If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Automotive News)   Human-driven cars will be off the roads in 20 years due to autonomous driving, says a.) some wacko environmentalist from Vermont, b.) some hipster "digital prophet" from Silicon Valley c.) Detroit legend, Bob Lutz   ( autonews.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, big fleets, Automobile, modules, fully autonomous module, fully autonomous fleets, standardized modules, autonomous vehicles, five-part Automotive News  
•       •       •

448 clicks; posted to Business » on 14 Nov 2017 at 9:50 PM (35 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



71 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-11-14 06:13:43 PM  
One can hope.  Providing favorable city/state regulations, if they started selling one for under $50K tomorrow, I would buy one this weekend.
 
2017-11-14 07:56:43 PM  
Fighting like gun owners or nicotine users, auto enthusiasts will keep human driven vehicles on the road.  Insurance rates of $100/mile will limit their numbers, howsomever.
 
2017-11-14 08:10:47 PM  
Insurance companies will drive this.  In the very near future they are going to put a massive surcharge on your rates if you touch the wheel because human drivers suck.

Being a guy with a 16 year old boy who wants his license and a 12 year old who will want his soon, this day can't happen fast enough.  Insurance on them might well be more than my mortgage
 
2017-11-14 10:06:16 PM  
I'm all for it! But only if they are gleaming, two lanes wide, made of some kind of alloy and float in (or are propelled by) air.
 
2017-11-14 10:10:31 PM  
Yeah.......no.
 
2017-11-14 10:10:53 PM  
Seriously though, I look forward to the day. This inevitable development is yet another thing my moron Trumper father is outraged about. He sent me an article about some self driving shuttle crash in Vegas, saying it's going to be a bloodbath when Bill Gates gets involved, and we never hear about how often airline pilots need to assume control because the auto pilot was going to crash the plane, yada yada.

When I pointed out that the collision was the fault of the driver in the other vehicle, he just said "I didn't read the details".

They rarely do.
 
2017-11-14 10:16:20 PM  

Glockenspiel Hero: going to put a massive surcharge on your rates if you touch the wheel because human drivers suck.


I don't think it'll be quite that simple. The first victim of injury in an accident with a self-driving car will sue, and it will only take a jury or judge to believe - on the balance of probabilities - that a human driver could have avoided that accident, and insurance companies will have to re-think that strategy. Perhaps you'll have to do a high-level advanced driving course, and re-certify every couple of years, to keep your premiums down.

Which would be a good thing - lots of professions have to re-certify to maintain the qualification and the privilege to practise, so why not drivers? One test at age 17 shouldn't guarantee your driving licence for life.
 
2017-11-14 10:21:37 PM  
Quite funny reading the comments - all the talking points that Farkers came up with when we first started talking about AVs nearly 3 years ago.

Both tech objections (they're impossible, how will they recognize bikes, how will they drive in snow, pedestrians will prank them) and attitudes ("my cold, dead, hands from steering wheel" types, congress will stop them, car companies will stop them).

Always the same - someone who has only just noticed the topic comes to discussion and shares his knee-jerk reactions without considering that pretty smart people have been thinking about the problems and solutions for more than a decade
 
2017-11-14 10:24:43 PM  

UberDave: One can hope.  Providing favorable city/state regulations, if they started selling one for under $50K tomorrow, I would buy one this weekend.


Why would you buy? Makes more sense to rent rather than buy if talking about basic commuter. Only buy if want a custom 'room' that you will use for sleeping/reading/working.
 
2017-11-14 10:26:12 PM  

H31N0US: I'm all for it! But only if they are gleaming, two lanes wide, made of some kind of alloy and float in (or are propelled by) air.


Red Barchetta driver-like typing detected.
 
2017-11-14 10:30:24 PM  
Is it fair to complain that autonomous vehicle tech would represent a doubling down on highway infrastructure and inherently poorly effecient systems of transit and city infrastructure? While I looking forward to the day I don't have to stare down a road again to travel, I think a lot of our city design is based around acres and acres of needless roads while subways and light rail encourage more walkable corridors and take up a fraction of the space of every person in an individual transport unit.
 
2017-11-14 10:36:20 PM  

mjjt: UberDave: One can hope.  Providing favorable city/state regulations, if they started selling one for under $50K tomorrow, I would buy one this weekend.

Why would you buy? Makes more sense to rent rather than buy if talking about basic commuter. Only buy if want a custom 'room' that you will use for sleeping/reading/working.


The costs of travel are going to change

I can see a potential scenario where travel is free.

Present situation - 3 types of cost in driving. There's the fixed cost of car and insurance, which you pay for via cash/HP/lease/taxi. And there's the variable cost of fuel, tires, R & M. These first two are paid by the user. The third is the construction, maintenance and policing cost of the road. This is paid by taxpayer.

A minor change will be passing the third cost on to users. Every car will have to have a transponder, firstly to locate it in the traffic, and secondly to allow charging. You will pay for how much road you use and for how long. So a tiny commuter AV will pay bottom rate, and a large moving platform/truck will pay most. The charge will allow regulators to ration traffic levels - if you want to travel at peak time you pay more.

But a radical change possible bc users no longer have to attend to driving, so there will be marketers who will pay for their attention.

So a deal like "We will pay for the next 10 minutes of your journey if you pay attention to this 30 sec ad and correctly answer 3 questions at the end". And user has a simple app that tees up as many ads as he wants to get his free travel, and that turns them off if he wants to pay attention to something else.
 
2017-11-14 10:42:19 PM  

Glockenspiel Hero: Insurance companies will drive this.  In the very near future they are going to put a massive surcharge on your rates if you touch the wheel because human drivers suck.

Being a guy with a 16 year old boy who wants his license and a 12 year old who will want his soon, this day can't happen fast enough.  Insurance on them might well be more than my mortgage


Insurance companies will be out of business.
 
2017-11-14 10:44:36 PM  

Gestalt: Is it fair to complain that autonomous vehicle tech would represent a doubling down on highway infrastructure and inherently poorly effecient systems of transit and city infrastructure? While I looking forward to the day I don't have to stare down a road again to travel, I think a lot of our city design is based around acres and acres of needless roads while subways and light rail encourage more walkable corridors and take up a fraction of the space of every person in an individual transport unit.


Don't forget parking lots.  There will be many acres of parking that will be available for apartments, stores, offices, parks, etc.
 
2017-11-14 10:44:57 PM  

Gestalt: Is it fair to complain that autonomous vehicle tech would represent a doubling down on highway infrastructure and inherently poorly effecient systems of transit and city infrastructure? While I looking forward to the day I don't have to stare down a road again to travel, I think a lot of our city design is based around acres and acres of needless roads while subways and light rail encourage more walkable corridors and take up a fraction of the space of every person in an individual transport unit.


Obvious problem that present forms of public transport are never convenient enough for most people.

It will be interesting to see just how traffic volumes change. Two POVs - one side is that AVs will travel a lot faster and at much greater densities, so each journey will be lot quicker and less cars will be on the roads  at any one time. Other side predicts far more journeys as self-driving enables more users + cars will be driving off to park somewhere.

We simply don't know yet - any opinion is just that, an opinion. Certainly there will be fewer cars parked at roadside, so it may become feasible to widen sidewalks. It may also be feasible to take cars off some routes altogether, if they can get to destination at much same time, thus opening more public space.

As I say, we don't know. But the possibilities are interesting
 
2017-11-14 10:57:20 PM  
It would be nice, but then I'm reminded that we're human - and we can't have nice things.

Picture an Uber style autonomous car in Detroit.
Someone put in a request for pickup.
Car, with no one in it, turns onto 8-Mile-Road to pick up passenger.
Before car travels 25 feet, it's been spray-painted with 3 different gang logos, had the side windows broken out, missing 4 tires, engine, windshield, transmission, catalytic converter, GPS navigation system, seats, and everything else that's bolted down.

You may laugh, but a $50,000 piece of autonomous equipment sitting in front of some house in the bad part of town with no human owner in the vicinity to keep an eye on it? It'll be like Christmas.
 
2017-11-14 10:59:16 PM  

mjjt: UberDave: One can hope.  Providing favorable city/state regulations, if they started selling one for under $50K tomorrow, I would buy one this weekend.

Why would you buy? Makes more sense to rent rather than buy if talking about basic commuter. Only buy if want a custom 'room' that you will use for sleeping/reading/working.


Just as long as you're renting long term. You don't want to write a short term rental after I do. 
s2.quickmeme.comView Full Size
 
2017-11-14 11:04:54 PM  
Don't hold your breath.  Any law that takes away the usability of lawful property would be an uphill battle.  I could certainly see situations of new specialty roads not being usable by any old cars, but think of how many collector cars there are in the US that tons of people have sunk a ton of time and money into.  For some legislature to wholesale make those unusable via law would be surprising...at least in that time-frame.  There's also the issue of all those places where autonomous cars don't go...like fields and remote areas.  While those aren't technically insurmountable challenges, they're likely economically insurmountable except for those of the most means....not for the development of the product, but for the added autonomous capability.

I could see dense urban areas having onerous restrictions, but the majority of rural areas will be happily(to me) free of those stupid laws that say you're not allowed to drive.
 
2017-11-14 11:06:38 PM  

GrailOfThunder: It would be nice, but then I'm reminded that we're human - and we can't have nice things.

Picture an Uber style autonomous car in Detroit.
Someone put in a request for pickup.
Car, with no one in it, turns onto 8-Mile-Road to pick up passenger.
Before car travels 25 feet, it's been spray-painted with 3 different gang logos, had the side windows broken out, missing 4 tires, engine, windshield, transmission, catalytic converter, GPS navigation system, seats, and everything else that's bolted down.

You may laugh, but a $50,000 piece of autonomous equipment sitting in front of some house in the bad part of town with no human owner in the vicinity to keep an eye on it? It'll be like Christmas.


It would be a worthless piece of autonomous equipment.  There will be little market for black market parts. Hertz and Avis do not routinely use stolen parts to fix their cars.
 
2017-11-14 11:17:32 PM  
I think the concept of a vehicle itself will change completely. Why not a room in your house or apartment that is mobile? Why not drive your office to work and back home? Having a party, have your friends bring a few extra rooms to dock with your house. Couples form and split up, their households can literally do the same.

In other words, we'll all end up living in mobile homes.
 
2017-11-14 11:17:41 PM  

TedCruz'sCrazyDad: GrailOfThunder: It would be nice, but then I'm reminded that we're human - and we can't have nice things.

Picture an Uber style autonomous car in Detroit.
Someone put in a request for pickup.
Car, with no one in it, turns onto 8-Mile-Road to pick up passenger.
Before car travels 25 feet, it's been spray-painted with 3 different gang logos, had the side windows broken out, missing 4 tires, engine, windshield, transmission, catalytic converter, GPS navigation system, seats, and everything else that's bolted down.

You may laugh, but a $50,000 piece of autonomous equipment sitting in front of some house in the bad part of town with no human owner in the vicinity to keep an eye on it? It'll be like Christmas.

It would be a worthless piece of autonomous equipment.  There will be little market for black market parts. Hertz and Avis do not routinely use stolen parts to fix their cars.


No, but people/mechanics would buy them off Craigslist or whatever to fix their own cars, as I'm sure the same models that would be used for the "Uber" style cars would be the same as available on the private market, and or use interchangable parts anyway (as that would keep the costs of manufacture lower).
 
2017-11-14 11:28:05 PM  

H31N0US: I'm all for it! But only if they are gleaming, two lanes wide, made of some kind of alloy and float in (or are propelled by) air.


Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
 
2017-11-14 11:29:04 PM  

Explodo: Don't hold your breath.  Any law that takes away the usability of lawful property would be an uphill battle.  I could certainly see situations of new specialty roads not being usable by any old cars, but think of how many collector cars there are in the US that tons of people have sunk a ton of time and money into.  For some legislature to wholesale make those unusable via law would be surprising...at least in that time-frame.  There's also the issue of all those places where autonomous cars don't go...like fields and remote areas.  While those aren't technically insurmountable challenges, they're likely economically insurmountable except for those of the most means....not for the development of the product, but for the added autonomous capability.

I could see dense urban areas having onerous restrictions, but the majority of rural areas will be happily(to me) free of those stupid laws that say you're not allowed to drive.


You already tolerate multiple restrictions on how you can use your existing vehicle. Nobody is going to take away your guns cars.

You will just have more restrictions and incentives. The most obvious is that you will have to retrofit a transponder if you want to use some roads at some times. And you will have higher costs in insurance and road charges bc your car will be in the slow lane while the AVs, packed side by side and inches apart, will be given the speed lanes (and that sight will be a powerful motivation to make the switch).

It won't all happen at once. Begin with the freeways and CBDs of bigger cities. But once underway, it will spread quickly. The translation from old cars to all AVs will be a lot faster than the transition from horse to autos.

So today's cars will be pushed to the margins. Most of the basic ones will just be scrapped, just as most horses and buggies were early last century. A tiny minority of horses are kept for recreation and racing on private land, and probably similar scenario will apply to today's cars
 
2017-11-14 11:32:14 PM  

GrailOfThunder: No, but people/mechanics would buy them off Craigslist or whatever to fix their own cars, as I'm sure the same models that would be used for the "Uber" style cars would be the same as available on the private market, and or use interchangable parts anyway (as that would keep the costs of manufacture lower).


Cars will start to head down the John Deere route. You (or your non-dealer mechanic) won't be prevented from working on the vehicle, but anything electronic will have a serial number, and a part+revision number. Two things come from that: 1. stolen parts will go on a blacklist database, and will refuse to work in another vehicle after its copy of the database is updated, and 2. you won't be able to put any old recycled ECU, or a high-performance ECU in your car if it's not on the list of part+revision numbers, e.g. ECU part number A1234 revisions C through J will be accepted and operate in your model, but revisions A, B, and K+ won't work.

That's a good thing, too - I wouldn't want an old or obsolete AI computer in my car, and it'll probably be backed up by law. Owners will *not* be allowed to fark with the "autonomous" or any part it relies on. You'll lose the choice of what brand parts to use, or pay for expensive "compliant" brands.
 
2017-11-14 11:34:44 PM  
Yeah I'm not sold on this.
 
2017-11-14 11:37:30 PM  

mjjt: A tiny minority of horses are kept for recreation and racing on private land, and probably similar scenario will apply to today's cars


There's a significant population of vintage/classic car owners and motorcycle owners who will have a lot to say about that.
 
2017-11-14 11:41:35 PM  
I expect once the safety benefits are clear, there will be government restrictions on new cars as the last step. That still won't take away anyone's car - there are still cars on the road without seatbelts and airbags and that would miserably fail crash tests, but they can't make them anymore and they sometimes require special licensing and usage restrictions.

But this will do far more than any safety feature before. I know all you farkers are great drivers, so am I. But there's a small number of idiots and assholes who put all of us in danger whenever they drive. This will push most of them to find other ways to vent whatever personality flaws are behind that recklessness. The stragglers will also be a lot easier to spot when the majority of us are using machines that prioritize safety, cooperation, and efficiency far better than even the best drivers can now.
 
2017-11-14 11:51:28 PM  

H31N0US: I'm all for it! But only if they are gleaming, two lanes wide, made of some kind of alloy and float in (or are propelled by) air.


Flying cars have been a running joke for decades, mainly bc every attempt turns out to be a flawed compromise. The object was for "a flying vehicle which could also use the roads" and always wound up with an expensive thing which sucked in both environments

But if you redefine the object to be "a flying vehicle that can operate above roads at variable (low) heights" then today's drones are getting closer to that. I see a scenario where they never actually come down to street level; they just fly above the streets, and fly into (today's) parking buildings to drop off or pickup passengers.
 
2017-11-14 11:56:40 PM  

Krieghund: mjjt: UberDave: One can hope.  Providing favorable city/state regulations, if they started selling one for under $50K tomorrow, I would buy one this weekend.

Why would you buy? Makes more sense to rent rather than buy if talking about basic commuter. Only buy if want a custom 'room' that you will use for sleeping/reading/working.

Just as long as you're renting long term. You don't want to write a short term rental after I do.  [s2.quickmeme.com image 625x475]


You only trot out that canard bc you haven't thought it through.

You rent the car with your credit card or phone app. If the next person to call it finds it damaged or dirty, he'll send it back for maintenance. The user responsible will be charged and/or sanctioned. And the sanction will be being barred from the network for a period, which will be rather discouraging if it's your only way of getting around. So no, people are not going to mistreat the AVs.
 
2017-11-15 12:02:23 AM  

ol' gormsby: mjjt: A tiny minority of horses are kept for recreation and racing on private land, and probably similar scenario will apply to today's cars

There's a significant population of vintage/classic car owners and motorcycle owners who will have a lot to say about that.


Of course there will be people who are unhappy with not being able to use old cars.

But seriously, what do you think they'll do - start a campaign with the unstated slogan "We want the right to drive our dangerous old cars and maybe kill you"?

The transition to all AVs will happen quickly bc it will become obvious that all the accidents are caused by drivers of old cars. The vast majority will simply refuse to share the roads with you, bc they'll perceive you as a threat to their safety.
 
2017-11-15 12:16:27 AM  

GrailOfThunder: It would be nice, but then I'm reminded that we're human - and we can't have nice things.

Picture an Uber style autonomous car in Detroit.
Someone put in a request for pickup.
Car, with no one in it, turns onto 8-Mile-Road to pick up passenger.
Before car travels 25 feet, it's been spray-painted with 3 different gang logos, had the side windows broken out, missing 4 tires, engine, windshield, transmission, catalytic converter, GPS navigation system, seats, and everything else that's bolted down.

You may laugh, but a $50,000 piece of autonomous equipment sitting in front of some house in the bad part of town with no human owner in the vicinity to keep an eye on it? It'll be like Christmas.


Not a game-changer. Simply mean that different methods would be used. Possibly different vehicles, designed for urban conflict (?) and with hard-to-remove parts that become worthless when removed , possibly protected by armed aerial drones, possibly secure pickup garages.

Those are sorts of things I can think of off top of my head - smarter guys than me  will figure out ways to cater to the slum market and make a dollar
 
2017-11-15 12:18:46 AM  

mjjt: But if you redefine the object to be "a flying vehicle that can operate above roads at variable (low) heights" then today's drones are getting closer to that.


Yeah but if a drone breaks down and falls from the sky it doesn't  kill dozens of people and cause millions in property damage.
 
2017-11-15 12:26:13 AM  

ol' gormsby: GrailOfThunder: No, but people/mechanics would buy them off Craigslist or whatever to fix their own cars, as I'm sure the same models that would be used for the "Uber" style cars would be the same as available on the private market, and or use interchangable parts anyway (as that would keep the costs of manufacture lower).

Cars will start to head down the John Deere route. You (or your non-dealer mechanic) won't be prevented from working on the vehicle, but anything electronic will have a serial number, and a part+revision number. Two things come from that: 1. stolen parts will go on a blacklist database, and will refuse to work in another vehicle after its copy of the database is updated, and 2. you won't be able to put any old recycled ECU, or a high-performance ECU in your car if it's not on the list of part+revision numbers, e.g. ECU part number A1234 revisions C through J will be accepted and operate in your model, but revisions A, B, and K+ won't work.

That's a good thing, too - I wouldn't want an old or obsolete AI computer in my car, and it'll probably be backed up by law. Owners will *not* be allowed to fark with the "autonomous" or any part it relies on. You'll lose the choice of what brand parts to use, or pay for expensive "compliant" brands.


Someone already bought a totaled Tesla Model S, fixed it up, and asked Tesla to re-activate the car.  Tesla declined because they could not verify the work or the parts used to fix the car.
 
2017-11-15 12:36:20 AM  
I think a system that works on actual streets is a lot further off than people think. But I could see dedicated lanes in certain circumstances working relatively soon.
 
2017-11-15 12:38:27 AM  

TedCruz'sCrazyDad: ol' gormsby: GrailOfThunder: No, but people/mechanics would buy them off Craigslist or whatever to fix their own cars, as I'm sure the same models that would be used for the "Uber" style cars would be the same as available on the private market, and or use interchangable parts anyway (as that would keep the costs of manufacture lower).

Cars will start to head down the John Deere route. You (or your non-dealer mechanic) won't be prevented from working on the vehicle, but anything electronic will have a serial number, and a part+revision number. Two things come from that: 1. stolen parts will go on a blacklist database, and will refuse to work in another vehicle after its copy of the database is updated, and 2. you won't be able to put any old recycled ECU, or a high-performance ECU in your car if it's not on the list of part+revision numbers, e.g. ECU part number A1234 revisions C through J will be accepted and operate in your model, but revisions A, B, and K+ won't work.

That's a good thing, too - I wouldn't want an old or obsolete AI computer in my car, and it'll probably be backed up by law. Owners will *not* be allowed to fark with the "autonomous" or any part it relies on. You'll lose the choice of what brand parts to use, or pay for expensive "compliant" brands.

Someone already bought a totaled Tesla Model S, fixed it up, and asked Tesla to re-activate the car.  Tesla declined because they could not verify the work or the parts used to fix the car.


If you're talking about Car Guru, he did get the car activated somehow.  I didn't watch all 15 parts of the series (or however many there were, there were a lot), but I know he finally got it completely fixed, inspected, registered, and he's driving it.  (For those that don't know about this series, a YouTuber basically built a Tesla Model-S for $6,500 from the frame up, using scrap/junkyard parts).
 
kab
2017-11-15 01:19:27 AM  
keep your hands off my car and we'll get along just fine.
 
2017-11-15 01:21:05 AM  

mjjt: The transition to all AVs will happen quickly bc it will become obvious that all the accidents are caused by drivers of old cars.


Do you seriously believe that? Owners of expensively-restored "old" cars are, in my experience, very careful drivers (the ones who actually take them out and drive them, that is).

And anyone who's made it past their thirties as a motorcycle rider is someone whose habits you should study as a way to stay alive on the roads.

mjjt: The vast majority will simply refuse to share the roads with you, bc they'll perceive you as a threat to their safety.


Why doesn't that happen now? I've been riding since the early 80s, I treat every other road user as a threat to my life and safety, so I ride accordingly, and don't demand that other people get off the road.
 
kab
2017-11-15 01:27:02 AM  
Stopped by for the expected crowd masturbating furiously over the idea of dictating what others can or cant do, leaving satisfied.
 
2017-11-15 01:43:51 AM  

ol' gormsby: mjjt: The transition to all AVs will happen quickly bc it will become obvious that all the accidents are caused by drivers of old cars.

Do you seriously believe that? Owners of expensively-restored "old" cars are, in my experience, very careful drivers (the ones who actually take them out and drive them, that is).

And anyone who's made it past their thirties as a motorcycle rider is someone whose habits you should study as a way to stay alive on the roads.

mjjt: The vast majority will simply refuse to share the roads with you, bc they'll perceive you as a threat to their safety.

Why doesn't that happen now? I've been riding since the early 80s, I treat every other road user as a threat to my life and safety, so I ride accordingly, and don't demand that other people get off the road.


Can you not see the obvious difference?

Today the road toll is around 30,000 + fatalities in the US, and going up. And 95% of those are ascribed to driver error. And just about all the responsible drivers would tell you they were "above average" "safe" drivers

With AVs on the road you will solid data - cameras and location data showing exactly who was at fault. And the stats will be relentless - no room for argument. People will see the stats and say "We don't care how safe you claim to be, we don't want to share the roads with human controlled cars"

This isn't a personal attack on you and your driving, I'm simply predicting what I see as inevitable consequences of AVs.
 
2017-11-15 01:48:12 AM  

Gestalt: Is it fair to complain that autonomous vehicle tech would represent a doubling down on highway infrastructure and inherently poorly effecient systems of transit and city infrastructure? While I looking forward to the day I don't have to stare down a road again to travel, I think a lot of our city design is based around acres and acres of needless roads while subways and light rail encourage more walkable corridors and take up a fraction of the space of every person in an individual transport unit.


Street cars and light rail make city planners get hard
 
2017-11-15 02:08:36 AM  

GrailOfThunder: It would be nice, but then I'm reminded that we're human - and we can't have nice things.

Picture an Uber style autonomous car in Detroit.
Someone put in a request for pickup.
Car, with no one in it, turns onto 8-Mile-Road to pick up passenger.
Before car travels 25 feet, it's been spray-painted with 3 different gang logos, had the side windows broken out, missing 4 tires, engine, windshield, transmission, catalytic converter, GPS navigation system, seats, and everything else that's bolted down.

You may laugh, but a $50,000 piece of autonomous equipment sitting in front of some house in the bad part of town with no human owner in the vicinity to keep an eye on it? It'll be like Christmas.


You're never gonna get rid of kids vandalizing stuff, but as far as other crime goes, two questions...
1. If only a handful of companies own all the vehicles, where's the black market for vehicle parts?
2. If all the cars are autonomous, just how do criminals make a clean getaway? When it comes to solving any crime in that future, the first thing cops will do is get a warrant to look up who was using vehicle services in the vicinity of the crime.
 
2017-11-15 02:17:02 AM  

mjjt: ol' gormsby: mjjt: The transition to all AVs will happen quickly bc it will become obvious that all the accidents are caused by drivers of old cars.

Do you seriously believe that? Owners of expensively-restored "old" cars are, in my experience, very careful drivers (the ones who actually take them out and drive them, that is).

And anyone who's made it past their thirties as a motorcycle rider is someone whose habits you should study as a way to stay alive on the roads.

mjjt: The vast majority will simply refuse to share the roads with you, bc they'll perceive you as a threat to their safety.

Why doesn't that happen now? I've been riding since the early 80s, I treat every other road user as a threat to my life and safety, so I ride accordingly, and don't demand that other people get off the road.

Can you not see the obvious difference?

Today the road toll is around 30,000 + fatalities in the US, and going up. And 95% of those are ascribed to driver error. And just about all the responsible drivers would tell you they were "above average" "safe" drivers

With AVs on the road you will solid data - cameras and location data showing exactly who was at fault. And the stats will be relentless - no room for argument. People will see the stats and say "We don't care how safe you claim to be, we don't want to share the roads with human controlled cars"

This isn't a personal attack on you and your driving, I'm simply predicting what I see as inevitable consequences of AVs.


It's not just fatalities, though.  Something like 4.5 Million people are also injured every year, up to 2.3 Million of them classified as "Serious or disabling".
 
2017-11-15 02:19:21 AM  

Duke of Madness Motors: I think a system that works on actual streets is a lot further off than people think. But I could see dedicated lanes in certain circumstances working relatively soon.


I think the core parts of major cities will be first to go. It will be a bit like pedestrian-only areas in European cities but open to autonomous vehicles, as well. (Visiting Manhattan? Kindly park your car in a garage in Jersey because it's not allowed on the island.)
 
2017-11-15 02:30:46 AM  

VoiceOfReason499: Duke of Madness Motors: I think a system that works on actual streets is a lot further off than people think. But I could see dedicated lanes in certain circumstances working relatively soon.

I think the core parts of major cities will be first to go. It will be a bit like pedestrian-only areas in European cities but open to autonomous vehicles, as well. (Visiting Manhattan? Kindly park your car in a garage in Jersey because it's not allowed on the island.)


Actually I think it will be long distance freight first. Cities are too messy, the streets aren't consistent enough, pedestrians are unpredictable, etc.
 
2017-11-15 02:31:13 AM  

VoiceOfReason499: GrailOfThunder: It would be nice, but then I'm reminded that we're human - and we can't have nice things.

Picture an Uber style autonomous car in Detroit.
Someone put in a request for pickup.
Car, with no one in it, turns onto 8-Mile-Road to pick up passenger.
Before car travels 25 feet, it's been spray-painted with 3 different gang logos, had the side windows broken out, missing 4 tires, engine, windshield, transmission, catalytic converter, GPS navigation system, seats, and everything else that's bolted down.

You may laugh, but a $50,000 piece of autonomous equipment sitting in front of some house in the bad part of town with no human owner in the vicinity to keep an eye on it? It'll be like Christmas.

You're never gonna get rid of kids vandalizing stuff, but as far as other crime goes, two questions...
1. If only a handful of companies own all the vehicles, where's the black market for vehicle parts?
2. If all the cars are autonomous, just how do criminals make a clean getaway? When it comes to solving any crime in that future, the first thing cops will do is get a warrant to look up who was using vehicle services in the vicinity of the crime.


This only scratches the surface.

Alibaba project in city of Hangzhou. Thousands of cameras around city hooked up to AI system, ostensibly to control traffic flows, and predict problems 10 minutes ahead by detecting accidents, breakdowns and illegal parking as they happen. It's already sped up traffic flows 10%  so not going away.

But, the AI also detects 'unusual' behaviours. If the police ask, say, for data on a specific motorbike, AI produces records of exactly when and where it went over the past year.

Only a matter of time before that extends to individual citizens, tracked by their cellphone signatures, as well as by facial and gait recognition.
 
2017-11-15 02:36:43 AM  

mjjt: Can you not see the obvious difference?

Today the road toll is around 30,000 + fatalities in the US, and going up. And 95% of those are ascribed to driver error. And just about all the responsible drivers would tell you they were "above average" "safe" drivers

With AVs on the road you will solid data - cameras and location data showing exactly who was at fault. And the stats will be relentless - no room for argument. People will see the stats and say "We don't care how safe you claim to be, we don't want to share the roads with human controlled cars"

This isn't a personal attack on you and your driving, I'm simply predicting what I see as inevitable consequences of AVs.

 Ok, fair point, but I'll ask again - if "95% of those are ascribed to driver error." then why isn't there an outcry and legal action about it now? Surely the govt has the power to revoke a driver's licence for someone proven to be a risk to others? Of course the govt has that power, but it would be political suicide. -deep breath- governments have had the power to do something about climate change since science started warning about it, AND the insurance industry started recognising the consequences and modifying their premiums/cover for at-risk activity. Do you see the govt banning beach-side housing development much? Reserving flood-plains for floods? or do you see governments with dollar signs in their eyes, denying it all? Anyway, enough about climate change, I was using it as an example of what governments can ignore, given enough money or political pressure.


I think there's an argument for it going the other way - accidents proven to be caused by inadequate programming/faulty hardware/obsolete firmware/bad sensor/whatever will lead to "we can't trust these companies, put the control back in our hands". Not logical, I admit, but a foreseeable reaction. I even sympathise a little. I'd rather be held responsible for an accident, than be a passenger unable to intervene when a sensor or camera ices up (for example).
 
2017-11-15 02:36:58 AM  

Duke of Madness Motors: VoiceOfReason499: Duke of Madness Motors: I think a system that works on actual streets is a lot further off than people think. But I could see dedicated lanes in certain circumstances working relatively soon.

I think the core parts of major cities will be first to go. It will be a bit like pedestrian-only areas in European cities but open to autonomous vehicles, as well. (Visiting Manhattan? Kindly park your car in a garage in Jersey because it's not allowed on the island.)

Actually I think it will be long distance freight first. Cities are too messy, the streets aren't consistent enough, pedestrians are unpredictable, etc.


Yes, a NY Times article couple of days ago argued exactly that. Link
 
2017-11-15 02:40:14 AM  

mjjt: Only a matter of time before that extends to individual citizens, tracked by their cellphone signatures, as well as by facial and gait recognition.


Oh boy, is that going to lead to a market in technology to fool the AI - dazzle sunglasses, footwear to change your gait, etc.
 
2017-11-15 02:40:21 AM  

VoiceOfReason499: GrailOfThunder: It would be nice, but then I'm reminded that we're human - and we can't have nice things.

Picture an Uber style autonomous car in Detroit.
Someone put in a request for pickup.
Car, with no one in it, turns onto 8-Mile-Road to pick up passenger.
Before car travels 25 feet, it's been spray-painted with 3 different gang logos, had the side windows broken out, missing 4 tires, engine, windshield, transmission, catalytic converter, GPS navigation system, seats, and everything else that's bolted down.

You may laugh, but a $50,000 piece of autonomous equipment sitting in front of some house in the bad part of town with no human owner in the vicinity to keep an eye on it? It'll be like Christmas.

You're never gonna get rid of kids vandalizing stuff, but as far as other crime goes, two questions...
1. If only a handful of companies own all the vehicles, where's the black market for vehicle parts?
2. If all the cars are autonomous, just how do criminals make a clean getaway? When it comes to solving any crime in that future, the first thing cops will do is get a warrant to look up who was using vehicle services in the vicinity of the crime.


There will always be a market, even if they have to ship the cars and/or parts to Mexico, just like they do now.  As far as only a few companies owning all the vehicles, you really think that would happen? The entire country is going to go entirely to a rent-a-car mentality?  As a country, we'll never get away from vehicle ownership, whether it be from a small business that needs a car/truck/van 24 hours a day, or from the country bumpkin who just wants the freedom to pop down to the 7-11 on a whim (without having to fire up a cell phone and "request" a rent-a-car).  As long as there's a private car market, there will be a black market for (stolen) vehicle parts.

(and reprogramming PCMs, or other car computers? Easy Peasy.) There's plenty of tools out there that will do that for current cars, even though it's supposed to be a "dealer only" type thing.

I wish human beings weren't this way, but I might as well wish the sky was green.
 
2017-11-15 03:06:24 AM  
ol' gormsby:This isn't a personal attack on you and your driving, I'm simply predicting what I see as inevitable consequences of AVs.

 Ok, fair point, but I'll ask again - if "95% of those are ascribed to driver error." then why isn't there an outcry and legal action about it now?


But they aren't dangerous drivers are they? They are you and me, but the-guy-like-us who made a mistake at the wrong time and place, and a fatality occurred. How do you legislate against that? We already have rules but everybody bends them a little bit, and usually get away with it.

Surely the govt has the power to revoke a driver's licence for someone proven to be a risk to others? Of course the govt has that power, but it would be political suicide. -deep breath- governments have had the power to do something about climate change since science started warning about it, AND the insurance industry started recognising the consequences and modifying their premiums/cover for at-risk activity. Do you see the govt banning beach-side housing development much? Reserving flood-plains for floods? or do you see governments with dollar signs in their eyes, denying it all? Anyway, enough about climate change, I was using it as an example of what governments can ignore, given enough money or political pressure.

The point is that with AVs the pressure - both financial and public opinion - will be for getting old cars off the roads

I think there's an argument for it going the other way - accidents proven to be caused by inadequate programming/faulty hardware/obsolete firmware/bad sensor/whatever will lead to "we can't trust these companies, put the control back in our hands". Not logical, I admit, but a foreseeable reaction. I even sympathise a little. I'd rather be held responsible for an accident, than be a passenger unable to intervene when a sensor or ...

No that's wishful thinking, not a likely scenario. Even if there is a failure of an AV software or sensors it's not going to lead to a mass rejection. We know that from looking at history. When autos began replacing horses they were horrendously dangerous (no seatbelts, no crash protection, steering column a spear etc). But they were way more convenient than horses so people ignored the perils. AVs will be the same. (The fatal Tesla crash with driver watching a DVD had no effect on peoples'attitudes)

 Look, most people don't have a deep emotional commitment to their cars. They just want a ride to their destination, preferably with a guarantee that they'll get there safely.

Once they perceive that it's old cars causing all the accidents then you will see the pressure to get rid of them (or modify them so they are computer controlled)
 
Displayed 50 of 71 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report