Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
who the heck wants to live that far from some j.o.b.?
EXACTLY even if one is not driving an hour long+ commute, is still a long commute. This is what is driving up demand in cities as they gentrify, for those that can afford it. More free time, and time is valuable. It should be noted, even under the most optimistic simulations with automated cars, there is still heavy congestion. One has to still deal with the fact many cities are not going to change their infrastructure towards more drivers when they have been shifting towards be more pedestrian friendly. The point being is I don't think this will hurt cities as much as you think. Cab drivers...absolutely. But cities. Not so much.
Why would you take your car along with you to work? Cars that the driver can sleep in can only go on dedicated roadways to specific destinations, the same as buses and trains already do. So just sleep in the train, and not worry about the very, very high cost of parking all those cars near your place of work.
It is the over the road driver that is the target. Drivers who go dock to dock or yard to yard. Check out I15 between Las Vegas and LA. Got to be one every 200 yards. A good portion make one round trip a day between LA and LV. And it would work the same between any of the seaports and the inland cities.
I would think the local delivery guy is safe for a long time yet...the route guy who delivers stuff.
Over the road trucking in regards to dry van freight (refrigerated and tanker soon to be as well) has been going more and more to the rails via intermodal. The trucking industry is completely changed compared to how it was back in 2007. The major trucking companies have either been in the intermodal game or they are trying to switch over to containers vs long haul deliveries as fast as they can. It won't be automated trucks that kill over the road trucking. It has and will continue to be the trains doing it.
One glitch causing the car to get into an accident where someone gets killed will end that in short order. I see a ton of Public outcry over that scenario. The argument that it will never happen also holds no weight either since systems malfunction and crash now and there is no reason to believe it will never happen in just two decades. People want some kind of accountability so if the automation feature fails a some is behind the wheel to be able at least attempt to gain control.
When cars were first introduced, the number of pedestrians killed by cars jumped from zero to tens of thousands within the space of a few years. There was a lot of anger about it - anger that lasted through the 1920s. But it didn't stop the mass adoption of cars, and culture changed to the point that pedestrians were often blamed if they were hit by cars.
No one doubts that automated cars, when they are perfected, will be much safer than humans. Since 87% of all crashes are either partially or totally the fault of the driver (drunk, tired, just not paying attention, etc.), it wouldn't take much to massively improve on human performance. I sincerely doubt one or two accidents would be enough to nip the whole technology in the bud, given something like that has never, ever happened before.
When cars were first introduced, the number of pedestrians killed by cars jumped from zero to tens of thousands within the space of a few years. There was a lot of anger about it - anger that lasted through the 1920s. But it didn't stop the mass adoption of cars, and culture changed to the point that pedestrians were often blamed if they were hit by cars.
No one doubts that automated cars, when they are perfected, will be much safer than humans. Since 87% of all crashes are either partially or totally the fault of the driver (drunk, tired, just not paying attention, etc.), it wouldn't take much to massively improve on human performance. I sincerely doubt one or two accidents would be enough to nip the whole technology in the bud, given something like that has never, ever happened before.
No offense but I don't think you understood what I'm getting at. What I was getting at in my last post was accountability. That's why you won't see cars traveling around in mass without anyone in them for a very very long time if ever. Sure when cars were first introduced the number of deaths they caused shot up as well. Yet you had the first car drivers and pedestrians that were accountable for the deaths with one or both groups at fault. With this technology if no one is in the car and it malfunctions and gets someone killed who do you blame exactly? The owner who sends his car around when he is not in it? The manufacturer because of the malfunction? Both?
It really comes down to wanting/needing other people to be involved some way shape or form that if something does happen someone might be there to prevent an accident. It's the same way we still have commercial pilots and train conductors even though you can have both done via computer (some trains are moved this way and have been for years but most aren't though) without a human having to be involved. Especially when it comes to trains since they are on fixed tracks. I don't think the entire technology will get scrapped if people end up getting killed by driver less cars. What I would pretty much guarantee as of right now with everything I own is that if several malfunctions happen with a driver less vehicle which leads to several fatalities that will be the end of the vehicles roaming around without drivers in them. Laws would get passed prohibiting vehicles to travel around driver less and this technology would just be auto pilot for the driver of the car which is not a bad thing once the current kinks are worked out in the future.
No offense but I don't think you understood what I'm getting at. What I was getting at in my last post was accountability. That's why you won't see cars traveling around in mass without anyone in them for a very very long time if ever. Sure when cars were first introduced the number of deaths they caused shot up as well. Yet you had the first car drivers and pedestrians that were accountable for the deaths with one or both groups at fault. With this technology if no one is in the car and it malfunctions and gets someone killed who do you blame exactly? The owner who sends his car around when he is not in it? The manufacturer because of the malfunction? Both?
Google has gone on the record to car companies as far back as 2012 and said they are willing to accept liability for any accidents their automated systems cause, period. They have deep enough pockets to do this, and must feel comfortable that the claims will be low enough that they will still turn a profit from the self-driving systems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwa1984
It really comes down to wanting/needing other people to be involved some way shape or form that if something does happen someone might be there to prevent an accident. It's the same way we still have commercial pilots and train conductors even though you can have both done via computer (some trains are moved this way and have been for years but most aren't though) without a human having to be involved. Especially when it comes to trains since they are on fixed tracks. I don't think the entire technology will get scrapped if people end up getting killed by driver less cars. What I would pretty much guarantee as of right now with everything I own is that if several malfunctions happen with a driver less vehicle which leads to several fatalities that will be the end of the vehicles roaming around without drivers in them. Laws would get passed prohibiting vehicles to travel around driver less and this technology would just be auto pilot for cars which is not a bad thing once the current kinks are worked out in the future.
I think it would be easy if there was some sort of catastrophic system failure to have a backup computer which would simply pull the car over to the curb and reduce speed until a car reaches a full stop. This could be done with currently available "dumb" technology as it is, given cars have been able to back themselves into spaces for around ten years now.
In terms of added road safety, just putting in autopilot massively makes the roads safer. However, if you don't allow fully autonomous cars, it will mean the following things.
1. Uber's idea of having an automated rental car which drives itself to you will never be feasible.
2. Remote parking won't be possible.
3. Children, elderly people, and those with disabilities would still have their mobility via vehicle dramatically reduced.
4. Millions of people would still have to be employed as drivers of various vehicles, even though 95%+ of the time they'd just sit in the driver's seat doing nothing.
I think the last one is key. Sad to say, but corporations will be able to make tremendous amounts of money eliminating everyone who drives for a living. Once the technology is out there, it will be chipped away. At first we might see autonomous lanes where long-haul trucks drive without human occupants. Or we could see robo-taxis or delivery vehicles which cannot exceed 25MPH and stay on surface streets. But human driving will be chipped away at for economic reasons over time.
Anyone who thinks that the roads of the northwoods of Wisconsin (to name but one area) in January will be fully automated in 15 years has read far too much sci-fi. This is the "flying cars" of the present. Will be quite funny to read the "thoughts" of today in a decade or two, just like those old articles in Popular Science or whatever about what 1990 would look like. So many things will need to change, from attitudes to infrastructure to the technology itself before this is anywhere close to a reality. It will be a long, long time before this is actually a reality, if ever.
Anyone who thinks that the roads of the northwoods of Wisconsin (to name but one area) in January will be fully automated in 15 years has read far too much sci-fi. This is the "flying cars" of the present. Will be quite funny to read the "thoughts" of today in a decade or two, just like those old articles in Popular Science or whatever about what 1990 would look like. So many things will need to change, from attitudes to infrastructure to the technology itself before this is anywhere close to a reality. It will be a long, long time before this is actually a reality, if ever.
You should tell all the auto makers of the world that they are wasting their time.
Google has gone on the record to car companies as far back as 2012 and said they are willing to accept liability for any accidents their automated systems cause, period. They have deep enough pockets to do this, and must feel comfortable that the claims will be low enough that they will still turn a profit from the self-driving systems.
Let's see after a few lawsuits if they still end up making that claim. All it would really take is one forty car pile up before law makers would get involved.
Quote:
I think it would be easy if there was some sort of catastrophic system failure to have a backup computer whi ich would simply pull the car over to the curb and reduce speed until a car reaches a full stop. This could be done with currently available "dumb" technology as it is, given cars have been able to back themselvesnto spaces for around ten years now.
In terms of added road safety, just putting in autopilot massively makes the roads safer. However, if you don't allow fully autonomous cars, it will mean the following things.
That is assuming the car can safely pull over to the curb. The second computer going out as well is a liability. That's why I can't see it being legal to hop in the back seat of the car and take a nap while your car drives itself across country. To put it bluntly **** happens and someone being behind the wheel if it does happen has a chance to avoid getting into an accident. Someone in the back seat taking a nap is going to get into an accident and considering it's likely going to at highway speeds or close to it with them not wearing a seat belt they're probably going to die if a major malfunction happens...that is assuming they don't kill anyone else.
Quote:
1. Uber's idea of having an automated rental car which drives itself to you will never be feasible.
A car with auto pilot driving around with a person behind the wheel is extremely reasonable to me and would cut down on accidents. The idea you can send your car a few hundred miles or even a few miles with no one in it doesn't seem reasonable to me. Honestly Uber's idea from what you described screams lawsuit waiting to happen IMO.
Quote:
3. Children, elderly people, and those with disabilities would still have their mobility via vehicle dramatically reduced.
They have made vehicle modifications for people with disabilities for decades now. Nothing new about that. As far as children go I got to ask why they would be driven around to different places without adult supervision whatsoever?
Quote:
4. Millions of people would still have to be employed as drivers of various vehicles, even though 95%+ of the time they'd just sit in the driver's seat doing nothing.
It's obvious from this statement you have never been a local commercial driver. Driving down the road is usually the easy part...it's the other things which can make the job a complete pain in the ass. If there was an actual robot to perform all the other functions then yes I would agree commercial drivers are going to go the way of the dinosaurs rather quickly in that scenario.
Quote:
I think the last one is key. Sad to say, but corporations will be able to make tremendous amounts of money eliminating everyone who drives for a living. Once the technology is out there, it will be chipped away. At first we might see autonomous lanes where long-haul trucks drive without human occupants.
I fail to see why you would create autonomous lanes for long haul trucking when the freight from long haul trucking is currently going on to trains via intermodal and will continue to do so over the next several decades. A single train can haul 150 to 220 53 ft containers. That sure beats autonomous lanes for long haul trucking. Not to mention a lot less overhead due to tons of money saved on fuel, money saved on tires which are the biggest maintenance cost, and of course wear and tear on commercial fleets. The Autonomous lanes idea sounds fine in theory if your outside of the transportation industry looking in but if you actually work in the transportation industry you would realize that would actually cost more money to do then putting the freight on trains and shipping it around the country then have drivers pickup the freight from train yards. It's also the reason why all of the large trucking companies in the US are buying containers and moving more and more freight via train then trying to move it via long haul trucking. Also as far as eliminating millions of jobs go there is more to commercial driving jobs then just being a steering wheel holder especially if your local and/or don't haul dry van freight.
Quote:
Or we could see robo-taxis or delivery vehicles which cannot exceed 25MPH and stay on surface streets. But human driving will be chipped away at for economic reasons over time.
For this part of your reply I would use the example that we also thought we would be living in a country running off primarily nuclear power at the end of the 20th century. At least society did in the 1950's to the 1970's then three mile island incident (which no one got killed in) and then chernobyl (which was due to lack of safety features we use in the US) and the nuclear industry severely was diminished in the public eye. Which caused the US to primarily power the country off coal and natural gas to a much larger extent now. I doubt those living the 1950's would believe nuclear power technology would get set back for years on end due to bad PR. It did though and that hurt the US economically over time considering a country like France has about 80% of there power come from nuclear energy and has some of the lowest if not the lowest energy bills in the world. So the idea money and technology trumps all I would say is just not the case. A little bit of bad PR in the US and one incident that happened in a foreign country is all it took for the US nuclear industry to get devastated and nuclear power to be such a controversial issue when it shouldn't be at all. Nuclear is very safe yet driver less cars won't be as safe as nuclear so I don't see why what happened to the nuclear industry wouldn't happen to driver less vehicles.
You should tell all the auto makers of the world that they are wasting their time.
They are developing future technology, as they should - YOU should tell the scientists working on cold fusion, quantum computers, and cheap salinization that they are wasting their time because the technologies likely won't be developed and implemented on the 15-year timetable some fandorks read about in Popular Science.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
who the heck wants to live that far from some j.o.b.?
