Video How Ubiquitous Autonomous Cars Could Affect Society (Video) 369
Video no longer available.
We talked with Peter Wayner about autonomous cars on June 5. He had a lot to say on this topic, to the point where we seem to be doing a whole series of interviews with him because autonomous cars might have a lot of unanticipated effects on our lives and our economy. Heck, Peter has enough to say about driverless cars to fill a book, Future Ride, which we hope he finishes editing soon because we (Tim and Robin) want to read it. While that book is brewing, watch for some thoughts on how autonomous cars (and delivery vans) might affect us in the near future.
Please check back later for transcript
Obviously (Score:5, Insightful)
The cars become self-aware at 2:14am on August 29. In a panic, we try and pull their plugs.
The rest pretty much follows.
PS: Slashdot, video "articles" suck.
Video articles (Score:5, Interesting)
Drifting off-topic here, but I agree, and I can explain why.
Typical reading speed is 250-300 words per minute [wikipedia.org] with random access. Typical speaking rate is more variable but I'll go with the audiobook reading rate, 160 words per minute [wikipedia.org] with sequential access. So it is a much better use of my time to read an article than to watch or hear a presentation of that article.
That said, _writing_, especially writing well-reasoned and coherent prose such as one can not-infrequently find on Slashdot, takes disproportionately longer than reading the same prose. So the audio and audiovisual formats are appealing to the presenter, because speaking is easier than writing for people with the right skills. An expert, reasonably experienced at public speaking, can give an illuminating presentation with little or no preparation.
My opinion is that video and podcasts can be worthwhile if you know the speaker is good, and are willing to trade off efficient use of your time for efficient use of his.
Re: (Score:2)
Another thing I like about reading is the ability to easily go back and review something just read when you didn't quite get the gist, as opposed to trying to re-position a video to repeat something.
So long truckers (Score:5, Interesting)
Truckers, you're going to be the first on the chopping block in this edition of technology theater. That's the end of the last blue collar job that lets you travel.
Re:So long truckers (Score:5, Insightful)
It's also the end of one of the most dangerous jobs in modern society. Would you cry if someone fully automated coal mining?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Would you cry if someone fully automated coal mining?
If the US keeps going down the path it's currently on, mining coal will be considered a privileged job in another 20 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe the Union bosses see the writing on the wall and realize its the best thing for the people the represent.
Sometimes management isn't just trying to screw the little guy. Hostess was a good example. The company must be profitable and have something left over to reinvest or there won't be a company to pay wages in the first place.
Fuel prices remain high, total freight is still down, etc; the industry is not without head winds.
Re: (Score:2)
Not taxi, bus, or shuttle drivers?
Re: (Score:3)
Taxi drivers will probably lose out quickly. Bus drivers will change to "stewards". Their main job will change to controlling passengers. Shuttle drivers...probably the same as bus drivers.
OTOH, in most places it will require legal changes to allow driverless taxis. Even taxis with drivers tend to be licensed and controlled, so there's an entrenched bureaucracy. So there will be resistence that won't collapse until large companies go into the automated taxi business. And, as with buses, vandalism will
Re: (Score:2)
trains have drivers maybe bus drivers can do more of that work the doors / be there to hit the red stop button.
Re: (Score:2)
Bus drivers will become something akin to security guards.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So long truckers (Score:4, Interesting)
Speaking as someone who has a) built a lot of robots, and b) towed a lot of heavy loads with farm trucks and farm tractors, it seems to me trucks are going to be the *last* to go.
One: Robotics is hard. Robots are gruesomely hard to test. It is very hard hard to sensitize all the test conditions that you will actually see in the field.
Two: Towed loads have many non-linear behaviors. There are a lot of ways a load can start giving you fits as a driver. It can whip, it is very subject to wind gusts. It pushes you down slopes and wants to jack-knife. It exacerbates any slick road conditions.
Show me a credible validation plan for a truck tractor that can deal with a high-side load like a moving van, filled to maximum legal weight, going down the western slope of the Sierra Nevada on I-80, in the rain, coming to a curve at the bottom of a 6% grade, dealing with a jack-ass driver in a light hatch-back returning from a ski trip cutting off the truck. Until you've thought through all the case and then done enough field trials to find out that, well, really you only thought of 10% of the cases up front, you haven't really given sufficient thought to the problem.
If you said that taxi cabs in flat city streets would be the first application, I'd believe you on that. But trucks? No way.... much harder problem, by at least an order of magnitude.
Re:So long truckers (Score:4, Insightful)
Arguably, people are quite bad at handling the circumstance you mentioned.
With the proper road traction sensors, and gyro sensors, the robot can handle that condition cooly within 5% of failure, where a human will fluctuate wildly between 50% under and 20% over failure, causing all sorts of unintended consequences.
But I admit that is an end-state, and the development of this technology will be challenging.
Re:So long truckers (Score:4, Informative)
I was thinking about robotic trucking the other day, and I think you might be right, but for some other reasons too.
What happens when _everyone_ learns that the robot trucks (and other vehicles) will NOT hit them? I'd bet the incidence of human drivers cutting off robotic vehicles increases dramatically. It may get so bad that it is difficult for trucks to drive through heavy traffic at all, as they will always yield to other vehicles to avoid an accident. Your average truck driver not only won't do that, he can't afford to.
Necron69
Re:So long truckers (Score:4, Interesting)
Followed quickly by a dramatic increase of drivers discovering that performing an act of reckless driving in front of cameras results in suspended licenses and hefty fines, not to mention civil suits from the trucking company for any damage caused.
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking about robotic trucking the other day, and I think you might be right, but for some other reasons too.
What happens when _everyone_ learns that the robot trucks (and other vehicles) will NOT hit them? I'd bet the incidence of human drivers cutting off robotic vehicles increases dramatically. It may get so bad that it is difficult for trucks to drive through heavy traffic at all, as they will always yield to other vehicles to avoid an accident. Your average truck driver not only won't do that, he can't afford to.
Necron69
Robotic drivers won't suspend the laws of physics, nor will they pay your insurance premiums. When you cut off a truck too closely and he can't stop in time before he hits you, the video will be automatically uploaded to your insurance company to pay for the damages.
Re: (Score:3)
That particular scenario does not sound like one most human truck drivers could reliably handle, either. I fear the trucking company may be willing
Re: (Score:2)
That particular scenario does not sound like one most human truck drivers could reliably handle, either. I fear the trucking company may be willing to accept the risk. Policymakers seem all too ready to shrug say "that doesn't sound like it will happen very often" instead of actually considering the low-probability scenarios. Considering the political pressure fleet owners (including but not limited to Wal-Mart) can bring to bear, and the knee-jerk anti-regulatory sentiment that was created by a lot of excessive and/or ill-considered regulation, I do not expect validation requirements on robot trucks to be as strict as an engineer would want them to be.
Yep, I think this is going to be the case. They will just pass a Monsanto-like law that says you can't sue automatic cars or trucks or the companies that make them. Problem solved, done deal!
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. Because there is no way a computer can take into consideration wind, drag, traction, weight, speed, available torque, current momentum and also keep track of obstacles and get to where it wants to go. A computer powerful enough to handle that kind of stuff would not be able to fit into hat box. Then you would also need at least two more of them for back up and sensors as well.
That stuff together might weigh as much as a truck driver!
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. Because there is no way a computer can take into consideration wind, drag, traction, weight, speed, available torque, current momentum and also keep track of obstacles and get to where it wants to go. A computer powerful enough to handle that kind of stuff would not be able to fit into hat box. Then you would also need at least two more of them for back up and sensors as well.
That stuff together might weigh as much as a truck driver!
Additionally, an automated truck won't suffer from overheated brakes - it will know exactly how warm the brakes are during the descent and can calculate how much of a safety margin it has. If it's not safe to proceed, then the truck can pull over until the brakes cool, and the dispatcher isn't going to argue with the truck that it's goofing off when he sees 30 minutes of downtime on the side of the road.
Plus when an automated truck loses control, it won't hesitate to drive off the road to avoid hitting a dr
Re: (Score:2)
Show me a credible validation plan for a truck tractor that can deal with a high-side load like a moving van, filled to maximum legal weight, going down the western slope of the Sierra Nevada on I-80, in the rain, coming to a curve at the bottom of a 6% grade, dealing with a jack-ass driver in a light hatch-back returning from a ski trip cutting off the truck.
Well, not that I disagree with your general argument, but your specific example is quite easy:
You squish the annoying little hatchback. You'd even get a prize.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Mmm...yes and no. Clearly, some roles for people involved in transporting materials won't be going away. For instance, delivery folks will still have the actual role of delivering the goods until we develop robots to remove packages from the truck, find the right door to knock on, and locate an alternative destination (e.g. the main office in an apartment complex) in case a recipient is not available to sign. So, it's unlikely that FedEx or UPS will be replacing their drivers anytime soon, since they'll sti
Re: (Score:3)
Big rig truckers may be secure for at least awhile as well ...
There is a much older technology that could reduce the number of big rigs - trains. I don't like to see anyone other than bean counters and MBA's out of work, but it makes little sense to have one person driving one load a thousand miles or more. For anything over 200-300 miles it makes more sense to use a train most of the trip, even taking into account the truck to train (and vice versa) transfer that usually has to take place for more local delivery. The hybrid truck-train approach saves fuel and labor c
Re: (Score:3)
Not sure truckers are the first to go but they are certainly on the list. I bet cabbies are the first to be chopped. Also on the list: UPS/Fedex, Postal Service, Delivery Services (Pizza for example). The 2nd order changes are also interesting - Parking Garage Attendants, Parking Meter enforcement, Traffic cops, and many more. None of these examples will completely go away but will be greatly reduced. We will still need truck drivers (which will become just passengers) that are trained in delivering hazmat materials to customers. Although these jobs will be lower paid than they currently are.
I don't know... Fedex/UPS might want to keep a human on board. Some of those items are important / fragile / expensive. With a human on board there's someone there to "mind the inventory" and to react if something goes wrong (accident / breakdown / etc.) Instead of the brown-robotic-truck sending out an SOS and waiting for someone to come, a person can be there to make sure none of the boxes "walk way"
Sure... some Fedex/UPS stuff "goes missing off the back of the truck" and I'm sure the drivers are somet
Re: (Score:2)
Also they need a human to take it to the door and ring the bell. How am I going to know the truck is outside?
Re:So long truckers (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Also they need a human to take it to the door and ring the bell. How am I going to know the truck is outside?
It sends you a text message and tells you that the truck will be there in 5 minutes and if you don't go out and pick up your package, then you can drive across town to wait in line at the UPS service center.
mail men have a lot walking to do (Score:2)
UPS / Fedex as well.
Hell we still have bike messengers.
Traffic cops can move to working real crime.
Re: (Score:2)
You have a point, but the people doing the job you're describing are more a cross between longshoremen and mechanics than truckers. (Yeah, I know they're mainly far from the water, but the job description doesn't really include ships, it include handling cargo.)
OTOH, consider all the automated warehouses that are going in. There will be lots of places where even these neo-truckers aren't needed.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are paying 200-600 a month you do not own a car. That is when the bank owns the car and you are buying it in installments.
Re:So long truckers (Score:4, Insightful)
If you are paying 200-600 a month you do not own a car. That is when the bank owns the car and you are buying it in installments.
That depends on your definition of "own". Once you sign the paperwork car is yours to do what you want with it - in general the financing company is not going to look over your shoulder and keep you from modifying it. You can drill a hole in the roof and add an antenna. You can drill a dozen holes in the trunk and add a spoiler. You can add a lift kit or a lowering kit (or both and let them cancel out).
The bank may hold the title until you pay off the car, but the car is still yours for all intents and purposes.
This is much different than a lease where you'll be expected to return the car back to a sellable condition at the end of the lease. (or pay the leasing company to do it).
Re: (Score:2)
Once you add up insurance and gas plus other common maintenance you are easily over $200 a month (a lot of people that's insurance alone). Add in some other standard maintenance and you are easily over $600 (I know I was this month).
Re: (Score:2)
Those folks need to stop drinking and driving. I don't pay $200 a month in insurance for two cars, one with full coverage.
I spend maybe $50 a month on gas, and that much on maintenance would have me soon replacing the car.
Re: (Score:2)
I owned a 1998 Mercury Grand Marquis until last November. In total:
$200/month for gas (7 mile daily commute, 50 mile biweekly visit, 50 mile weekend adventure, 18 mpg)
$120/month for maintenance
$50/month for insurance
$10/month for tolls
---
$380/month in operating expenses
The Grand Marquis broke ($5000 in repairs needed). I now own a 2008 Toyota Yaris. In total:
$100/month in gas (holy crap fuel savings!)
$18/month in maintenance (obviously not sustainable, oil changes only)
$62/month in insurance
$10/month in
Re: (Score:2)
$100 a month? How far are you driving?
I spend maybe $50, and more likely far less unless I take some long trips.
Re: (Score:2)
Rethink that after informing yourself: http://newsroom.aaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/YourDrivingCosts2013.pdf [aaa.com]
CC.
Re: (Score:2)
Short of depreciation I am not hitting those numbers. Maybe when my car gets older. I spend less than $100 a month on full coverage and maybe $50/month in gas. I only do only changes every 10k miles so that costs me $50 a year since I don't often drive 10k miles in a year. This means tires last me 4-5 years as well.
Re: (Score:2)
It also stands to reason that a large company renting cars would have some economies of scale compared to individual owners, for example if a large part of the users "booked" "their" cars in advance, you'd have a lot of data to do optimization on ("we need twenty more cars in city XY for Friday, or we won't be able to service the schedule, let's send some there from neighboring cities W, Y, and Z"). They wouldn't have to keep or maintain more cars than they actually need. And what about parking places? Fewe
Re: (Score:2)
Also 'owning' a car becomes less interesting for many.
Instead of a payment of 200-600 a month for a car you can a nice ride for 20-30 bucks a month and it shows up right when you need it.
Ha-ha-ha. Good one.
Oh, you really believe that?
You believe the taxi industry that currently charges $20-30 a ride is going to suddenly start offering you unlimited transport for $20-30 a month?
Ha-ha-ha.
Seriously, 'automated cars' are just taxis you can own. That's it. If taxis were going to change the world, they already would have.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, 'automated cars' are just taxis you can own. That's it. If taxis were going to change the world, they already would have.
Taxi's without the taxi driver, which costs money.
Re: (Score:2)
Computers and complex machinery are cheap? Good to know.
Re: (Score:3)
An employed blue collar joe is easier to deal with than a chronically unemployed blue collar joe without any real hope for a decent job.
You really pull the rug out of the middle class in this country and you find out that the veneer of civilization is thin, indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, here's a clue for you: without truck drivers, you wouldn't have a home or anything in it. No furniture, no computer, no TV, no nothing - not even the lumber needed to build the frame of the building you live in, let alone the sheet rock, roofing materials, concrete foundation, etc. Regardless of how much of it you brought home in your own car or how much of it went partly by train or plane or boat, it takes trucks, large and small, to move those things from their manufacturers to the stores you buy
Imagine! (Score:2, Troll)
Pooled Self-Balancing Electric Rickshaws (Score:2)
For in-town transportation to and from large scale public transit.
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/06/gm-conjures-up-a-people-moving-pod/
A great deal of mass is devoted to driver safety (Score:4, Insightful)
But that defense is necessary because of the bad decisions of the driver and the other drivers. If all the vehicles were automated and under guidance, then we might be able to substantially reduce the cost and fuel requirements of vehicles.
If people are not driving, then the urge to stamp on the accelerator and/or the break is not there either. You get in, set your destination, and when you get there you get there. I have not read any analysis, but I think a lot of money could be saved. Also, maybe the car would need less windows? Enabling better a/c efficiency.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A great deal of mass is devoted to driver safet (Score:4, Interesting)
Whenever this topic comes up in conversation, I often point out the "you get there when you get there" notion. When you're able to just play on your iPad the whole time, it becomes your personal subway car... with one big difference:
The dudes in the video seem to think (erroneously, IMHO) that we'll just stop owning cars because we can just hail one like a cab. But a self-driving short-term rental car *is* a cab. It *might* be cheaper, and it'll annoy me less than the stupid driver (at least until marketers pay to put TV's in them and play commercials for the whole ride). But here's the thing: the reason I don't take cabs/busses/subways/etc is because I can't leave my shit in them. The car that I own currently contains my flight bag, gym bag, my guitar, my iPod is plugged into the car-stereo with all of my favorite tunes (which, though digital, is still "some of my shit" that I always want to be there).
It's a little like George Carlin's "a place for your stuff" bit. The reason I like living in a house instead of going from hotel to hotel is because I don't want to gather up all of my stuff and bring it along with me to my next destination. And the same goes for transportation. I don't want to have to completely "vacate" the conveyance every time I want to get out and do something. So, for me, the allure of autonomous cars is that we'll finally have "personal subway cars", in the sense that they're reserved for us. We don't have to take all of our stuff out of them to make ready for the next random person.
Also (dunno if the video mentioned this), there could be a drop off in parking spaces. At first, I figured that we'd never have to try to find parking spots, since the car can drop us off in front of the door to the store, and then it would go park itself. But then I realized... heck, it doesn't even need to *park*. It could just go drive around for a while. In places with parking meters, this could be cheaper than actually paying for parking.
people have to buy these first (Score:2)
i drive a little almost every day and there are two types of drivers i hate
the asswipes who speed dangerously, run red lights and take risks to save a few seconds here and there. unless autonomous cars are required i don't see people like this buying these.
the cautious pricks. the idiots who stop when there is no stop sign just to be extra careful and let everyone on the road go in front of them holding up traffic. these people might buy these cars
if the cautious pricks buy these, they will be easy to go ar
Re: (Score:2)
As George Carlin once said, everyone driving faster than you is a maniac, and everyone driving slower is an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
driving in some heavy NYC traffic
Well, there's your problem right there: Why drive in New York City when the tubes can probably get you there more safely and easily?
Time to Invest in a Bar (Score:5, Funny)
My car will work for me (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Ask again when your car comes back after dropping off a bunch of shit-faced frat pledges after a night of debauchery.
The problem with idealism is that is ignores reality.
Re:My car will work for me (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The issue there is, who cleans your car when some drunk going home from a weekend bender pukes in it?
Re: (Score:2)
I guess that would be me
The larger issue is that people who do own cars and don't mind cleaning vomit will be doing this (if it is legal) and this will decrease the need for people to own cars. Rush hour will always be a problem, but at other times, every town will have a lot of potential taxis.
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck getting him to pay.
He just won't. At least vomit you can clean out. When he decides to remove the seats or do other damage you will really be SOL.
Efficiency of Production (Score:2)
Someone on this board pointed out that once we have autonomous cars, you can have them do errands for you. His example was grocery shopping. Do your shopping online a'la Amazon, then send the car to pick up the groceries once a week.
The implications weren't obvious at first, but consider: there's no need for a supermarket close to a population center where real estate is expensive (ie - it can be in the warehouse district), there's no need for public access (aisles, displays of product, open freezers), no n
Re: (Score:3)
The implications weren't obvious at first, but consider: there's no need for a supermarket close to a population center where real estate is expensive (ie - it can be in the warehouse district), there's no need for public access (aisles, displays of product, open freezers), no need for cashiers. The entire process can be made into a Kiva [triplepundit.com] order fulfillment system.
Not likely. Dry goods (i.e. the stuff Amazon sells) is one thing, but food is entirely different. Most people like to see, smell, feel, and, when possible, taste the food they buy. Why do you think that Internet based groceries services have failed?
Re: (Score:2)
The implications weren't obvious at first, but consider: there's no need for a supermarket close to a population center where real estate is expensive (ie - it can be in the warehouse district), there's no need for public access (aisles, displays of product, open freezers), no need for cashiers. The entire process can be made into a Kiva [triplepundit.com] order fulfillment system.
Not likely. Dry goods (i.e. the stuff Amazon sells) is one thing, but food is entirely different. Most people like to see, smell, feel, and, when possible, taste the food they buy. Why do you think that Internet based groceries services have failed?
Amazon is getting into the grocery delivery business:
http://fresh.amazon.com/ [amazon.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Autonomous vehicles and the housing market (Score:5, Interesting)
One aspect of autonomous vehicles that few people seem to consider is its potential effect on the housing market.
Consider the size of the RV market, and the number of people who prefer the RV lifestyle after they retire. Now consider the fact that one of the more annoying aspects of owning an RV is that you have to drive it everywhere yourself.
Now imagine twenty years from now when you'll be able to buy an autonomous RV. You go to sleep in it, and in the middle of the night it takes you to whatever destination you desire. In the morning, you open the door and you're in a new city. What you really own is not an RV, but a magic house that can take you anywhere you desire, a few hundred miles every night.
With that kind of freedom, how many people would choose to become high-tech nomads, and never live on fixed piece of property again? In fact, I think this will be a major profit center for automakers. Most people won't bother owning cars when they can call for one on a smartphone, but $100K to $200K super-RVs will become the home of choice and the way for GM and Ford to stay in business.
Re: (Score:2)
One aspect of autonomous vehicles that few people seem to consider is its potential effect on the housing market.
Consider the size of the RV market, and the number of people who prefer the RV lifestyle after they retire. Now consider the fact that one of the more annoying aspects of owning an RV is that you have to drive it everywhere yourself.
Now imagine twenty years from now when you'll be able to buy an autonomous RV. You go to sleep in it, and in the middle of the night it takes you to whatever destination you desire. In the morning, you open the door and you're in a new city. What you really own is not an RV, but a magic house that can take you anywhere you desire, a few hundred miles every night.
With that kind of freedom, how many people would choose to become high-tech nomads, and never live on fixed piece of property again? In fact, I think this will be a major profit center for automakers. Most people won't bother owning cars when they can call for one on a smartphone, but $100K to $200K super-RVs will become the home of choice and the way for GM and Ford to stay in business.
I thought it was the cost of fuel, car payments, maintenance, etc that kept people away from the RV lifestyle? Traveling 1000 miles/month means nearly $400/month in a 12mpg RV. Plus a $125K RV financed for 10 years is going to cost you around $1400/month in car payments. And then there's all the fees for camping. And maintaining a heavily used liveaboard motorhome is not cheap. So why spend $2500/month in a home-on-wheels when you could have a nice house (with much more room) for less?
And of course, not ev
Re: (Score:3)
Also, I want to go to Yellowstone on vacation and I have to rent a space in advance instead of a hotel.
There will be an API for that.
Re: (Score:3)
One aspect of autonomous vehicles that few people seem to consider is its potential effect on the housing market.
Another aspect of that will be the way people can move further out. 2 hours commute to work? Not really a problem.
6AM - roll out of house bed into the car bed. No point in a distinction for bachelors. Car starts going.
7AM - wake up to coffee made. Take a shower (cruise-ship-sized), get dressed.
7:30AM - breakfast is ready (made by the AI). Eat, check messages, read the news.
8AM - car arrives at work.
5PM - hop back in car. Finish up work, take a nap, watch a movie, screw around on Slashdot, etc.
7PM - arrive home. Spend some time with the family, etc.
Weekly - replenish supplies in vehicle. The water and septic will be automatic, but refrigerated items will either be manual or by the butler droid.
Let's hope we're on clean strong-force energy by then.
You can already do most of the above on a heavy-rail train or ferry (other than shower). And with a lot less energy cost than everyone carrying around their living quarters while they drive to work and then sending their car out to the suburbs to find parking. And even though trains are expensive, they are less expensive than adding enough road capacity to handle commuters in single occupancy vehicles.
While some people may be fine with a 2 hour commute (2 hours is not uncommon today), many don't want to ad
very good section in Jaron Lanier's new book (Score:2)
autonomous cars vs ownership (Score:2)
Seems like these two are fixated on an idea that the robot car will cause some compulsory communal vehicle to be needed... an agenda that would have nothing to do with cars being driven by computers.
I'll purchase or lease my own, TYVM.
Social Chaos (Score:2)
Professional drivers are about to vanish as are workers in the building trades. I have ranted before that nobody is addressing the cure for the coming displacement of workers.
There are effects that will transpire that are far reaching. Imagine a city suffering loss of traffic ticket revenue completely. Robotic vehicles will not get tickets. Since police spend at least one third of their time writing traffic tickets we w
autonomous = trip logs? (Score:2)
and who has access to those? Hmmm?
Autonomous? Vulnerable! (Score:2)
Thanks to the internets, we have a good idea how many jerks there are in society (looking at youtube, it seems to be about 60%).
Autonomous vehicles will have to be super-dooper cautious to avoid innocent people getting injured and suing the bejesus out of the owner/operator, and this will result in them being mercilessly trolled by people jaywalking in front of them/creating cardboard roadblocks/dazzling their sensors etc. I can envisage bored people ordering pizza so they can watch the pizza delivery vanbo
"Could" is the word... (Score:2)
Telecommuting should have decimated* traffic already. Unfortunately it hasn't. I'm enthusiastic for the opportunities of automated cars (not so much for what that implies for motorcycling) but I'm concerned that it will have a lot of unnecessary obstacles.
*Yes, we all know the origin of "decimated".
Re: (Score:2)
All the new technology is coming with DMRM - digital meatspace rights management, built right in. It's not just microsoft vs the GPL anymore. Software is the key to the seller/authorities retaining control over the computer controlled devices you 'buy.'
Self reliance is dying a slow death as the population embraces consumer hostile 'convenience.'
Re:grand father laws? (Score:4, Insightful)
You can still ride a horse, just don't expect to be able to ride it down the middle of the freeway. Generation one automated cars will be safer than human drivers, by the end of that generation having automated driving will get you an insurance discount. Gen 2 will have cars that have accidents only in extreme nearly unavoidable circumstances, driving your car on manual will require special insurance that will cost significantly more than the standard. Gen 3 will move toward doing away with road laws as we understand them. The rules will be created ad-hoc in real time based on information provided by the road and the cars themselves. The flexibility this affords will make traffic jams virtually unheard of and significantly improve fuel efficiency and travel time, but driving a car on manual in that world would be borderline suicidal. At that point, the old timers who insist will have to take their classic cars to the race track or equivalent.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the changes will be faster than you suppose. States already have laws saying that driving is a priviledge, not a right. And the insurance companies will be pushing for any change that reduces their expenses (while continuing to require that you purchase increasingly worthless insurance).
Re: (Score:2)
Driving has always been a privilege, never a right.
Re: (Score:3)
Here is what will happen:
Someone will get into an accident driving their own car. They will be sued for negligence because it was an accident that an autonomous vehicle would have prevented. As a result, insurance rates for human drivers goes through the roof. Everyone switches to autonomous vehicles within the year.
Re: (Score:2)
How about you go to the track?
The public roads do not exist for you to joyride on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
safety. I just don't buy that the computers in these things are as situationally aware as a human driver. we can't even get trains to run fully autonomously yet.
I think you overestimate how situationally aware the average driver is. I have no doubts that in 10 years systems will be in place that, if everyone had autonomous cars, would save thousands of lives a year.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I just don't buy that the computers in these things are as situationally aware as a human driver.
I want proof... but that won't be that hard to provide. Google's car already has a better-than-average driving record. That's not enough data points for me, but with sufficient testing, I'd be more than happy to let the computer drive. I can only see in one direction. I blink. I look at hot chicks. I sneeze. I get tired. There is no reason a computer can't be better than me-- it has a better sensorium, faster reaction, and higher uptime than I ever will. It can actuate more controls than I can-- in
Re: (Score:2)
I understand, but with the loss of the ability of the average citizen to own most of what he sinks his money into, his life becomes more and more like a treadmill because of the loss of control. Being subject to the whims of the 'remote car' industry for the commute every morning would be yet another example. It's bad enough that employers already blame employees for the vagaries of traffic patterns. (why are you 10 minutes late? well, leave earlier next time!) Now that he has no control over speed, dire
Re: (Score:2)
Well the autonomous train problem is a lot simpler, and it still hasn't been done successfully. Lets fix this one first. ..and you can bet it'll have a kill switch and audio/video monitoring...and since it's not your car, you can't disable it.
Re: (Score:2)
Well the autonomous train problem is a lot simpler, and it still hasn't been done successfully. Lets fix this one first. ..and you can bet it'll have a kill switch and audio/video monitoring...and since it's not your car, you can't disable it.
Many airports I've been to have autonomous trains.
Re:No thanks. NSA (Score:2)
I can hear it now.
"Its only meta data. We got all the logs who went where and for how long but nothing about what they did there so its okay."
"Ah well we only track the movements of non-citizens, but you figure there is 51% chance a non-citizen is aboard if the vehicle has ever been within 90 miles of an airport"
Re: (Score:2)
1. crowded downtown urban areas should just ban cars altogether. automated cars aren't going to make things any better if it's always a gridlock.
2. most of the ancillary costs of car ownership are artificially imposed as it is. we should work on fixing this instead of atrophying the ability for the average citizen to own a car (or anything else really).
People are too stupid to have the freedom of their own cars.
People like you are too stupid to have freedom. Please go move to china or something. This 'save me from reality' culture is toxic to liberty.
Re: (Score:2)
It's no surprise to anyone that people like you exist, but please, do not act as if you are the norm, and everyone else is 'stupid', has no 'money sense', or tries 'to prove that they are higher on the simian food chain'. I enjoy video games, programming and driving, and I enjoy them in pretty much the same fashion. I used to enjoy martial arts, but now that I am pushing 50, the risks outweigh the reward. I know that one day my reflexes will erode to the point where driving will not give me the satisfact
Re:Honest Question: (Score:5, Insightful)
Hitting a pedestrian is pretty easy to detect at any speed. Why would it continue driving?
This is not a corner case this is something that is known from the beginning and planned for.
Humans do not logically deal with unexpected events. Note all the old geezers driving into buildings or people pulling into oncoming traffic to avoid rear ending the car in front of them instead of pulling onto the shoulder. Humans in general are terrible at logical reactions to unexpected conditions.
Re: (Score:2)
Humans do not logically deal with unexpected events. Note all the old geezers driving into buildings or people pulling into oncoming traffic to avoid rear ending the car in front of them instead of pulling onto the shoulder. Humans in general are terrible at logical reactions to unexpected conditions.
I did put "to a greater or lesser degree", but sure, you got me there. However, I'm not sure why you'd think it's so easy to determine if a pedestrian has been hit in all possible cases. Sure, there's the easy case of you running straight into them, but what about the case where a kid runs out and hits the side of the car? I guess there must be wide-angle cameras aiming out the side of the car (for lane changes), but how are they going to judge collisions vs near misses? Are there microphones to detect
Re: (Score:2)
Load sensors all over the bodywork can handle this. I expect what to do afterwords can be sorted out by a human remotely in some call center in a third world country.
I think at first they will be freeway only. Which will limit my desire for one, since my desire for one is going to be related to being able to drink while out and about.
Re: (Score:2)
Bumps in the road are not normally above bumper height.
Re: (Score:2)
rare corner-cases
I don't think "stop if there is something in front of the car" is a rare corner case.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm.
How exactly would you design a autonomous vehicle that can not see what comes into contact with it?
I ask how You would do it because I do not know anyone else that would.
Re: (Score:2)