When Do Robocars Become Cheaper Than Standard Cars? 252
Hallie Siegel writes: With all the extra sensors and technology that have to go into autonomous cars, you might expect them to cost more. After all, autonomous features like park assist and auto lane changing are added-value components that you pay extra for on current vehicles. But autonomous car expert Brad Templeton thinks it could be that the overall cost of autonomous vehicles per mile driven will lower than traditional cars. Not only because features of traditional cars, like dashboards and steering columns, will not be necessary in robocars, but also because autonomous cars are more likely to be shared and constantly in use, rather than sitting in your driveway 90% of the time.
Easiest question all week. (Score:5, Insightful)
>> because features of traditional cars, like dashboards and steering columns, will not be necessary in robocars
That makes the question easy. Robocars will be cheaper after fully autonomous cars - with zero driver intervention - are allowed. In other words, probably never.
>> autonomous cars are more likely to be shared and constantly in use
Not my car. I pay the extra money to have my own seats that no one else's bum touches, my own cup holders that never hold alcohol or drippy milkshakes, and my own seat fabrics that only my kids drop their toys onto.
Re: (Score:3)
I fully agree.
There is also a false statistic in the summary implying that since cars sit idle 90% of the time that we will only need 1/10 the number of cars. Even if all these wild assumptions come true about having a fleet of fully autonomous Johny Cabs, the morning and evening rush hours will dictate that peak utilization is a far better metric than average. All the miles a Johny Cab would have to drive in between destinations would also come right off the bottom line. A car sitting in a parking space de
Re: (Score:2)
Commuters will be herded into pool cars, which will become an extension of city transit systems.
Re: (Score:2)
or they will just be dropping you off at the train station
Re: (Score:2)
Not my car. I pay the extra money to have my own seats that no one else's bum touches, my own cup holders that never hold alcohol or drippy milkshakes, and my own seat fabrics that only my kids drop their toys onto.
Serious question: do you avoid taxis for the same reason?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't legally drive on public roads without insurance.
Technically, you can. There are three methods:
1. A surety bond
2. Funds deposited with the state
3. Certificate of self-insurance
Check with your local DMV to see which of these options are available; all three are accepted in California. Most multiple DUI offender movie stars utilize surety bonds.
Re: (Score:2)
You'll change your tune as soon as no company will insure you for a human driven automobile, which will involve higher risk. You can't legally drive on public roads without insurance.
Well, that is stupid. If they would insure you right now for only maybe $500 a year, and now all of these "safe" autonomous cars are out there, it seems to me your insurance premium would go down.
Insurance companies are there to make money. If they can make money off of you why would they not give you a policy?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that is stupid. If they would insure you right now for only maybe $500 a year, and now all of these "safe" autonomous cars are out there, it seems to me your insurance premium would go down.
Indeed, but consider the possibilities - you have self driving cars which get into accidents less than 10% as often as human drivers.
Thing is, insurance requirements are set by legislators.
Consider this chain -
1. In order to get self-driving cars on the road, companies willingly take MUCH more liability onto themselves. Right now, in most states you only need something like $100k per person, $300k per incident coverage. I have $250k per person, $500k per incident. What if they do like Uber and get a $1M
"when such private automobiles are no longer sold" (Score:3)
I pay the extra money to have my own seats...
And when such private automobiles are no longer sold for any amount you can afford?
That's easy:
Then I shall print one.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, you would use properly licensed modeling files, right? ;)
I mean, you wouldn't download a car, would you?
Re: (Score:2)
And when such private automobiles are no longer sold for any amount you can afford?
Sounds like a good opportunity for an enterprising individual to open up a shop that sells cars that you can own and drive. In a Harris Poll [harrisinteractive.com] 1/3 of applicants said they would NEVER buy an autonomous car. That may not sound like a huge percentage, but 17% said they weren't sure when they would buy one, and the other people had various qualifications of when they would buy one. I would fall in the "never" category.
Re: (Score:2)
That may not sound like a huge percentage, but 17% said they weren't sure when they would buy one
considering the conditions under which we will be able to drive them (insurance, liability, and so) are largely not understood, i'm surprised it's that low.
the other people had various qualifications of when they would buy one
so people have questions about a a brand new product that for the most part isn't for sale yet, that 99.999% of them have never experienced. surprising stuff!
Re: (Score:2)
I would buy a car right now that would drive autonomously on freeways only. Driving on city streets and highways has much more chance for unforeseen circumstances. Having the ability to get on a freeway in San Francisco in the evening and waking up in LA in the morning would seem to me is presently within the technology's grasp. Fully autonomous driving everywhere is technically and legally still a ways off.
Re: (Score:2)
Insurance prices are going to go up, I think. Not insurance for the drivers though; insurance for the car manufacturers, who need to pass that cost on to someone. I could imagine premiums being pretty high since you can't take it out of the hide of an at-fault human driver.
Insurance should be pretty easy. (Score:2)
They'd likely self-insure for the most part. And no, I figure that insurance prices wouldn't go up.
I pay about $2/day for full coverage insurance. Looks like the average is $1-2k. Let's say that the average is $1.2k/year for liability. Now let's figure that self driving cars, by the time they're released commercially, are an OOM safer than the average driver, and that they win some concessions from congress shielding them from lawsuits. That would drop the price to $120/year, $10/month.
Figure that they
Re: (Score:2)
AFAIK manufacturers insurance doesn't cover anything if you don't maintain your car. So the liability would become the part of the 'owner' at that point, if they don't have insurance for the results of non-maintenance (which no sane insurance company would cover), they'd have to pay out of pocket. Leasing, renting or sharing cars may become much more common and the 'owner' may still be the manufacturer, local dealership or rental company that takes the car out of rotation for scheduled maintenance.
Comprehen
Re: (Score:2)
Security issues up the wazoo need to be addressed, but what if, as part of that, it has the ability to request a remove driver assist? IE the creator of the automatic system employs a number of professional drivers who, when the car requests assistance, reviews the available information and provides the necessary assistance. Said session is recorded to go to the programmers to (hopefully) add that situation to the database of programmed responses.
Re: (Score:2)
How about just letting people handle their own shit and call AAA if they need help, or 911 if they're in dire straits? They're there, the remote 'driver' is not, and the computer is too stupid to know what it is looking at. So what now? The average driver is to be considered too incompetent such that they must wait for a 'professional' driver to take remote control of the vehicle when the computer's heuristics inevitably fail?
Automation is supposed to make life better, not disenfranchise people and bind the
Re: (Score:2)
The average driver is to be considered too incompetent such that they must wait for a 'professional' driver to take remote control of the vehicle when the computer's heuristics inevitably fail?
Here's the problem: Once you introduce true self-driving cars most 'drivers' will stop being drivers. I'm not necessarily talking about the current generation, but what do you expect an 18 year old who got a self-driver for his first vehicle to do? That's worse than a driver who learned on an automatic trying to drive a manual for the first time.
Re: (Score:2)
I understand. It doesn't bode well for that 18yos freedom down the road. If it becomes mainstream, you can bet access to that remote controlled mobility will depend on an ever increasing list of state/institution imposed expectations. That's a powerful leash.
Re: (Score:2)
Driving skills will go the way of horsemanship, becoming a niche specialty.
Re: (Score:2)
Cars outpaced horsemanship because they were faster and could reliably go longer distances. Self driving cars come with rather heavy leashes that current cars do not, mostly due to crappy politics.
Re: (Score:2)
computers are not the only drivers that go haywire or get into situations they can't handle. It happens to people all the time. They have strokes or seizures or heart attacks behind the wheel, they get distracted, they drive into deep mud, they hit puddles at high speed. If you are in the car when something like this happens to you, what do you do?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, whereas massive numbers of computers are hacked all the time, causing all sorts of issues. Instead of one human going nuts and causing an accident, we'll have dozens, hundreds, or thousands of compromised or badly programmed cars killing many times more people. If we can't even guarantee security of our currently networked devices, then it's only a matter of time before these cars are hacked through the wireless mesh. They will be very tempting targets.
Assuming you're doing what you're supposed to beh
Re: (Score:2)
plus cars are used for storage when running multiple errands, which will make renting them out while you are on errand A but the car still contains a bunch of stuff for errands C, D, and E. Cars are often treated like purses on wheels, and people don't rent out their purses.
This is a utility with a value. People can work out its value on their own for their particular situation and decide for themselves. If the car service is super cheap and owning your own car is super expensive, then more people will decide that it's not worth the expense.
Robo Cars Will be More Fuel Efficient (Score:2)
Robo cars will be able to maintain more constant engine speeds, minimize braking, etc., so they are likely to be more fuel efficient and put less wear on brakes, tires, and the engine.
Re: (Score:2)
None of which is relevant to cost.
Or, more accurately, none of which is relevant to how much the manufacturers will charge.
See, in theory, over time the cost of a good goes down. In practice, companies keep adding doo-dads and wanting to amortize their development costs, so the amount they charge goes up even when the economies make it cheaper to make.
There isn't a CEO on the planet who would allow the costs to go down over time, because it's bad for business.
So as long as we worship the stock market and q
Costs and rhetoric (Score:2)
See, in theory, over time the cost of a good goes down.
Which specific good(s) and under what circumstances are you referring to? What specific economic theory are you referencing? There are times when costs go down and times when they go up. Or are you just spouting empty rhetoric?
In practice, companies keep adding doo-dads and wanting to amortize their development costs, so the amount they charge goes up even when the economies make it cheaper to make.
Companies "add doo-dads" because their customers want to buy them. They also add them because if they don't those customers (including you) will buy them from someone else. If they add a "doo-dad" that customers don't want then they will lose money. For products that don't invol
Re: (Score:2)
So as long as we worship the stock market and quarterly revenues so we can calculate executive bonuses ... the cost of no consumer good will ever go down, because the people selling it will actively just find new ways to justify raising the price.
New PCs used to cost thousands and now cost a few hundred.
Re: (Score:2)
The auto market is one of the most competitive and low-margin. You need another example for your theorem. I can get a Versa for under $12,000 that is a better car in almost every way than anything that could have been purchased in 1980. We've had 200% inflation since then... What sort of crap did you get for $6000 in 1980? Did it last 150,000 miles and have airbags, crumple zones, a CD player, and AC?
Re: (Score:2)
You provide a link to something which has a banner for free-market.com.
As there is no fucking such thing as a free market, never has been, and never can be .. I simply don't care.
The fucking free market is a lie, which was my point.
Re: (Score:2)
The fucking free market is a lie, which was my point.
Well, duh. We all know markets are fake. it's all in our collective heads, they don't really exist. But they do serve a purpose anyway. They don't have to be perfect to perform their function. Shovels and rakes do not have to be spotless and perfect to be useful. They can be old and beat and rusted and they still move dirt just fine. Markets move money for us, and they don't have to be perfect either. They just have to be good enough.
Re: (Score:3)
And when you are late for work, they will happily chug along at the speed limit no matter how much you yell at them. Fleet operators might also decide to tweak maximum speeds to save gas money when prices rise (like airlines did for awhile), maybe even giving you the ability to select to go at the full speed limit for an extra fee. I think of the airlines as to how very cool technology can be completely made miserable once in the grasp of the invisible hand.
I know a lot of people who really dislike being
Insurance Costs (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly as soon as you factor in insurance costs. Assuming that autonomous vehicles can live up to some of the hype related to safety, the insurance premiums should be a pittance compared to what many people currently pay. If you have a car that's only likely to be at fault (or better yet, in an accident at all if it can drive defensively well enough) in the event of catastrophic failure, it should cost far less to insure. The initial cost may be higher, but could be amortized over the length of its ownership in lowered insurance premiums.
The article implies that the car will be in use more often, which I take to mean that it will not be owned by average Joes, but by some commercial or government entity. So one would think insurance would not be a factor of significance to the average Joe.
Re: (Score:2)
I could see it being like solar. Some people will have 3rd parties put panels on their house and buy the power at a reduced rate, and others will want to own the panels, but sell unused power back to the utility.
I could see owning my own car, and having it drive for Uber when I'm working. I'd know (for the most part) when I'd need it again, so I'd have it not make long trips just before I want to go home.
Re: (Score:2)
I could see owning my own car, and having it drive for Uber when I'm working. I'd know (for the most part) when I'd need it again, so I'd have it not make long trips just before I want to go home.
I would never allow my vehicle to be used by Uber or to let strangers drive around it. I don't even let my friends drive my car. I paid almost $40k for it, but even if it was only a $10k car, I wouldn't let other people drive it without a $10k deposit.
Re: (Score:2)
With a self-driving car, it's not them driving it. It's the car. Just like when you;re in it, except they leave trash on the floor.
Self-driving cars take Uber to a new level - no driver, no unavailability. You're not the driver, so why does your Uber client need one? No unavailability except for when you have a scheduled trip (coming home from a concert...).
The only needed human intervention is refueling. Until they self-park on your charging mat, or park and hit the charging plug.
Maybe you don't reall
Re: (Score:2)
I paid almost $40k for it
I love drivers like you, you pay $40K for a car and sell them 3 years later for $10K. I buy cars like this for $10K and drive them for many years. Thanks for blowing $30K so that I can drive a fancy car.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how that precludes that average Joe from owning it. It only means that they'll be having it drive for Uber or some similar service while they're at work on not using it. Obviously not everyone will do that or even want to do that, but so long as it makes financial sense to do so, enough people will.
Why not do it like U-Haul, the trucks are owned by investors. They get a share of the profits from the rentals, minus the costs of repairs. At the end of its life the vehicle is sold and the investors get the profits from the sale. The investors get the pleasure of collecting profits from a vehicle that they own, even though they don't ever drive it.
Why are people attached to vehicles? When you are commuting to work, you can ride in a one passenger mini car. If you are going shopping, or a camping trip
"cheaper" is in the eye of the beholder (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also cheaper if it means waiting 15 minutes or learning a car isn't available when I want it? Time is money.
I have no doubt that you will be able to find someone who will take you where you are going without waiting 15 minutes if you throw enough money at them. Maybe there will be super-premium service where you can cut in line for an extra $50 or $500 or whatever fee if you are really desperate. Those who are paying less, will do so knowing that they are paying less because people like you will pay more.
Re: (Score:2)
Why will insurance become too expensive? If mixing in autonomous cars doesn't make the road more dangerous rates should stay the same or even drop for non-autonomous cars, not go up. Insurance is about aggregating average risk and taking a bit of profit, not some grand morality play.
Re: (Score:2)
These driverless cars will be covered with advertising, just like city buses. If you damage the advertisements or cause the car to be taken out of service, you will be liable for any and all lost profits from the advertising.
No steering column? (Score:2)
Also, why would a car suddenly start getting more usage rather than sitting in the driveway. Are they also assuming that when cars become autonomous, that we will no longer own them, but just call for one when we need one?BR? I am not in favor of a world where i can't own a car, and where I can't take control of a c
Re: (Score:2)
Why wouldn't it have a steering column? What do you do in an emergency when the car doesn't know how to handle itself?
Like a tram or train or whatever you pull the emergency brake.
Also, why would a car suddenly start getting more usage rather than sitting in the driveway. Are they also assuming that when cars become autonomous, that we will no longer own them, but just call for one when we need one?BR? I am not in favor of a world where i can't own a car
My guess it means you'd buy the kind of car you need 90% of the time, in my case that'd be a one-seater with ~20 miles of range. When the whole family is going to the cabin, I call and get the big, long range vehicle and it'll deliver itself to my doorstep. And once I'm done, it'll return itself. Most of the annoyance of renting a car today is the overhead, secondly it's the insurance and any scratches or fender benders. With robot cars they shou
Re: (Score:2)
Why wouldn't it have a steering column?
Because it's cheaper to not have one, and probably also safer(on average). One of the accidents suffered by Google's self-driving vehicles was because the operator took it out of automatic and overrode it's braking in order to rear end a car.
Another reason would be - consider who's probably going to drive these first. People with convictions for things like DUI, reckless and negligent driving, etc... IE people we don't WANT to have a manual driving option. On the other hand - it'd much harder to get you
Re: (Score:2)
Also, why would a car suddenly start getting more usage rather than sitting in the driveway.
Besides the whole Uber-esque renting my car when I'm not using it thing...
If you have a family, you may end up getting more out of your car by using it within the family. Picture the husband and wife where the wife takes the car to work and the husband calls the car up if he needs it. Add in some kids who can have the car take them places as well and it could spend a lot more of it's time moving around than it would with only licensed drivers using it.
As for, "What happens if I need to use the car when my
Possible but rather unlikely I think (Score:2)
But autonomous car expert Brad Templeton thinks it could be that the overall cost of autonomous vehicles per mile driven will lower than traditional cars.
Never say never but it won't be anytime soon. The sensor package and other hardware to make it work are going to be very expensive for quite a while yet. Not only because there is a lot of R&D and hardware costs to recoup but also because of economies of scale which will not happen overnight. I could see autonomous vehicles being cheaper in specific situations but for general purpose driving it won't be cheaper anytime soon if ever.
Not only because features of traditional cars, like dashboards and steering columns, will not be necessary in robocars,
That's something of an assumption that manual controls will be remove
Re: (Score:2)
but also because autonomous cars are more likely to be shared and constantly in use, rather than sitting in your driveway 90% of the time.
I'm not convinced of this one either. Possible but hardly a certainty. A lot of people don't really like to share cars and nobody rides the bus because they like it. I can see automated cars getting abused rather badly. Trash, bodily fluids, etc. People don't tend to respect property that isn't theirs. I really don't look forward to the prospect of taxing an automated taxi that smells of urine or worse.
And it doesn't work for the borrowers either. If people make their cars available for use when they don't need them, then that will mean that most cars will only be available for use during times of low demand, and will be occupied during time of high demand. With that availability, shared cars will barely dent the existing taxi and public transportation systems.
I have seen a ton of articles lately pushing the idea that once automated cars are reality that no one will need/want to own cars. I'm sorry, but t
Re: (Score:2)
Sure they do. A lot of what is currently done with high cost buses will be replaced by smaller automated vehicles. Those might be owned (read financed) by the local transportation company (i.e. who is operating the buses now), the taxi company replacements (e.g. Uber) that are willing to fund them for profit they can make, or by end users for their own use and possibly for leasing out.
If they are cheaper to operate somebody will be happy to buy and operate them to replace costlier options.
Re: (Score:2)
1. The UberLike service that is managing your car for you simply valets it for you before returning it to you for your use.
2. The UberLike service also tracks damage by passengers and bills them and / or simply refuses to rent to them in the future. In any respect the service restores your car to usable condition before returning it as part of the terms and conditions you allowed them to use it.
These are not like current taxis and buses. Much more like a cross between Uber and Avis. Uber like app but you ar
Re: (Score:2)
I can see automated cars getting abused rather badly. Trash, bodily fluids, etc.
I can see that coming to a screeching halt when the owners of the cars present the video footage of the car being trashed by the renter in court - civil(cleaning costs) and criminal(vandalism) as well as blackballing them.
You get a dirty car, you complain and they send a new one, then charge the last client for the cleaning.
Also Gas (Score:2)
Similarly I bet repairs will be less even for simple things like oil and belts.
But on the other side, I bet that while some people will share robocars, most two car families will continue t
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking that it would use less gas because it would be programmed to go at the speed limit. I've noticed that most of the time people drive 5 to 10 km/h above the limit, especially on the major roads and highways.
Just What I've Always Wanted! (Score:2)
I've always dreamed of this mode of transportation!
Imagine having a car that's never just sitting idle, depreciating in the driveway or the parking lot at work, when it could be being productive all day long!
Yes, indeed! I've always wanted a car that rather than being my own space to unwind on the drive home could be busy shuttling smelly people and their kids, smelly goods, etc. around the city all day! I could have all kinds of new coffee stains in new places because people aren't paying attention to th
Re: (Score:2)
Robocars (along with fully autonomous cars in general), are never going to happen, will never be practical [...]
I dunno. I would buy a Robocar in heartbeat. I like the idea of being able to sit in the car and read and do fun stuff on the trip home. I do agree that I probably wouldn't want to "rent it out" to anybody I didn't personally know.
On the other hand, it might cut down on the number of cars "needed." I have a car. My significant-other has a car. We both need a car to get to work and run errands. But I'm pretty sure we could get by with one car that would come at our beck-and-call. It could easily driv
Re: (Score:2)
So one car racking up double the total miles you would have put on two cars? So double the gas usage and tire wear to boot. And you get to replace that one car twice as often.
Re: (Score:2)
In many parts of the country, rust is what ends the life of a car. It doesn't really matter how much it is used, it will still rust away in your driveway. So in these parts of the country, it is best to extract as much use as you can from the car while you can.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'm sure that the car could notify me or my significant-other if something went wrong. At the very least, the police could probably track me down at work and have me remotely unlock the car so that they could put it in neutral and move the car out of traffic. Assuming the car could not be trained to notice that the tire was flat and limp over to shoulder like a driver would do. Most cars have little detectors for tire pressure nowadays, so I'm sure it could detect that the tire was flat and deal ac
So short sighted (Score:2)
People are way too willing to give up their privacy and autonomy for half-assed conveniences nowadays. Considering the behavior of today's public and private institutions, it's nuts.
Re: (Score:2)
You are aware that there are many hundreds of thousands of traffic cameras, and cameras attached to police cars in this country? it's almost impossible to drive for more than a few miles without showing up on one. If you see a police car on the road, it's looking at your license plate. If you drive onto a divided highway, for sure you're on camera, they put them on just about every on and off ramp. If you pay a toll, your license plate is recorded. If you park at a parking meter, your license plate i
Damage Control (Score:3)
Sometimes, a "news story" is so obviously a press release that it's almost embarrassing.
Here's a couple of news stories that hit the wire in the past few days, so you tell me why you think there's suddenly a story about how we're all going to live in a robocar utopia:
http://gizmodo.com/hackers-hav... [gizmodo.com]
http://gizmodo.com/chrysler-re... [gizmodo.com]
(emphasis mine)
Why Own? (Score:2)
It's odd to me that most people I talk to can't get past the idea of not owning a car. Consider what you could do with the money you waste every year on car payments, gas, parking, maintenance, and insurance. Why wouldn't the future be nearly everyone taking a robo-Uber whenever they need to? In the future, driving or owning a car will be just another interesting hobby.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No way in hell I'm waiting 1 minute when I want to go somewhere.
these are the people who sit in traffic for hours every day
Question mark in title (Score:2)
You'll pry my... (Score:2)
...automated, self-driving car outta my cold, dead hands as soon as you can hack it. Which should be in about 3 ... 2 ... 1
Yeah, never gonna get one of those things.
When they get tiny (Score:2)
A big part of the reason a drone is cheaper than a plane is that it doesn't have to carry a person in it. No life support systems, no cockpit, no displays or controls in the plane. And it doesn't have to be designed to the same safety and recovery standards. Fire a missile at a drone and a lot of them don't even have counter measures. And if they are brought down there's no ejector seat etc.
When we talk about drone cars... they'll get cheaper if they don't have to carry humans or if the entire car can be si
Futurologists and transportation. (Score:3)
What is it that notorious car-drivers hate about public transport, so that they end up spending like 5-10 times more money than what public transport would have cost them?
That is the question that you need to answer before you can make predictions like in the slashdot summary.
Public transport has "quantization noise". If you leave for work 3 minutes later, you'll miss the bus, and end up at work 15 minutes later. Sure you can prevent that. Just be at the bus stop 5 minutes before the bus. This means you invest 5 minutes every day to prevent a 15 minute occasional delay.
Second: when you use public transport, you don't have "your own space". This means that if you leave your wallet, ipad or whatever lying around when you step out of the vehicle, barring exceptions, it is gone. If you have your own "transport space", you can also stock it with stuff you might need while travelling (e.g. my brother has mints in his car), of that you might end up needing at the destination (e.g. umbrella).
Third there is a cost issue. If you see the cost to you every time you move, that makes you consider it more. People ignore the: "the car needs xx petrol to drive this far, so it costs me at the least yy to make this trip". They see the filing up and paying whatever that takes as something that must be done, and then they pretend driving the car is free.
Those are the things the car-drivers will need to have satisfied before they can be converted. And if you don't convert the car-drivers you will not have the economy of scale to have "leaving out the steering column" make a difference.
The current topic will "solve" the quantization noise. You hit a button in your house a few minutes before you leave, and the system will get a self-drving-car on your driveway before you close the door. It does not solve the other problem. You cannot leave the umbrella in the car "in case it rains when I get there". You forget your stuff and the next occupant might take it. (or at least "where is my presentation" is not solved with a run to the car park).
The "self driving" and "semi-public-transport" ideas will only work if everybody gets to keep their private module. Those could be powered with say a small 1kW motor and have a 40km/h (25mph) speed limit. Then when they end up at the freeway, a bunch of them group together with a "power-unit" and they can travel on the freeway at high speed. (Pay more and the "maximum grouping delay" goes down).
Re: Never (Score:3)
That's what bribery is for ... no, wait - I mean PAC donations!
They'll think of something (Score:2)
They always do. Moving violation fines are now tacked on with so many other "fees" a formerly two hundred dollar ticket is now six...
Re: (Score:2)
How will police departments run without red light and ticket revenue? Similarly, they would completely put taxi services out of business. The short answer is politicians and police departments especially are going to put as many roadblocks in the way as possible to make sure this doesn't happen. They stand to make WAY too much from it.
How many people would choose to do without a car, or would own less cars per household, if one could subscribe to a car service like one subscribes to cable television service? If that subscription guaranteed essentially a level above conventional yellow taxi (more like a London Black Cab) but not quite as premium as a pricey sedan service, and could, based on your phone location service as you move around, attempt to prioritize and queue cars up to make it easy for passengers to summon cars, it might be p
Re: (Score:2)
if one could subscribe to a car service like one subscribes to cable television service?
You'd be better off not comparing car rentals to cable companies, which are known for bundling services and channels you don't want, charging exorbitant prices, blocking free market competition, and providing atrocious customer service.
Re:i haven't bought a car in a while... (Score:5, Insightful)
park assist and auto lane changing
Admittedly I haven't bought a car in 8 years, but ... are those tasks somehow considered "difficult" such that it makes any degree of sense whatsoever to add expense to the vehicle to perform them automatically?
I should think anyone competent to be operating the vehicle to start with should find them trivial by definition, and anyone not finding them trivial should not be operating the vehicle.
Wait until you're 75. Or have a stroke. Or lose your peripheral vision. Or something.
Yes, 18 year olds should be able to parallel park despite an enormous amount of practical information to the contrary, but the real promise of automated vehicles is that it will allow people that cannot (or should not, a much large category) drive 'manually' have access to individual transportation.
That said, I think the premise of TFA is ridiculous. Most people are not going to be sharing vehicles nearly as much as he thinks. Even if they do, fleet vehicles tend to need more maintenance than driveway queens.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have a stroke or lose your peripheral vision perhaps you shouldn't be driving at all.
Re:i haven't bought a car in a while... (Score:5, Interesting)
If you have a stroke or lose your peripheral vision perhaps you shouldn't be driving at all.
He mentioned that with: "but the real promise of automated vehicles is that it will allow people that cannot (or should not, a much large category) drive 'manually' have access to individual transportation."
Right now, if you suffer from a condition that renders you unable to drive, it can be a massive expense and inconvenience to you. Suddenly you're dependent upon family to drive you everywhere, or lacking that public transportation(and it's limitations) or expensive taxies.
We also have the problem of the damage new drivers tend to cause during the learning experiences, and some never seem to learn. Somebody with a tendency to tap bumpers might find 'park assist' handy.
Personally, I like the idea of my vehicle dropping me off at the door of wherever I'm going, then going off and parking, then picking me up at the door, especially when I'm loaded down with groceries.
Re: (Score:3)
the problem of being unable to drive is a "first world problem"
And since the first world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_World [wikipedia.org] is comprised of a large number of countries with prodigious intellectual and industrial production capability it should hardly come as a surprise that the first world is applying those capabilities to solving first world problems such as this. What would be surprising and sad would be if the industrial machine that won World War 2 were no longer capable of applying resources to the resolution of its own problems.
If you are unable to drive and live in a place where there is no public transportation, then you should sell your nice cozy house, leave your nice cozy town and move to a city where there is adequate public transportation. Becoming dependent upon your family is nothing but a choice you (and sometimes your family) make.
Ah yes, a brilliant suggesti
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of maintenance, one nice benefit of having your own self-driving car will be that it can trot off to get its own oil changed, or a brake job, or a new set of tires, or (if it's not electric) fuel up. Right now, you have to carve time out of your own schedule to do this, or pay extra for someone to come to you and do it. (I was lucky enough to work at an office large enough that a mechanic came by weekly and worked on any cars that needed it, but that's certainly an exception and not a rule.)
I can a
Re: (Score:2)
Yep! Sharing my car would mean finding another convenient spot for my umbrella and shopping bags. Unless every car came with those.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the parking is hard. Parallel parking that is, very difficult for many people to do. Problem is that there's not a lot of training how to do this and only a few places have parallel parking with lots of cars (mostly downtown in big cities). Parallel parking between two parked cars is something I do once a year at the most, so I'm bad at it because of lack of practice. And if I get a new car then I need to learn it again because the dimensions changed.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think I've ever parallel parked outside of learning to do so for the driving test, and the actual test. I've parked curbside but generally drive straight in instead of the snaking reverse-course squeeze.
With that said, I find this statement totally contrary to my experience:
only a few places have parallel parking with lots of cars (mostly downtown in big cities)
Downtown in big cities have parking lots all over the place, which usually have perpendicular parking slots (or occasionally, angled parking); meanwhile, because it would be freakishly expensive to expand a roadway by one lane a
Re: (Score:2)
In small towns there is a mix. Where there's parallel parking generally there aren't tons of cars as well, so it's easy to find a spot that's easy to park in. Elsewhere in small towns they can afford a wider road to have diagonal parking. In San Francisco there is often parallel parking (on a hill!) and you have to search just to find an open spot. Downtown San Jose is a lot of parallel parking too.
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, people can't even fucking SHIFT a car anymore hardly.
I've actually heard that car thieves are passing cars by that have manual transmissions because they don't know how to drive them...geez.
I've never owned an automatic car in my life...I like to have something to do while driving...helps keep you awake too.
Re: (Score:2)
I learned to drive in San Francisco in a three speed stick shift vehicle. The test for drivers license involved starting on a steep hill WITHOUT rolling back and also parallel parking on that hill. Anyone failing to do both of those things automatically failed the test. I managed to do it on my first try! Nowadays many people don't even know how to drive a standard shift car anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
The test for drivers license involved starting on a steep hill WITHOUT rolling back
well that's easy, borrow your friend's subaru for the test
Re: (Score:2)
Today's 'free' societies are much more interested in convenience than they are in their autonomy, independence, and civil liberties. Dude, the future's like social! omg!
Re: (Score:2)
Today's 'free' societies are much more interested in convenience than they are in their autonomy, independence, and civil liberties. Dude, the future's like social! omg!
yeah I kind of like the convenience of not getting killed by a distracted human driver
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to legions of badly programmed or hacked computers?
Re: (Score:3)
Admittedly I haven't bought a car in 8 years, but ... are those tasks somehow considered "difficult" such that it makes any degree of sense whatsoever to add expense to the vehicle to perform them automatically?
YMMV but personally I hate parallel parking with my no assist, no camera, no proximity sensor car. I hate trying to predict through the mirrors how far I got left until I bump into someone, mostly I'm overcautious meaning it takes me way too many cycles of back and forth. And even minor superficial damage is very expensive if they get need to get it fixed through their insurance company, which I'm either paying out of pocket or suffering a big bonus loss.
I've tried using more modern cars with sensors/camera
Re: (Score:2)
I've always parked just fine, just like you.
Tomorrow, a bunch of people who always parked just fine, passed a driving test and everything, will be in a hurry / angry / distracted / whatever, make a bad call, and scrape the side of a vehicle.
I'd rather everyone just push a button and that never happen.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree.
My car has almost no electronics in it. Manual transmission. Manual locks. The breaks have some electronics in them but that's not interfaced with anything else. etc.
I'm getting ready to buy a new car and I'm going to make a point of either not having all that electronic shit in it in the first place or I'm getting it stripped out by a specialist and replaced with something else.
Re: (Score:2)
It would travel to your destination without ever having to stop.
Assuming of course that your destination is somewhere along where those rails run and that no one else is on those same rails and stopping between you and your destination,
Re: (Score:2)
"Robocars become cheaper than standard cars on June 2nd, 2031."
And because of the concentration of computing power in one confined space, I-5 in the Los Angeles area will become self-aware.
Re: (Score:2)
I expect someday we may have truly autonomous cars, but everyone is acting like it will be in the next 5 years. Maybe 30-50 years out I will believe it, but a lot of the wild claims of "sooner than you think" are a bunch of hot air.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember someone saying that about CRT displays, they thought that LCD displays would never get cheap enough to replace them.
Re: (Score:2)
hot damn, I always wanted a car with a manual choke and a crank starter
can we have synchomesh in the transmission or is that too modern for you?