ot: THE FUTURE OF CARS SCARY AT LEAST FOR ME

[alancw3]

so i originally responded to socal steve with my reply but the more i thought about it way to important to be buried in that thread. anyway i thought important enough to share this thinking. not sure i agree with it but draw your own conclusions. i find it interesting and frightening all at the same time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xg03UUYKG1s&feature=youtu.be

[Jad]

Thanks for sharing.

Yes, parts of the prospect of auto driven cars are horrifying; faith in driverless technology at high speed and close proximity (whereby auto cars would use highway space more efficiently) seems scary, to say nothing of our descent into a dark Jetson's future. But I'm open to the idea that Lidar may well be able to help the problem of human distraction and operator error.

I am also open to the possibility that if auto driven cars can reshape the notion of car ownership, perhaps more effective space (politically and on the road) can be made for bikes. Perhaps the greater Uberification of car use could make cycling in densely populated areas even more viable. I'm suspicious though that the speaker raised the issue without acknowledging alternatives to cars. Perhaps he does in other work?

Reshaping how important car ownership is, I think, a much more complicated disruption than the speaker admits to. Ownership has so much to do with independence that separating the two is very hard to do.

[notsew]

Autonomous don't look at their phone while they are driving.

I'll feel way safer when computers are driving all the cars. I don't know how one can't if its viewed statistically and not anecdotally.

I agree with this guy, this shift away with car ownership is going to happen. I know so many millennials who haven't even bothered to get a license.

[Rueda Tropical]

Autonomous don't look at their phone while they are driving.

I'll feel way safer when computers are driving all the cars. I don't know how one can't if its viewed statistically and not anecdotally.

I agree with this guy, this shift away with car ownership is going to happen. I know so many millennials who haven't even bothered to get a license.

+1

Artificial Intelligence doesn't scare me. Human stupidity does.

Autonomous driving algo's don't get drunk, don't text while driving, don't get distracted, don't drive recklessly and don't think buzzing a cyclist with your vehicle is a funny thing to do.

[thermalattorney]

I'll feel way safer when computers are driving all the cars. I don't know how one can't if its viewed statistically and not anecdotally.

+1 We humans are TERRIBLE drivers. I am, you are, all god's children are terrible drivers. Computers will still kill people, but I fail to see how it could be worse than how we've been doing things for the last century.

The two big concerns I have are:

1) The legal responsibilities will shift from the user to the product manufacturer. This could make for even better tech and safer cars, or it could force mfgs to abandon further development outside of specific uses (trucking, for example).

2) The equilibrium point for traffic density is gridlock. Autonomous cars will allow for greater density (3.7x is the figure quoted in the video), but that will eventually mean 3.7x greater number of vehicles on the road. It's like the opening of a new highway. After the honeymoon period is over, the benefits will be entirely negated by increased density.

[dustyrider]

I'll watch the video later, but I can't imagine autonomous cars being safe until they're all autonomous.

Who is going to give up their classic car? or stop riding their bicycle, walking to work. I just can't imagine computers being able to account for all the variables human actions create/cause...

I know I will keep the '79 F150 I just picked up for many, many, many years to come...

[David Tollefson]

My fear is the end-game of the autonomous car -- when it becomes ILLEGAL for a person to drive a vehicle on public roads. Bikes will be lumped into that category.

[Mr. Pink]

Obviously, none of you guys drive for a living.

You know, all of this stuff isn't being developed out of concerns for safety, although, that's the spin. The billions of dollars in R&D is being spent to, basically, eliminate a major labor expense in our society. What, do you think Tesla and Apple and Mercedes Benz and Ford and Volvo and Uber are racing to the finish line of monopolization from a benevelant attitude towards the rest of us? Then why aren't they sharing costs with the major insurance companies?

When the automobile was introduced, a marketing and political spin behind it was that it was a pollution solution. Seriously. There was so much horse manure in the cities, and noise from all those horse drawn stuff (it was really really noisy. Think about it) that the auto was going to cure that, and, it did. But, you know, be careful what you hope for.

[notsew]

Obviously, none of you guys drive for a living.

You know, all of this stuff isn't being developed out of concerns for safety, although, that's the spin. The billions of dollars in R&D is being spent to, basically, eliminate a major labor expense in our society. What, do you think Tesla and Apple and Mercedes Benz and Ford and Volvo and Uber are racing to the finish line of monopolization from a benevelant attitude towards the rest of us? Then why aren't they sharing costs with the major insurance companies?

When the automobile was introduced, a marketing and political spin behind it was that it was a pollution solution. Seriously. There was so much horse manure in the cities, and noise from all those horse drawn stuff (it was really really noisy. Think about it) that the auto was going to cure that, and, it did. But, you know, be careful what you hope for.

I think there are a number of factors driving this, and absolutely getting rid of an expense in the shipping of materials and humans is a huge part of it. But at the very least, safer roads will be an externality.

Its amazingly hard to see what unintended consequences any shift in technology will bring (or any change, in general, for that matter). I hadn't even considered that parking will be a thing of the past, as the guy in the video argues. That's an amazing opportunity.

The economic implications of getting rid of all those transportation jobs will undoubtedly be significant, but we also can't see what it might improve. Maybe it boosts on shore manufacturing because offshore transportation will be more expensive.

At the end of the day, it seems like it solves more problems than it creates.

[seric]

Obviously, none of you guys drive for a living.


When I was in high school, I stole and resold long distance phone calls to the local migrant workers at a highly discounted rates at some payphones located near my school. I'm not now disappointed that global communications have improved to the point that the job I gave myself in high school is no longer a viable form of income. Viable careers change over time. I also don't believe we should continue with coal power just to save jobs in West Virginia.

[ripvanrando]

I hate the crap overriding and controlling my vehicle.

I have nearly been rear ended three times when the nervous nelly Algo took over.

[Mr. Pink]

When I was in high school, I stole and resold long distance phone calls to the local migrant workers at a highly discounted rates at some payphones located near my school. I'm not now disappointed that global communications have improved to the point that the job I gave myself in high school is no longer a viable form of income. Viable careers change over time. I also don't believe we should continue with coal power just to save jobs in West Virginia.

Obviously, you don't drive for a living.

Or are employed in any shape or form by the massive auto and truck delivery industry (and buses, too), or make a living like millions do servicing that industry. Poof. All gone. Truck driving is the last fairly comfortable middle class existence a high school or not even a high school grad can live in. Bye bye. Ever spent time in upstate NY, and I'm not talking farm country? Add millions to that desperate, discarded segment of our society. That old, don't worry, something always comes along to replace those jobs, just doesn't fly anymore. Talk to the people of Syracuse and Schenectady about that one. They're still waiting, the ones who hung around after the carnage. Furgetabout Buffalo and Detroit.
I agree, you can't stop progress, but, your coal miners can just sorta suck it up is the reason we have a maniac who could be president. Just sayin'.

[oldpotatoe]

Obviously, you don't drive for a living.

Or are employed in any shape or form by the massive auto and truck delivery industry (and buses, too), or make a living like millions do servicing that industry. Poof. All gone. Truck driving is the last fairly comfortable middle class existence a high school or not even a high school grad can live in. Bye bye. Ever spent time in upstate NY, and I'm not talking farm country? Add millions to that desperate, discarded segment of our society. That old, don't worry, something always comes along to replace those jobs, just doesn't fly anymore. Talk to the people of Syracuse and Schenectady about that one. They're still waiting, the ones who hung around after the carnage. Furgetabout Buffalo and Detroit.
I agree, you can't stop progress, but, your coal miners can just sorta suck it up is the reason we have a maniac who could be president. Just sayin'.

"The industry’s woes are directly related to a drop in demand for its product. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), during the five-month period from November 2013 to March 2014, six states—Michigan, Massachusetts, Kentucky, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina—retired 5.4 gigawatts of coal capacity, enough to power over 3.5 million homes."

And one of those 'maniacs' is fullspeedahead on fracking, which produces natural gas, which further reduces the demand for coal, regardless of the hyperbole and BS spewed on the campaign trail. just sayin'

Too bad this has entered the political arena..

[martl]

2) The equilibrium point for traffic density is gridlock. Autonomous cars will allow for greater density (3.7x is the figure quoted in the video), but that will eventually mean 3.7x greater number of vehicles on the road. It's like the opening of a new highway. After the honeymoon period is over, the benefits will be entirely negated by increased density.

Autonomous cars can and ill have the ability to look themselves for a place to park. So in urban areas, one could hop out of the car right in front of whatever the target of the ride was, and the car will just bugger off to find a place or even just do circles around the block until it is needed again.
Absolutely hazardous for urban areas, pedestrians, and cyclists, and just the opposite of the direction current modern cities try to go, creating more "room for people".

[verticaldoug]

Friday in the NYTimes, the Dalai Lama had an editorial about our anxiety and the fear of being unneeded.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/opinion/dalai-lama-behind-our-anxiety-the-fear-of-being-unneeded.html?_r=0

The real question is what do we do with all the unneeded people? We won't need drivers, soldiers, manufacturers, programmers.....

I think this is the big picture not with the application of the tech.

[1happygirl]

A lot of the people slightly younger than me and younger who have iPhones and computers etc but no large sums of cash, DO NOT CARE if they get off the couch and drive. A lot of teenagers choose to not obtain their driver's license. The auto industry I've read, is scared.

The access their friends 24 hrs a day without having to drive to meet them. Driving I guess (and riding bikes) USED to be a right of passage?

Sell cars you have while you can (or at least the ones requiring a driver)

PS I don't have kids (SO THIS AUTOMATICALLY MAKES ME AN EXPERT ON KIDS *LOL*), but I guess if I did, I would be happy they didn't drive. SAFER?
PPS Isn't the driving age in Europe higher and more stringent tests than the US so kids develop judgement before being the wheel

[rain dogs]

The future of the automobile? Bleak, no matter who/what is driving.

Math sucks and all, but fixed growth of ~3% cars to our roads was our most recent reality. If that doesn't plunge aggresively toward zero we can do the math on what that means for our future.

Today: What do we have? Gridlock with 2, 3 ... heck, up to 8 lanes of traffic.

Steady growth at 3% means a doubling time of 23.33 years. (70/3)
And in a normal adult lifetime (70 years)? 8 times the volume in 70 years.

(70 - doubling time and the exponential function)

So, if we have double in 23.3 years, and 8 times the volume in 70 years. All the gridlocked roads that are 2,3,6 or 8 lanes become 4,6,12, or 16 in 23.3 yrs.

In 70 yrs? 16, 24, 48, or 64 lanes..... on direction. Impossible you say? That's the math (not politics, not bias, that's math.)

So, for that not to occur.... we must have less than 3% growth. Ideally 0% or negative growth. That means no future for the single driver, personal, private car. Tough to hear I know, but unless we want gridlock in 16 lanes of one-way traffic...... the automobile industry knows this. One solution is autonomous cars to cram more in a finite space...... short-term solution.

ride you bicycles. take the train. rethink how we move. Cause the path we're on sounds rather dirty, frustrating and depressing.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef016767bc5003970b-pi

[1happygirl]

The future of the automobile? Bleak, no matter who/what is driving.
snip
Math sucks and all, but fixed growth of ~3% cars to our roads was our most In 70 yrs? 16, 24, 48, or 64 lanes..... on direction. Impossible you say? That's the math (not politics, not bias, that's math.)
snip

ride you bicycles. take the train. rethink how we move. Cause the path we're on sounds rather dirty, frustrating and depressing.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef016767bc5003970b-pi

Ugghhh
I've said before I would rather not drive, but most of my friends I know that live in larger cities even CAN'T get by without a car due to lack of public transportation infrastructure. THAT SUX

[notsew]

The guy in the video is arguing we're not going to all own cars. We will all just rely on autonomous ubers. You don't need to worry about it parking because it's not going to park, it's going to pick up the next person. There will be higher utilization of vehicles, so less will be needed.

[Tickdoc]

I gotta say the new nannies are not all that bad, at least the way Volvo is doing it. I like the way my wife's xc90 blends new technology when you want it but it hides in the background when you don't.

Around town, it is just a capable SUV with a plush ride, plenty of oomph, and decent fuel economy.

Take it on a road trip, though, engage that automatic cruise control, and voila you have a very capable highway semi-autonomous car. It's not like you could crawl in the backseat and fix yourself a drink autonomous, but it works well enough that you can set the cruise and forget it.

We take a trip to okc every once in a while that is 100 miles away on a two lane turnpike. I'm amazed at how easy it is to set the cruise on 80, and then I don't touch the brake or gas for the whole trip. You still have to keep your hands on the wheel, and you are still engaged with steering ( even though it nudges you if you drift) and passing, but it is very intuitive and easy to use. Add in a kick ass stereo and it makes for a pleasant drive.

The first trip we took, like on day one of ownership was very weird. A totally. Ew sensation to have so many aspects of the car out of your control, but now I am used to it. I know it's limitations and trust it fully.

I'm fortunate to live in a place without heavy traffic, but if I ever do get caught, there is a nice crawl mechanism that works the same way and creeps you along automatically.

It is enough of a help to make he trip easier on you, the driver, but not so autonomous that you are turning the car over to " the car" to run the show.

I'm not interested in anything fully self driving, but I like to drive, and this is just making the less fun aspects of driving better and safer, imo.

[Dead Man]

As an alcoholic, I'm super stoked for self driving cars

And, I should add, despite the fact that I'm a business owner in a potential disruption market.

[elcolombiano]

This is not going to work. We have had mass transportation in Los Angeles for years but hardly anyone is willing to even try it out. Hardly anyone even car polls to work. What makes you think they want to take an Uber? You have a hundred thousand people step out of a stadium. What will the pickup and loading area for the driverless uber look like? The pickup/drop off area will look like a giant parking lot we have now. The parking lots that will be closed down will turn into parks. Wrong. The parking lot owners will sell the properties to whomever gives them the most money and that is not a park. Most parks do not earn revenues that can by taxed by cities. Cities without tax revenue can not survive.

[mistermo]

At one time, elevators were driven by operators. People were initially frightened by the prospect of a 'driverless' elevator. Society will get there too with cars. More and more, airplanes are driverless too.

[rwsaunders]

I second the motion that I'd rather take my chances with a driverless car or truck than have to deal with a drunk driver, texter or triple trailer hauling semi driver.

[Peter P.]

At one time, elevators were driven by operators.

This is still done on construction sites. It's union protection of jobs. What a racket.

[cmg]

it's not just about cars. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kxryv2XrnqM the disruption will be about energy use.

[Mr. Pink]

Autonomous cars can and ill have the ability to look themselves for a place to park. So in urban areas, one could hop out of the car right in front of whatever the target of the ride was, and the car will just bugger off to find a place or even just do circles around the block until it is needed again.
Absolutely hazardous for urban areas, pedestrians, and cyclists, and just the opposite of the direction current modern cities try to go, creating more "room for people".


This is another issue. All of this profitable technology is being used to actually increase the amount of individual automobiles in and outside of cities. A common complaint I hear from New Yorkers is that Uber, and before that, short term rental services that were a precursor to "ride sharing" have just increased traffic and the problems from all that. We should be using all of that genius to move people in much more efficient and cleaner methods, but, where's the profit in that?

[HenryA]

This is not going to work. We have had mass transportation in Los Angeles for years but hardly anyone is willing to even try it out. Hardly anyone even car polls to work. What makes you think they want to take an Uber? You have a hundred thousand people step out of a stadium. What will the pickup and loading area for the driverless uber look like? The pickup/drop off area will look like a giant parking lot we have now. The parking lots that will be closed down will turn into parks. Wrong. The parking lot owners will sell the properties to whomever gives them the most money and that is not a park. Most parks do not earn revenues that can by taxed by cities. Cities without tax revenue can not survive.

Its not gonna work.

It might work on a closed highway with captive cars and trucks. (but wouldn't a robo-train or subway be smarter?) Out away from all the urban "wonderfulness" there are too many potential variables to contend with.

The "revolutionary idea" of driverless cars is simply an attempt at capture of a part of the huge market for transportation. First in the game wins. And its not for your benefit, though they'll tell you it is.

[Mr. Pink]

This is not going to work. We have had mass transportation in Los Angeles for years but hardly anyone is willing to even try it out. Hardly anyone even car polls to work. What makes you think they want to take an Uber? You have a hundred thousand people step out of a stadium. What will the pickup and loading area for the driverless uber look like? The pickup/drop off area will look like a giant parking lot we have now. The parking lots that will be closed down will turn into parks. Wrong. The parking lot owners will sell the properties to whomever gives them the most money and that is not a park. Most parks do not earn revenues that can by taxed by cities. Cities without tax revenue can not survive.

You should check out a game at Yankee stadium someday. Or, hey, Wrigley. Amazing how thousands of fans are moved daily without the apocalypse descending upon the world.

[elcolombiano]

You should check out a game at Yankee stadium someday. Or, hey, Wrigley. Amazing how thousands of fans are moved daily without the apocalypse descending upon the world.

Yes all the fans go into subways and busses that hold hundred or more persons each. Imagine what 25 thousand uber cars looks like. How do you even find your Uber?

[smontanaro]

I'll feel way safer when computers are driving all the cars.

Ditto...

Watching that video on the parking-to-parks image, I mentally replaced the slide with a real wide bike lane. :)

[RoadWhale]

I tend to agree that the change will be inevitable. However, the impact of the transition to a driver less car society will impact many more industries than transportation.
Assuming an exponential decrease in traffic violations as well as motor vehicle accidents, income from fines will diminish. States, counties and local governments all rely on a percentage of revenue from traffic/highway violation fines. That income will need to be somehow replaced. Perhaps by a per ride tax. Will Uber and their type be required to obey all traffic laws? Probably so. So throw out all the traffic courts and the income derived from those fines as well.
If we all use Uber, then is there no need for Car Insurance? I don't know how many billions of dollars that segment of the Insurance Industry generates each year. Auto body shops will go through a leaning out as well due to the hopeful assertion by driver less car proponents that accidents will be greatly reduced. All the infrastructure of Medical care geared towards auto accident injuries will be impacted as well.
Just as someone mentioned earlier, there was a time where the car was the revolutionary new form of competition for the horse and buggy. No doubt all the ancillary industries that were in place for the horse and buggy adapted or died as the automobile became preeminent. The world survived and life went on. I feel bad for those who will be directly impacted in a negative way by this change. 20 years ago I would have been one of them.

[GuyGadois]

Earlier this year a lady was killed riding her bike on a road near my house (highway 227). The lady who hit her was 'busy praying' and drifted into the bike lane and she died immediately. I've driven this road a zillion times and many of them with my Tesla steering itself. Not once did it drift into the bike lane. It is extremely accurate keeping in lanes. Don't fear technology. Humans are horrid drivers because we all have ADD to some extent. The technology keeps getting better and will eventually take over on driving and we'll all wonder why the hell we let people drive in the first place.

PS: you really wants scary? Go to a college town and look at the next generation of drivers go past working their phones.

[pasadena]

they are not cars. They are public transit, wrapped into something palatable for the masses. Sold on the promise of effortless convenience and safety.

The problem with that is it's all hype to get everything out there and beta test on the masses, killing people along the way to improved autonomy.

Sure the Tesla drives itself, until it mistakes the side of a white semi truck for the sky and decapitates it's owner at 60 mph, only stopped by hitting something that will stop it from accelerating.

What if that's a school zone?

Mercedes already worked that out. They intentionally sacrifice anyone outside the vehicle because those are unpredictable factors. It only tries to save the occupant and there is no choice, nor judgement.
For example, collision avoidance- rear end a truck at high speed or avoid and hit a bunch of kids? Risk to driver is greater hitting the truck... do the math.

Driver nannies exist because people constantly text and use their phones. They can't out right say that but lane keeping and collision braking are all directly marketed so these morons can keep texting and get used to having these nannies.
Autonomous is the next step. it's all tiered and doled out like a baby sucking a teet.

Of course it's the end for drivers of trucks and that economy will be gone.

The future of cars is pretty bleak... disposable, incredibly toxic with hundreds of pounds of batteries, the manufacturing of these vehicles so enviromentally toxic, it's really disgusting.

Having said that, what can you do as a consumer? There is no real choice. Only the illusion of it.
The improved crash standards help to make the case for new, and I certainly don't hate that.

One reason old car prices have launched into the stratosphere. Simple, easily maintained vehicles that only require gas. have, at most, simple OBD systems and can last for a lifetime.
It's attractive because through all the b.s., real car people see the value in what works.
Hell, with all the computers and "advancements", most can't even get the simple car to work right. They can't even make navigation work as well as an iphone app, and you want to trust autonomy to it?

[unterhausen]

I'll watch the video later, but I can't imagine autonomous cars being safe until they're all autonomous.
it's really just banning cyclists and pedestrians, kids chasing after soccer balls. Hermetically sealed roads. It's well and good to posit a perfect driverless car as the alternative to obviously flawed human drivers. However, that isn't going to happen anytime soon. Tesla's ridiculous over-reach in this area is going to kill it for a long time anyway.

I'm mostly hostile towards autonomous cars because public transit is a much better investment in public funds. Cars are inherently wasteful. I don't see rebuilding our transportation infrastructure in the radical ways that make autonomous cars safe.

[Seramount]

as someone who has ridden extensively in an area where Google cars were tested with no problems and as someone who has recently been hit twice by human drivers in four months, guess which causes me more concern...

the vast majority of people are terrible drivers. no concept of their vehicle's capabilities in terms of acceleration / braking / cornering, no concept of traffic flow, no concept of route planning...and their only accident-avoidance plan is to panic stop.

and don't even start on distracted driving...phone zombies and cars are a lethal combination.