General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI wish we had a POTUS who would fast-track the development of autonomous cars.
Well, as Elvis said, If I can dream.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
ksoze
(2,068 posts)
edhopper
(33,575 posts)and a silly one at that. There are so many better transportation alternatives that should be looked at first.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)Selling this idea as if it is a problem solver, without mentioning the financial burden and unexpected financial disaster it can bring is irresponsible.
Blecht
(3,803 posts)Most of the people involved are in it for the money with no real plan -- grifters.
The only way this would ever work is if ALL the cars in the path an autonomous car are also autonomous, and the roads are all isolated from other traffic. The money that it would take would be better spent on mass transportation, but of course, it's harder for the grifters to funnel the money into their pockets on something that makes sense.
JenniferJuniper
(4,512 posts)They'll be here within the next decade.
In most areas we'll only need about 10% of the number of vehicles that are currently on the road.
Ride sharing is the future, and the not too distant future at that.
Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)I also don't think the ride sharing aspect is thought of enough with the people trying to absorb the concept. Like most initial thoughts they are void of understanding the possible scope of something like this.
JenniferJuniper
(4,512 posts)is used to Uber/Lyft hopping.
It's nice, especially on a Saturday night.
Trump and today's congressional clowns won't be around forever. Won't be long before the Millennials are in charge. They are big time resource-sharers. My 22 year old has been living in an Air BnB for the past month. And she doesn't even have a driver's license, with no plans to get one.
LisaM
(27,806 posts)I get that Uber is easy and convenient and cheap. I don't, however, care for their business model and now they are basically telling their workforce that they are trying to get rid of them.
Don't get me started on Ubers cluttering up the streets or the way they suddenly veer off with no warning when they get a fare, or how they park 10 feet behind a stop light in case they need to change lanes.
brooklynite
(94,518 posts)We have car sharing today -- it's called rental cars and taxis. People still prefer to own a car that meets their needs and preferences.
JenniferJuniper
(4,512 posts)Ultimately people will not own their own vehicles. They'll be taxed out of them.
brooklynite
(94,518 posts)
Willie Pep
(841 posts)I wish there was as much enthusiasm in this country for more robust public transportation as there is for self-driving cars. But public transportation suffers from an image problem. It is seen as something for the poor and non-white. Self-driving cars, like regular cars, are perfect for an individualistic culture like ours. You don't have to deal with the poor and working class in your self-driving car.
brush
(53,774 posts)Maybe we can catch up. I'd put that as a higher priority than self-driving cars.
In fact, high-speed rail would reduce the number of cars on the road making them safer for when one of those allegedly self-driving cars suddenly needs an assist from a human driver/rider to avoid an accident.
More light rail in cities and suburbs would also help reduce road traffic for those autonomous cars as well.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)reason or another cannot drive.
TexasProgresive
(12,157 posts)Also for pedestrians, pets, livestock and wildlife.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,339 posts)These cars could be programmed to avoid cyclists, to not attempt to "buzz" them. It's possible they could be programmed to drive without "rage" behavior.
Yes, they would have to recognize people and animals, and make decisions about how to avoid the unexpected life forms.
As a cyclist, putting people behind the wheels can be a nightmare scenario, too.
TexasProgresive
(12,157 posts)That's because bicycles really mess with the concept. One example was "track standing" at a stop sign. Riders on "fixies." bikes that don't freewheel can remain virtually stopped by moving slightly forward and backwards. The self-driving cars don't know how to interpret that motion. Is it stopped, is it moving, which direction is it going.
Part of the problem is that bicycle, pedestrian and animals don't always move in predictable ways.
I'm not fussed on programing so much but it's the sensor arrays and computer hardware. Then there are privacy concerns. Self driving cars will ultimately be tracked, if the bikes will require transponders the cars and trucks will have them as well. That means every move made will be noted.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,339 posts)The bad is that every move is noted and recorded for posterity. The question is who can see the data. Can my Baptist Minister or my Imam see that I am parked at a liquor store? Can my girlfriend find out I'm hanging out with my wife?
On the other hand, if a traffic computer can note a jam ahead and route me around it, is that better than sitting in a cloud of diesel fumes and cursing my schedule?
I just hope self-driving cars arrive before I get too old to drive. It would be a degree of independence I'd hate to lose.
JenniferJuniper
(4,512 posts)TexasProgresive
(12,157 posts)R&D, product development, maintenance and repair I know just how fragile these kind of systems are. No I don't have experience with self-driving vehicles but the sensors, computers, stepper motors and servos necessary are all the same. NASA, the military and many utility companies have systems with auto back up. That means that there are at least 2 complete systems each working simultaneously to do the necessary job when one fails. Because failure will happen.
Aircraft have auto-pilots but they always have pilots. They have ILS (instrument landing systems) but they still require a pilot, and in fact they probably land with VFR (visual flight rules) which means manually.
It was reported in 2014 that there were 253 million cars and trucks on U.S. roads. Consider my 2. I have a 2015 Subaru Forester and a 1994 F-150 pickup that I use for feed, hay and to haul garbage. Both are payed for and to replace them would be prohibitively expensive at today's prices for non-autonomous vehicles. Add the expense of self-driving technology and most people would be priced out.
Perhaps I am wrong but I see great hardship on people who have modest means.
JoeStuckInOH
(544 posts)I plan my routes based on the ability to stay on a sidewalk. If I must use a road, I make sure the route takes me on VERY generous shoulders. Fuck riding with human drivers. I trust a computer any not to be distracted any day of the week versus a Human.
It's a peeve of mine when I see some guy on a bicycle in the road with a perfectly useable sidewalk 10 feet from him and no walking pedestrians as far as you can see. Very few bikers can keep up with suburban traffic and most need to get on the sidewalk for their own safety.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)JoeStuckInOH
(544 posts)TexasProgresive
(12,157 posts)I average 14-16 MPH, others I know ride even faster (a lot actually). When I 1st learned to ride a bike it was against the law to ride on a sidewalk. That has changed somewhat with joint use ride/walkways. It is still a danger for those walking, and don't get me going about meeting or passing someone who had a rottweiler on a lead.
JoeStuckInOH
(544 posts)I rode a mountain bike on shte sidewalks and yards of Cleveland because it usually MUCH faster than busses or driving. I could get going on downhill spots faster than the 25 MPH in many places. Although being on mt bike I usually hopped off the sidewalk pavement onto grass or onto the devil strip if there people walking.
Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)Most places across the country are currently a nightmare scenario for cyclists and animals. It has nothing to do with driver-less cars. As an occasional cyclist I would love to see what these cars have to offer. I don't see how it can be worse than the current road rage displayed at cyclists.
"In 2015, 18,844 cyclists were injured in reported road accidents, including 3,339 who were killed or seriously injured." I don't think one of these occurred due to autonomous vehicles.
https://www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice/pedal-cyclists/facts-figures/
"There are 725,000 to 1.5 million wildlife-vehicle collisions (WVCs) in the U.S. every year." Again, I don't think any of these occurred due to autonomous vehicles.
http://www.defenders.org/publications/collision_facts_and_figures.pdf
TexasProgresive
(12,157 posts)there is no way to compare them and human driven vehicle collisions with animals. Just saying- not much of an argument.
Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)You claim was without merit. I say this respectfully but it is the point.
This is your claim:
"As a cyclist that's a nightmare scenario. Also for pedestrians, pets, livestock and wildlife."
You stated it as fact.
You then state:
"Considering there are little or no autonomous vehicles on the road there is no way to compare them and human driven vehicle collisions with animals."
That is the point I was making. It's why you will see I stated: "Most places across the country are currently a nightmare scenario for cyclists and animals. It has nothing to do with driver-less cars. As an occasional cyclist I would love to see what these cars have to offer."
TexasProgresive
(12,157 posts)That's good enough for me.
moda253
(615 posts)You can fight it all you want but it is going to happen. Also there could be zones where autonomous driving is allowed or functional and others where it isn't For example busy areas.
TexasProgresive
(12,157 posts)
Girard442
(6,070 posts)...only if massive infrastructure changes are made to support them. In other words, if the taxpayers spend a gazillion dollars to construct special squeaky-clean autonomous-car-compatible roads, GM and Ford can then make another gazillion dollars building cars to ride on them.
on edit: And, of course, we'll have to buy them 'cause Car 1.0 isn't compatible with the new roads.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,181 posts)
FSogol
(45,481 posts)
Codeine
(25,586 posts)with murder. So yeah. . .
FSogol
(45,481 posts) phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Hekate
(90,667 posts)Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Not whipping out genitals when asked about policy would be nice, but is not a must-have.
JoeStuckInOH
(544 posts)Most suburban areas and even housing developments/communities within city limits don't have any lines and many rural roads only have a center line so the self driving cars cant recognize proper lane placements. A large portion of the population (probably 50% or so) live in this situation. Furthermore, commercial GPS is only accurate to within a couple feet at best and not accurate enough to position a car on a road reliably enough to be considered "consumer safe". And then, if you live in the Northern US, snowstorm often occlude road lines and it's up to the driver to safely navigate road paths. In northern Ohio, it's not uncommon in the winter to see a 4-lane highway decrease to 3 or two arbitrary "lanes" because people can't see the lines.
I think the reality in our lifetimes is that we'll probably see something around 60% automated traffic in urban/city areas and 30% in rural areas. Highways will probably be the highest at 80% because most commercial transport companies will replace people drivers with computers that don't need rest breaks, sick days, vacation, or health insurance.
Think about this: Transportation Drivers (truck, delivery, taxi, etc.) comprise the largest plurality of US jobs. Said otherwise, professional drivers are currently the largest sector of American workers. They're about to be endangered because computers will replace probably 60%+ of them. Companies will let go probably 10-20 drivers for every 1-2 technicians hired to keep the autonomous systems running properly. It will be financially uncompetitive for transportation companies to keep a large driver-workforce on the payroll when companies around them begin going driverless. Economic pressures will make driving professionally obsolete regardless of union intervention - displacing MILLIONS of Americans that have enjoyed a profitable profession and benefits.
Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)I like the fact that it is being studied and field tested by private corporations, sometimes in concert with local municipalities. Put the onus on them as they will be the ones profiting in the end. This is something that time should be taken on. I say that as a huge supporter. It will be more safe, environmentally friendly, and create more efficiency in society.
LisaM
(27,806 posts)I really don't want the streets full of self-driving cars (any more than I want packages delivered by drones, or grocery stores with no clerks).
metalbot
(1,058 posts)1. Elimination of drunk driving (which kills 10k people a year and permanently injures many more)
2. Substantially better traffic flow, since autonomous vehicles can route appropriately and take non-selfish actions (slowing down ahead of congestion in order to allow congestion to clear).
3. Car commuters gain many of the benefits of mass-transit commuters (ability to read, surf the web, relax during commute)
4. Eliminate deaths from texting while driving
5. Eliminate deaths from speeding and other forms of reckless driving
6. While certainly not ALL accidents would be avoided, most accidents aren't "accidental", they are caused by someone doing something stupid (poor lane change timing, following too closely and missing brake signals). We can eliminate entire classes of accidents. It's not going to be flawless (and new classes of accidents will be discovered, but you'll likely get to the point where car travel is as safe as plane travel on a per mile basis.
I think the nature of the benefits to self driving cars are very different from your examples (packages, grocery stores without clerks) which are really just efficiency/cost plays. Self driving cars are an actual quality of life change.
LisaM
(27,806 posts)People can already eliminate many of the things you describe just by taking a bus or cab anyway. Or by having more walkable neighborhoods so people don't have to get into a car at all.
What I really don't like (and of course, safety features are always good, don't get me wrong) is the concept of people not being engaged with the world and the people around them and studies show that this is already having an effect on peoples' happiness.
Want to be in a car but just be engaged with your device, rather than looking at the road or other cars? Self-driving cars! Want a new pair of shoes? Amazon Prime! Hungry? Grub Hub! Need a pop late at night? Go down to the lobby to the brodega!
Smells like dystopia to me. YMMV.
JenniferJuniper
(4,512 posts)And are you seriously equating driving with safety and happiness?
LisaM
(27,806 posts)I said that recent studies have shown that kids growing up less engaged with their surroundings in the past are unhappy. (I easily found several examples, I've linked one below). I think the things I described above are examples of people becoming insular and avoiding others.
While there are probably features on self-driving cars that can benefit all of us, I think that it's just another way for people to disengage from what's going on around them. One of the people killed in a self-driving car was supposedly watching a Harry Potter movie! While at the wheel!
I'm a pretty sociable person. I like shopping, eating out, talking to others - in other words, I like to engage with the world around me. If I'm driving somewhere, that takes the form of looking at the road, watching other cars, signaling to other drivers what I'm going to do, and basically understanding that I'm part of a community of people who choose to be on the road that day and interact with them accordingly, rather than texting or watching movies.
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/08/07/542016165/how-smartphones-are-making-kids-unhappy
metalbot
(1,058 posts)Even if I were to concede that there have been deaths from self-driving cars (something that would be highly debatable given that there are no commercially available self driving cars and that the Tesla driver was repeatedly warned to take over from the autopilot), there have been deaths from airplanes as well, but they are dramatically safer than driving. Let's not argue that "if you can only prevent 9000 of the 10,000 deaths per year, clearly the technology is not ready for the road".
As to the eliminating other things by taking a bus or a cab, that's viable for a subset of the population. Lots of people do, in fact, use trains and cabs in New York City. However, most US cities don't have good rail/bus infrastructures. Austin, TX, for example, has one rail line, which goes from one of the NW suburbs to downtown. It cost hundreds of millions, and still requires an effective subsidy of $8 per passenger, while having no impact on Austin traffic. If I were to try to take a bus to work, I'd be in for a 90 minute commute in each direction, and that wouldn't include the time to get to the park'n'ride. Sure, we could spend a few billion more on rail, but we'll have self driving cars before any additional lines could be built, even if we had the money to do it right now. Yes, we could as a society decide to build "more walkable neighborhoods", but that requires many billions of investment, and it requires that people change the way that they live. Autonomous cars don't require me to change my behavior - they just make my life safer and give me back time in my day.
I can recall a single fatal accident from a dude using the autopilot feature on his Tesla incorrectly (it is emphatically NOT self-driving) but that's as close as I can come up with.
GeorgeGist
(25,320 posts)
RainCaster
(10,869 posts)Although normal size hands would be nice too.
SonofDonald
(2,050 posts)Worried about an autonomous car when the brain donor in charge might blow us the fuck up any moment.
Yeah, a self driving car, that's what we need right now.
They already have the technology, have for years, after all, they can launch an ICBM and it will find it's way to wherever you want to send it, no driver needed.
I'd rather wish for a time machine, to go back and make sure this nightmare never happened.
But that driverless car is important......
