actually trickles down by now. It is available in mid-level exec cars like the Merc C class or Audi A4 by now. Give it three or four more years and all cars will have it as option.
It works fine but still has room for improvement as it only drives based on distance to the next car, not optics AFAIK. So if it senses a gap on the freeway it will accelerate even if a human driver would see that it is pointless because there is a long line of slow-moving cars in front so closing the gap a second or two faster won't gain you anything. It also breaks and accelerates rather hard for my taste. And it's limited to 200 kph, which may not be such a big problem in most markets. ;)
Yeah, okay, score one for Europe. :P
Although that's an interesting aspect of robot cars: once truly mature systems are married with sufficiently high-performance vehicles, there's no rational reason for them to obey a 70mph speed limit. (Well, except the fuel economy reason.)
Only after all cars on the road have the same system.
Which is inevitable of course. While I would hate to totally relinquish control over my vehicle, I sure wouldn't mind just saying "Kit, take me home" after a hard day of work every once in a while.
No argument there. I like driving, and I would hate to have an autopilot forced on me 100% of the time but it would be very pleasant to have the option.
Quote from: Brazen on June 29, 2011, 04:31:02 AM
Can you be done for being drunk in charge of a driverless car? Over here, you don't actually have to be driving to be "in charge".
QuoteWhat is the legal definition of being in charge?
There is no legal definition for the term "in charge" so each case will depend on its exact circumstances and facts. Generally, a Defendant is "in charge" if he was the owner/in possession of the vehicle or had recently driven it. He is not in charge if it is being driven by another person or is "a great distance" from the vehicle.
Matters are more complicated where a person is sitting in the vehicle or "otherwise involved with it". In charge can include attempting to gain entry to the vehicle and failing, having keys to the vehicle, having intention to take control of the vehicle or even "being near the vehicle".
http://www.drinkdrivinglaw.co.uk/offences/in_charge_of_a_vehicle_with_excess_alcohol.htm (http://www.drinkdrivinglaw.co.uk/offences/in_charge_of_a_vehicle_with_excess_alcohol.htm)
Since violators will inevitably claim they weren't actually driving the vehicle, these laws are necessary even if they're tremendously stupid.
People who are responsible and choose to sleep it off in their car rather than drive home, for instance, can be charged with DUI. Ass-retarded.
Quote from: DGuller on June 29, 2011, 01:44:11 AM
:huh: Active park assist is far from the closest thing that made it to the market. Mercedes S-Class is a test-bed for all sorts of gizmos that will gradually make up a robot car. Active cruise control that automatically accelerates or brakes is pretty nifty, and much more advanced than a park assist.
I did say "that I know of," although they both seem about on level playing ground, one manages steering the car while unconcerned about speed, and the other manages speed control while unconcerned about steering. Nifty is in the eyes of the person buying the vehicle.
This isn't the future! Where the hell is my flying car and jetpack!? :mad:
Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 29, 2011, 08:07:30 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 29, 2011, 01:44:11 AM
:huh: Active park assist is far from the closest thing that made it to the market. Mercedes S-Class is a test-bed for all sorts of gizmos that will gradually make up a robot car. Active cruise control that automatically accelerates or brakes is pretty nifty, and much more advanced than a park assist.
I did say "that I know of," although they both seem about on level playing ground, one manages steering the car while unconcerned about speed, and the other manages speed control while unconcerned about steering. Nifty is in the eyes of the person buying the vehicle.
Yeah, but I would think that priority for robot cars would be to drive automatically, not park automatically.
Will the various robot settings be considered racist? "Old Asian", "Young Immigrant" etc?
Quote from: Brazen on June 29, 2011, 04:31:02 AM
Can you be done for being drunk in charge of a driverless car? Over here, you don't actually have to be driving to be "in charge".
QuoteWhat is the legal definition of being in charge?
There is no legal definition for the term "in charge" so each case will depend on its exact circumstances and facts. Generally, a Defendant is "in charge" if he was the owner/in possession of the vehicle or had recently driven it. He is not in charge if it is being driven by another person or is "a great distance" from the vehicle.
Matters are more complicated where a person is sitting in the vehicle or "otherwise involved with it". In charge can include attempting to gain entry to the vehicle and failing, having keys to the vehicle, having intention to take control of the vehicle or even "being near the vehicle".
http://www.drinkdrivinglaw.co.uk/offences/in_charge_of_a_vehicle_with_excess_alcohol.htm (http://www.drinkdrivinglaw.co.uk/offences/in_charge_of_a_vehicle_with_excess_alcohol.htm)
Over here you can be charged with having "care or control" of a motor vehicle while impaired. It all comes down the particular facts, but you can be convicted for having the keys in your pocket while you sit in the drivers seat for example. The test is a risk of setting the vehicle in motion.
So yes, I imagine you could be convicted.
That's just dumb, except in very limited circumstances (you're caught drunk while not driving, but while being in a place where you must have driven to recently). Driving under the influence should actually be about driving under the influence.
Quote from: DGuller on June 29, 2011, 09:39:42 AM
That's just dumb, except in very limited circumstances (you're caught drunk while not driving, but while being in a place where you must have driven to recently). Driving under the influence should actually be about driving under the influence.
I love how you guys are such legal experts. :rolleyes:
The "care or control" law is not dumb at all. Otherwise you'd have a situation where if the cop can't maintain line of sight with the driver for the entire time, once the vehicle stops nobody is "driving" it any longer, and if there is more than one person in the vehicle you'd never be able to prove who was driving.
If you phrased it as a law that defines what is a reasonable suspicion that one drove the car intoxicated, that would be fine. In fact, that's pretty much what my exception touched upon.
What you seemed to imply is that the risk of driving a car intoxicated counts as DUI as well, which I still maintain is assinine. If that's not what you meant, then of course my comments are based on a poorly worded interpretation of the law rather than the actual law.
Quote from: DGuller on June 29, 2011, 09:55:40 AM
If you phrased it as a law that defines what is a reasonable suspicion that one drove the car intoxicated, that would be fine. In fact, that's pretty much what my exception touched upon.
What you seemed to imply is that the risk of driving a car intoxicated counts as DUI as well, which I still maintain is assinine. If that's not what you meant, then of course my comments are based on a poorly worded interpretation of the law rather than the actual law.
Can't do it like that. The Crown (or the state) must prove all elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. One of the elements of the offence of impaired driving is of course that the accused is driving a motor vehicle.
Care or control is a highly litigated area, and comes down to the specific facts of the case. Having the keys in your pocket, standing beside the vehicle in your own driveway might theoretically be the basis for a conviction, but realistically will not. Being seated in the drivers seat, keys in the ignition, at the side of the road, will certainly get you convicted. And everything else inbetween is a bit of a crapshoot.
What about underneath the car, keys in the gas tank, wearing a big hat? Car is also on a bridge.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 29, 2011, 10:43:32 AM
What about underneath the car, keys in the gas tank, wearing a big hat? Car is also on a bridge.
You might laugh, but there are hundreds if not thousands of these kinds of cases that are reported. :(
I wonder if you can get off the DUI charge by having a bottle of vodka in your car. Let's say that a cop catches you shitfaced when you're stopped on the side of the road. Normally the assumption is that you must've been even drunker when you got there, but you have a bottle of vodka with you, and you aren't moving. Furthermore, in your shitfaced condition, you accidentally lost the keys to your car. You'll probably be nailed on the open container charge, but can you get a DUI from it?
Quote from: Barrister on June 29, 2011, 10:48:14 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 29, 2011, 10:43:32 AM
What about underneath the car, keys in the gas tank, wearing a big hat? Car is also on a bridge.
You might laugh, but there are hundreds if not thousands of these kinds of cases that are reported. :(
I wasn't laughing, and I wasn't drinking. I was very grateful when the police showed up and scared away those Rotary Club bullies.
Quote from: DGuller on June 29, 2011, 11:45:59 AM
I wonder if you can get off the DUI charge by having a bottle of vodka in your car. Let's say that a cop catches you shitfaced when you're stopped on the side of the road. Normally the assumption is that you must've been even drunker when you got there, but you have a bottle of vodka with you, and you aren't moving. Furthermore, in your shitfaced condition, you accidentally lost the keys to your car. You'll probably be nailed on the open container charge, but can you get a DUI from it?
In the biz it's called bolus drinking, or a last drink defence. It's the claim that you only started drinking after you stopped. It can come into play any time when there is even a brief gap between the observed driving, and police being in contact with the driver.
Quote from: DGuller on June 29, 2011, 11:45:59 AM
I wonder if you can get off the DUI charge by having a bottle of vodka in your car. Let's say that a cop catches you shitfaced when you're stopped on the side of the road. Normally the assumption is that you must've been even drunker when you got there, but you have a bottle of vodka with you, and you aren't moving. Furthermore, in your shitfaced condition, you accidentally lost the keys to your car. You'll probably be nailed on the open container charge, but can you get a DUI from it?
In Scandie you can. In fact, it is expressly illegal to imbibe alcohol after an autovehicular accident whether you were sober during or not.
Quote from: Slargos on June 29, 2011, 12:02:22 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 29, 2011, 11:45:59 AM
I wonder if you can get off the DUI charge by having a bottle of vodka in your car. Let's say that a cop catches you shitfaced when you're stopped on the side of the road. Normally the assumption is that you must've been even drunker when you got there, but you have a bottle of vodka with you, and you aren't moving. Furthermore, in your shitfaced condition, you accidentally lost the keys to your car. You'll probably be nailed on the open container charge, but can you get a DUI from it?
In Scandie you can. In fact, it is expressly illegal to imbibe alcohol after an autovehicular accident whether you were sober during or not.
Yeah - but that's probably a lot less of a penalty than being hit for impaired driving is.
Quote from: Barrister on June 29, 2011, 12:03:12 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 29, 2011, 12:02:22 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 29, 2011, 11:45:59 AM
I wonder if you can get off the DUI charge by having a bottle of vodka in your car. Let's say that a cop catches you shitfaced when you're stopped on the side of the road. Normally the assumption is that you must've been even drunker when you got there, but you have a bottle of vodka with you, and you aren't moving. Furthermore, in your shitfaced condition, you accidentally lost the keys to your car. You'll probably be nailed on the open container charge, but can you get a DUI from it?
In Scandie you can. In fact, it is expressly illegal to imbibe alcohol after an autovehicular accident whether you were sober during or not.
Yeah - but that's probably a lot less of a penalty than being hit for impaired driving is.
I couldn't say without researching it but as far as I can recall, it's lose-your-license territory at the very least.
Edit: Brief search. Turns out it's equal to DUI in Norway, and before the year is up it's expected that a similar law will be passed in Sweden.
So actually it seems the penalty is more or less the same.
Quote from: Barrister on June 29, 2011, 11:56:58 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 29, 2011, 11:45:59 AM
I wonder if you can get off the DUI charge by having a bottle of vodka in your car. Let's say that a cop catches you shitfaced when you're stopped on the side of the road. Normally the assumption is that you must've been even drunker when you got there, but you have a bottle of vodka with you, and you aren't moving. Furthermore, in your shitfaced condition, you accidentally lost the keys to your car. You'll probably be nailed on the open container charge, but can you get a DUI from it?
In the biz it's called bolus drinking, or a last drink defence. It's the claim that you only started drinking after you stopped. It can come into play any time when there is even a brief gap between the observed driving, and police being in contact with the driver.
What about an even more blatant example. You're pulled over, and while the cop is stopped behind you checking your plates, you chuck away the keys and take a swig from a bottle of vodka. He sees you the entire time, but he can't tell exactly how much you drank just now. Can that ever work?
Quote from: DGuller on June 29, 2011, 12:47:08 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 29, 2011, 11:56:58 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 29, 2011, 11:45:59 AM
I wonder if you can get off the DUI charge by having a bottle of vodka in your car. Let's say that a cop catches you shitfaced when you're stopped on the side of the road. Normally the assumption is that you must've been even drunker when you got there, but you have a bottle of vodka with you, and you aren't moving. Furthermore, in your shitfaced condition, you accidentally lost the keys to your car. You'll probably be nailed on the open container charge, but can you get a DUI from it?
In the biz it's called bolus drinking, or a last drink defence. It's the claim that you only started drinking after you stopped. It can come into play any time when there is even a brief gap between the observed driving, and police being in contact with the driver.
What about an even more blatant example. You're pulled over, and while the cop is stopped behind you checking your plates, you chuck away the keys and take a swig from a bottle of vodka. He sees you the entire time, but he can't tell exactly how much you drank just now. Can that ever work?
Well if he sees you throw away the keys, how does that help you?
Well unlike Scandinavia, drinking in a vehicle is a ticketable offence, not criminal. However if you're taking a giant swig of vodka while the cop has pulled you over you're probably looking at an Obstruct Justice charge on top of your Impaired Driving charge.
Quote from: Slargos on June 29, 2011, 05:01:50 AM
No argument there. I like driving, and I would hate to have an autopilot forced on me 100% of the time but it would be very pleasant to have the option.
I like driving as well, but I hate sharing the road other drivers. I would gladly relinquish control of my car if it meant everyone else has to do likewise.
Quote from: Iormlund on June 29, 2011, 01:02:17 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 29, 2011, 05:01:50 AM
No argument there. I like driving, and I would hate to have an autopilot forced on me 100% of the time but it would be very pleasant to have the option.
I like driving as well, but I hate sharing the road other drivers. I would gladly relinquish control of my car if it meant everyone else has to do likewise.
I guess I could get on board with that as long as I get to keep control of my bike. :hmm:
Quote from: Iormlund on June 29, 2011, 01:02:17 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 29, 2011, 05:01:50 AM
No argument there. I like driving, and I would hate to have an autopilot forced on me 100% of the time but it would be very pleasant to have the option.
I like driving as well, but I hate sharing the road other drivers. I would gladly relinquish control of my car if it meant everyone else has to do likewise.
I'd rather have the other drivers eliminated and keep control of my car.
:hmm:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.team-bhp.com%2Fforum%2Fiipcache%2F131941.jpg&hash=99bb506e8e77a4ad4885b7073c44a4b4660f516c)
I hate driving so this would be a dream come true. I want to take a nap on the way home.
Quote from: Barrister on June 29, 2011, 10:07:52 AM
Care or control is a highly litigated area, and comes down to the specific facts of the case. Having the keys in your pocket, standing beside the vehicle in your own driveway might theoretically be the basis for a conviction, but realistically will not. Being seated in the drivers seat, keys in the ignition, at the side of the road, will certainly get you convicted. And everything else inbetween is a bit of a crapshoot.
Which is essentially the definition of a bad law; one which a reasonable person will not know they have broken until the verdict comes in.
Quote from: grumbler on June 29, 2011, 06:01:52 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 29, 2011, 10:07:52 AM
Care or control is a highly litigated area, and comes down to the specific facts of the case. Having the keys in your pocket, standing beside the vehicle in your own driveway might theoretically be the basis for a conviction, but realistically will not. Being seated in the drivers seat, keys in the ignition, at the side of the road, will certainly get you convicted. And everything else inbetween is a bit of a crapshoot.
Which is essentially the definition of a bad law; one which a reasonable person will not know they have broken until the verdict comes in.
Nah this one is very simple. If you're drunk, don't go anywhere near your car unless someone sober is driving.
And in any event the law as written is perfectly clear. It's all the brutal court decisions that have mangled it that makes it confusing. <_<
Quote from: Barrister on June 29, 2011, 10:41:59 PM
Nah this one is very simple. If you're drunk, don't go anywhere near your car unless someone sober is driving.
Which is complete bullshit. What if I just want to take a nap?
Quote from: Iormlund on June 30, 2011, 10:16:59 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 29, 2011, 10:41:59 PM
Nah this one is very simple. If you're drunk, don't go anywhere near your car unless someone sober is driving.
Which is complete bullshit. What if I just want to take a nap?
You have a bed for that.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 30, 2011, 10:28:51 AM
You have a bed for that.
I thought I spent tons of money for a car. Why can't I sleep in the thing I bought?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 30, 2011, 10:28:51 AM
You have a bed for that.
I can imagine in your particular case bed and car are not that apart. For most people that's not always the case. I've taken quite a few naps at a car after clubbing, a copious banquet or an exhausting day skiing for example.
Quote from: Zoupa on June 28, 2011, 11:32:52 PM
What's the purpose of a driverless car?
To get people and their possessions from one place to another.
I'm in favor of anything that means technological progress.