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 Buehler445:
The tech is there. Has been for awhile.
The big thing in tractors is that the lawyers won't let a machine run unattended.
I assume that's the way it is with cars also. There's no one to sue if the car crashes itself.
So Deere is rolling out some autonomous stuff. It is a REALLY small scale, and I think it is still a LONG way from widespread adoption, but I gotta eat some crow there.
They're doing it different than I thought they would, apparently they're using cameras to determine collision avoidance. They have a massive amount of sensors for some of the other stuff, but I think the cameras are doing the heavy lifting for the liability protection. I don't know the mechanics of what it's doing, but that is a massive amount of computing they're doing.
Obviously Deere has an army of lawyers, so they're on it, but it looks like it's happening.
And as should be a shock to nobody, I appear to have been wrong. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Ming the Merciless:
The main issue will be cost.
It will be FAR cheaper to order your car a couple times a day than to own a car and pay for it just to have it sit around for 20 hours a day.
Ordering cars will get faster , cheaper and easier. Most people are not going to choose to pay for a car or two full time when they can just order and use them as needed.
Just my thoughts... main issue: cost
When the cost of driverless is far less than owning, thats when people will start switching.
Maybe. Convenience goes a long way as well, though. If you actually think through how much people spend on cars - $500 car payments are pretty common plus maintenance and fuel. Compare that with calling an Uber a couple of times a day at $10-$15 per ride, and the cost equation isn't really that far off for many people even with drivers.
However, having to wait 5-10 minutes every time you need a ride? That kind of starts to suck. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaFace:
Maybe. Convenience goes a long way as well, though. If you actually think through how much people spend on cars - $500 car payments are pretty common plus maintenance and fuel. Compare that with calling an Uber a couple of times a day at $10-$15 per ride, and the cost equation isn't really that far off for many people even with drivers.
However, having to wait 5-10 minutes every time you need a ride? That kind of starts to suck.
Im talking about total costs.
The models that I have seen are something like this:
You join a club/group and pay a monthly fee to be able to use 1, 2 or 3 different kinds of vehicles. (A pickup, a sedan, a minivan for example, so multiply the total costs!). You get so many hours over a month, and if you go over you can pay extra.
But the savings will be there. No insurance, No maintenance, No fuel costs etc. Paying for part of a car in a group will absolutely be cheaper than paying for a whole car that sits around most of the time. Plus you will have more options for different types of vehicles.
I dont think people will pay MORE for the "convienience" of not having a car right at their house (so I agree with you on that) .. But you bet your ass people will join clubs where you pay LESS for having access to more kinds of cars and no insurance/gas/oil changes/ repairs ! (and be willing to wait 10 min)
Also, obviously not EVERYONE will do this. Guys like me who need a truck for work, probably will have a work truck at home. Or people who drive more than allowed by group ownership etc, or maybe as a luxury or status symbol. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Ming the Merciless:
Im talking about total costs.
The models that I have seen are something like this:
You join a club/group and pay a monthly fee to be able to use 1, 2 or 3 different kinds of vehicles. (A pickup, a sedan, a minivan for example, so multiply the total costs!). You get so many hours over a month, and if you go over you can pay extra.
But the savings will be there. No insurance, No maintenance, No fuel costs etc. Paying for part of a car in a group will absolutely be cheaper than paying for a whole car that sits around most of the time. Plus you will have more options for different types of vehicles.
I dont think people will pay MORE for the "convienience" of not having a car right at their house (so I agree with you on that) .. But you bet your ass people will join clubs where you pay LESS for having access to more kinds of cars and no insurance/gas/oil changes/ repairs ! (and be willing to wait 10 min)
Also, obviously not EVERYONE will do this. Guys like me who need a truck for work, probably will have a work truck at home. Or people who drive more than allowed by group ownership etc, or maybe as a luxury or status symbol.
This is probably the next logical step.
I'm a tight ass when it comes to cars. I'd love to have a nice vehicle in the garage but I just can't justify the expense. My two cars are both over ten years old one both over 100k miles, one is over 210k. Have not had a car payment for 8 years now.
The ONLY time I wish I had something different is when we are going on a trip of some sort. A subscription service would be great for that. Still think I'd want to have something sitting in the garage, but maybe that plus a subscription would be great. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Buehler445:
Woof. I didn't realize it was this bad. I haven't taken the time to see the legitimacy of what he's saying, but it's bad.
Originally Posted by Buehler445:
Woof. I didn't realize it was this bad. I haven't taken the time to see the legitimacy of what he's saying, but it's bad.
Good Lord. Perhaps Musk should change the company name from Tesla to Skynet. [Reply]
This article is covering "driver assist" but I thought it might be relevant and interesting in this thread.
Almost No One Makes a Good Driver Assistance System, Report Says
Your driver assistants are letting you down.
A report released by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) Tuesday examined the safety of 14 driver-assistance products from various automakers. The results were dismal: only one car, Toyota’s Lexus LS, notched an “acceptable” rating. The GMC Sierra and Nissan Ariya managed to nab “marginal” scores, while the rest — including driver-assistance poster child Tesla — were deemed “poor.” The report’s individual assessments were pretty withering, but potentially more damaging was the overall conclusion that driver-assistance systems do nothing to improve safety.
The Insurance Man Cometh
The IIHS’ main safety concerns stemmed from a lack of driver engagement. Driver-assistance systems can pretty much drive your car, but they’re not fully self-driving systems. Drivers need to be ready to take control of their vehicles at any time — and in the IIHS’ view, the systems themselves should enforce that level of engagement. “Many vehicles don’t adequately monitor whether the driver is looking at the road or prepared to take control,” Alexandra Mueller, a senior research scientist at the IIHS, said in a statement. “Many lack attention reminders that come soon enough and are forceful enough to rouse a driver whose mind is wandering,” she added.
This isn’t really a smoking gun, since automakers with driver-assistance systems can assert that it’s the driver’s responsibility to remain attentive. However, bullish automakers like to maintain that self-driving vehicles are in fact safer than those driven by fallible humans. The IIHS study hints otherwise:
IIHS President David Harkey said in a statement that there is “little evidence [partial automation] makes driving safer,” and added: “As many high-profile crashes have illustrated, it can introduce new risks when systems lack the appropriate safeguards.”
Harkey told Reuters that his statement leaned on insurance claims data. "We have been able to look at vehicles with and without these (systems) and determine there is no reduction in claims as a result of these more advanced systems," he said.
Lithium Lining: The IIHS wasn’t totally raining on automated driving’s parade; the report looked at how each system performed in a variety of criteria, and none were universally bad. “No single system did well across the board, but in each category at least one system performed well,” Starkey said in a statement. “That means the fixes are readily available and, in some cases, may be accomplished with nothing more than a simple software update.” The report was completed before Tesla’s most recent software update in December, so improvements may already have been made there. We hope, anyway.
Bought the wife a new Subaru in Jan with all the safety features including driver assist. We call driver assist Jesus take the wheel mode and I find it annoying. The car tends to wander a little as it looks for the lane lines. It also doesn't like you driving with only one hand. It will eventually flash a warning on the dash and if you don't obey it will then sound a beep alarm.
Separately it has a lane warning system that will attempt to keep you in your lane. If you go to pass someone it will kick in if you don't turn on your blinker.
The forward looking avoidance system is nice with one exception. If you have the cruise set and you slowly catch up to a car going 1 or 2 mph slower it will lower your speed and keep you at a pre-selected distance until you change lanes to pass. The few times I've driven it I all of a sudden I'm going 77 instead of 80 because I caught up to a slower car.
I think I'll eventually get used to it even though I will hardly ever drive it. The wife loves the car. [Reply]
Originally Posted by mlyonsd:
Bought the wife a new Subaru in Jan with all the safety features including driver assist. We call driver assist Jesus take the wheel mode and I find it annoying. The car tends to wander a little as it looks for the lane lines. It also doesn't like you driving with only one hand. It will eventually flash a warning on the dash and if you don't obey it will then sound a beep alarm.
Separately it has a lane warning system that will attempt to keep you in your lane. If you go to pass someone it will kick in if you don't turn on your blinker.
The forward looking avoidance system is nice with one exception. If you have the cruise set and you slowly catch up to a car going 1 or 2 mph slower it will lower your speed and keep you at a pre-selected distance until you change lanes to pass. The few times I've driven it I all of a sudden I'm going 77 instead of 80 because I caught up to a slower car.
I think I'll eventually get used to it even though I will hardly ever drive it. The wife loves the car.
Very interesting, thanks for sharing that
I would probably be cussing and yelling at the car like I do other idiot drivers now. [Reply]