For now, it seems like a novelty - cars that can operate independently of human control, safely cruising down streets thanks to an array of sensors and pinpoint GPS navigation.
But if the technology avoids getting crushed by government regulators and product liability lawsuits, writes the Federalist's Dan McLaughlin, it could prompt a cultural shift similar to the early 20th century move away from horses as the primary means of transportation.
First and foremost, he writes, the spread of driverless cars will likely greatly reduce the number of traffic accidents - which currently cost Americans $871b (£510b) a year.
"A truly driverless road would not be accident-free, given the number of accidents that would still be caused by mechanical and computer errors, weather conditions, pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists and sheer random chance," he says. "But it would make the now-routine loss of life and limb on the roads far rarer."
Computer-operated cars would eventually reshape car design, he says, as things like windshields - "a large and vulnerable piece of glass" - become less necessary. Drivers will be able to sit wherever they'd like in their cars, which could make car interiors more like mobile lounges than like cockpits.
The age required to operate a driverless car is likely to drop, he says. There could be an impact on the legal drinking age, as well, as preventing drunk driving was one of the prime justifications for the US-wide setting minimum age to purchase alcohol at 21 years old.
There's other possible economic fallout, McLaughlin contends, such as a restructuring of the auto insurance industry, the obsolescence of taxi drivers and lower ratings for drive-time radio programmes.
The high-tech security state will also get boost, he writes, as GPS-tagged cars will be easier to track, making life difficult for fugitives and car thieves. Police will also be able to move resources away from operations like traffic enforcement.
Of course, he writes, the towns that rely on speed traps to fund their government services will be facing budget shortfalls. Privacy advocates could also get an unexpected boost, he notes, since traffic stops are one of the main justifications for police vehicle searches.
Finally, there's the prospect of the as-yet-unrealised futurist dream of flying cars. With computer-controlled vehicles that strictly follow traffic rules, McLaughlin says, "the potential for three-dimensional roads becomes a lot less scary and more a matter of simply solving the technological challenge".
Where we're going, we may not need roads after all. [Reply]
Originally Posted by philfree:
I prefer to drive myself. I enjoy making good time and beating the clock on long trips and I think there are times I can do things in my car that a computer wouldn't let me do. A self-driving feature that gives me a choice would make sense for me maybe but in the end I probably wouldn't use it much. Maybe when I'm 75 years old. Driving equals freedom and somehow I think a self driving car would take away from that.
I think it's weird that some people(men) don't like to drive. Driving is such a man thing to do.
Being a good driver is all about having a big dick. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Teak:
I have a Y Tesla and Full Self Driving (FSD) beta. Like lots of cars today, I can get on the interstate and the car will drive itself as long as I stay on the interstate. This is not FSD beta. All Teslas are capable of doing this. It does make long drives a lot more comfortable. It will slow down and pass with whatever speed you want to set and if a Navigation point is set it will drive from entry on Interstates to off ramp from Interstates.
FSD beta tries to put this freedom on regular driving in town and country roads. I do use it on routes I know because I am aware of where it will have troubles. But in city driving it is nice because it stops at stop signs and proceeds with right of way, at stop lights and goes on green and slows or stops for cars in front of me turning or stopping at intersections. Stop and go driving is less stressful.
It does not do as well on country roads or highways with slightly skewed intersection meeting. It will not recognize entry roads to destinations as not part of highways. It has problems with stopped emergency vehicles and associated human directions at such scenes.
But I have seen lots of improvement over the year. I am concerned that my particular car may not have the resolution and cpu power to actually get to a practical level of self driving. It is not GPS dependent at all and the visual and processing power has to be on board for Tesla's implementation.
Are you comfortable with the self-driving on the highway? Or do you feel like you have to be just as alert as if you're driving? Can you read a book?
I've never driven or been a passenger in a car that does this stuff. I'm curious about how I would adjust. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
Are you comfortable with the self-driving on the highway? Or do you feel like you have to be just as alert as if you're driving? Can you read a book?
I've never driven or been a passenger in a car that does this stuff. I'm curious about how I would adjust.
I do NOT have FSD and only have AP2. I read, fiddle with my phone. There is a little hack I do so I dont get the nag but as long as its an interstate with lines (all interstates have good lines, some sketchy highways dont) and no construction I can dick off quite a bit. You can easily tell after a while what roads will give it trouble and its obvious when the car wants you to take over. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Teak:
I have a Y Tesla and Full Self Driving (FSD) beta. Like lots of cars today, I can get on the interstate and the car will drive itself as long as I stay on the interstate. This is not FSD beta. All Teslas are capable of doing this. It does make long drives a lot more comfortable. It will slow down and pass with whatever speed you want to set and if a Navigation point is set it will drive from entry on Interstates to off ramp from Interstates.
FSD beta tries to put this freedom on regular driving in town and country roads. I do use it on routes I know because I am aware of where it will have troubles. But in city driving it is nice because it stops at stop signs and proceeds with right of way, at stop lights and goes on green and slows or stops for cars in front of me turning or stopping at intersections. Stop and go driving is less stressful.
It does not do as well on country roads or highways with slightly skewed intersection meeting. It will not recognize entry roads to destinations as not part of highways. It has problems with stopped emergency vehicles and associated human directions at such scenes.
But I have seen lots of improvement over the year. I am concerned that my particular car may not have the resolution and cpu power to actually get to a practical level of self driving. It is not GPS dependent at all and the visual and processing power has to be on board for Tesla's implementation.
So is it trustworthy enough to sit back and really enjoy some road head instead of trying to focus on not crashing? [Reply]
Originally Posted by BWillie:
I do NOT have FSD and only have AP2. I read, fiddle with my phone. There is a little hack I do so I dont get the nag but as long as its an interstate with lines (all interstates have good lines, some sketchy highways dont) and no construction I can dick off quite a bit. You can easily tell after a while what roads will give it trouble and its obvious when the car wants you to take over.
Interesting.
My dream is to just get in the car and read a book and eat a sandwich and look dreamily out the window. It seems like maybe we're not quite there yet. [Reply]
To be fair I've seen head being given for years before Auto Pilot.
I don't try and avoid having to answer to the need to let AP know I am there. But I do get to see a lot more scenery. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Teak:
I have a Y Tesla and Full Self Driving (FSD) beta. Like lots of cars today, I can get on the interstate and the car will drive itself as long as I stay on the interstate. This is not FSD beta. All Teslas are capable of doing this. It does make long drives a lot more comfortable. It will slow down and pass with whatever speed you want to set and if a Navigation point is set it will drive from entry on Interstates to off ramp from Interstates.
FSD beta tries to put this freedom on regular driving in town and country roads. I do use it on routes I know because I am aware of where it will have troubles. But in city driving it is nice because it stops at stop signs and proceeds with right of way, at stop lights and goes on green and slows or stops for cars in front of me turning or stopping at intersections. Stop and go driving is less stressful. It does not do as well on country roads or highways with slightly skewed intersection meeting. It will not recognize entry roads to destinations as not part of highways. It has problems with stopped emergency vehicles and associated human directions at such scenes.
But I have seen lots of improvement over the year. I am concerned that my particular car may not have the resolution and cpu power to actually get to a practical level of self driving. It is not GPS dependent at all and the visual and processing power has to be on board for Tesla's implementation.
Interesting post. Sounds like it still needs human supervision or at least an owner/rider that is paying attention. [Reply]
Originally Posted by HemiEd:
Interesting post. Sounds like it still needs human supervision or at least an owner/rider that is paying attention.
Let's take one at a time. The skewed intersections sees FSD slow to make a left turn even with no on coming traffic. It fiddles looking for the entry onto the new road more so if the intersection has islands or acute angle. It finally gets these right but if you have traffic behind you they may see your hesitant motions as someone who needs a horn to encourage getting it done. One needs a "new driver" bumper sticker to explain this.
The failure to distinguish highway exits say into churches or malls with turn lanes would be helped greatly if mandated painted arrows on the road very early in the lane. I think with self driving cars you need mandates on highly visible lane markings on the roads to guide decisions.
Emergency flashing should be a case with the car expecting some kind of human intervention.
Except for the emergency vehicle incidents, in town these problems almost disappear.
Is it still early, yes but the success rate will increase exponentially with practice. You can't get rid of all accidents but you will see lower incidents and of lessor severity than with humans well within 2 years. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Teak:
Let's take one at a time. The skewed intersections sees FSD slow to make a left turn even with no on coming traffic. It fiddles looking for the entry onto the new road more so if the intersection has islands or acute angle. It finally gets these right but if you have traffic behind you they may see your hesitant motions as someone who needs a horn to encourage getting it done. One needs a "new driver" bumper sticker to explain this.
The failure to distinguish highway exits say into churches or malls with turn lanes would be helped greatly if mandated painted arrows on the road very early in the lane. I think with self driving cars you need mandates on highly visible lane markings on the roads to guide decisions.
Emergency flashing should be a case with the car expecting some kind of human intervention.
Except for the emergency vehicle incidents, in town these problems almost disappear.
Is it still early, yes but the success rate will increase exponentially with practice. You can't get rid of all accidents but you will see lower incidents and of lessor severity than with humans well within 2 years.
Great post, thank you for the non-predjudiced information. Interesting indeed.
I had to drive from Branson West to Branson today, and the entire 7-8 miles was just recently paved/blacktopped. It normally has 3 lanes on most of it, but that was all indistinguishable, as they had not striped it yet.
I caught myself wondering what a driverless car would do, as everyone, including myself, was hesitant in trying to figure out where our lanes were.
Turn markings, nope, none of that. I am not aware of any accidents with all human drivers. [Reply]
DMV shuts down Cruise robotaxis in San Francisco over safety concerns
The California Department of Motor Vehicles on Tuesday shut down problem-plagued Cruise autonomous taxis in San Francisco, saying the vehicles, involved in several troubling incidents, presented an “unreasonable risk to the public.”
“This is a wake-up call to Cruise to pay closer attention to road safety,” said Carnegie Mellon University engineering professor Phil Koopman, who likened the company’s robotaxis to “teenage drivers not displaying good judgment.”
San Francisco has become a proving ground for driverless taxi technology, with Cruise and Google spinoff Waymo testing out their vehicles on public roads. But Cruise’s robotaxis in particular have come under fire from city officials over their propensity to stop and snarl traffic and obstruct emergency vehicles.
Removal of Cruise’s driverless taxis from San Francisco’s roads comes as officials in other Bay Area cities closely watch the technology’s roll-out. Decisions on where the vehicles are ultimately deployed remains under the authority of state regulators. San Jose has said all it can do is hope to build positive relationships with robotaxi companies, and Oakland officials have told the utilities commission they know their city “may be next” for deployment.
To get its permits back for testing and deploying driverless taxis with no human backup, Cruise would have to provide the DMV with information about “how it has addressed the deficiencies that led to the suspensions,” the agency said.
Since August, when the state Public Utilities Commission gave General Motors’ Cruise a green light to take paid fares, there have been numerous reports of the cars’ obstructing emergency vehicles and bottlenecking traffic. San Francisco Board of Supervisors president Aaron Peskin at the time described the autonomous technology on public roads as “a recipe for death” and said the vehicles were “not ready for prime time.”
California DMV revokes operating permit for driverless car company after pedestrian collision
The California Department of Motor Vehicles announced Tuesday that it is suspending Cruise LLC’s permit to operate its autonomous vehicles without a test driver present. The company, which is owned by General Motors, was operating a fleet of robotaxis in San Francisco. The decision is effective immediately. This marks the second time that the DMV has suspended a driverless testing permit, a DMV spokesperson said. “Public safety remains the California DMV’s top priority, and the department’s autonomous vehicle regulations provide a framework to facilitate the safe testing and deployment of this technology on California public roads. When there is an unreasonable risk to public safety, the DMV can immediately suspend or revoke permits. There is no set time for a suspension,” the DMV said in a statement. The agency said that it has provided Cruise with the steps needed to reinstate the permit to operate, “which the DMV will not approve until the company has fulfilled the requirements to the department’s satisfaction.” The decision does not affect the company’s ability to test vehicles with a safety driver. Cruise and Waymo, owned by Alphabet, both run driverless cars in San Francisco.
Originally Posted by HemiEd:
“This is a wake-up call to Cruise to pay closer attention to road safety,” said Carnegie Mellon University engineering professor Phil Koopman, who likened the company’s robotaxis to “teenage drivers not displaying good judgment.”
I see those daily, and nobody is banning them from the roads. [Reply]
I’m glad they got blocked, even if it was temporary. Those cars became a nuisance. They were everywhere and with how congested SF streets are w Hipster Lance Armstrongs and double parked delivery trucks/ dashers /Ubers etc. they would block streets for minutes at a time trying to figure out safe passage through minor hazards.
It was ok when there were a few of them here and there but that shit got out of hand.