Ship of Fools: Just say no to self driving cars

Thread: Just say no to self driving cars Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030154

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

I say we should not have self driving cars - because they are still cars. Cars create congestion, crowd streets where people could walk. We don't need to find new ways to make cars work, we need to make it possible to not use cars. We need investment, not in roads for cars, but in public transit. We need an end to unpleasant commutes. We need investment in public spaces, like parks, streets where people walk, visit, have a rest and cars are absent. Where travel in out cities and towns is easy and stress free.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

Completely disagree. Self-driving cars will mean a lot fewer cars. I would like to open up the car app on my phone, order up a car to take me somewhere, and have it come around and pick me up and take me there, and then go back into the queue of available cars for others to call up. We won't all need to have cars when they can drive themselves, and we won't need to have acres and acres of paved ground for so many cars to sit on because not only will there be fewer cars, they won't all spend the vast majority of the day just sitting there.

Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :

Absolutely! Self drive cars could make private transport public. They could also free up the roads for pedestrians if they can safely avoid running us down when we cross the road. Smart route planning could avoid traffic jams. They'll be the future. And if they prove to be safer than manual cars (which they will be, by orders of magnitude), the manuals will be banned before too long. Bring it on.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Completely disagree. Self-driving cars will mean a lot fewer cars. I would like to open up the car app on my phone, order up a car to take me somewhere, and have it come around and pick me up and take me there, and then go back into the queue of available cars for others to call up.

Currently, my car is a combination of a means of transport and a cupboard with wheels. It contains a load of stuff I might need from time to time, so that it's available to me as and when I need it. I have no desire to lug that stuff around by hand on the offchance, so your proposal for a fleet of robot taxis wouldn't help me.

There's also, of course, the feature that I don't have to wait for my car, and I know my car will be available when I want it. If you think it's bad getting stuck in traffic, how much worse would it be to be stuck without even a car to sit in?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Completely disagree. Self-driving cars will mean a lot fewer cars. I would like to open up the car app on my phone, order up a car to take me somewhere, and have it come around and pick me up and take me there, and then go back into the queue of available cars for others to call up.

This system already exists. The vehicles are called "taxis". I'm not sure that the human driver is the sticking point that would, with its elimination, cause a lot more people to forego a private vehicle in favor of a public one.

I'm also not optimistic about driverless cars' ability to reduce traffic. The problem there has to do with people's travel schedules being more or less synchronized to using the same peak travel hours. Unless you're radically shifting employment practices, the peak use problem will persist whether cars have drivers or not.

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

quote:
This system already exists. The vehicles are called "taxis".

Or "Uber" or "Lyft" to be more modern.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Self driving cars could make things much better, because they could take the stress out of the driving part. So I could log into work at home, and work on my drive in (and drive home). This could mean that I can arrive and leave at different times.

They could also reduce the blocking actions of some drivers, which should mean that the congestion is improved. If all cars drove within speed limits and slowed in good time,there would be less blocking and the traffic could more more smoothly.

Unfortunately, the technology needs to be much improved. People will always want cars, private transport, and anything that can make them safer and less prone to human error is an improvement. We might disagree with the desire for private transport, but that is an argument that cannot be won. Ways of making private transport safer in all ways should be applauded.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Completely disagree. Self-driving cars will mean a lot fewer cars. I would like to open up the car app on my phone, order up a car to take me somewhere, and have it come around and pick me up and take me there, and then go back into the queue of available cars for others to call up.
Currently, my car is a combination of a means of transport and a cupboard with wheels. It contains a load of stuff I might need from time to time, so that it's available to me as and when I need it. I have no desire to lug that stuff around by hand on the offchance, so your proposal for a fleet of robot taxis wouldn't help me.

There's also, of course, the feature that I don't have to wait for my car, and I know my car will be available when I want it. If you think it's bad getting stuck in traffic, how much worse would it be to be stuck without even a car to sit in?

Wouldn't it be better still to be stuck at home doing your work there? With a bit of imagination and technology many modern jobs don't require attendance at a workplace at all. No travel to work, possibly ten hours a week saved. Not the mention the expense.

Part of those savings could go towards funding decent transport for those who absolutely have to travel to work, often in the service sector for lousy pay.

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

A self-driving taxi would be much cheaper than current taxis, and for long journeys it'd probably be priced more like a car rental (but without the hassle of getting to the car hire depot). It'd be perfect for me.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:

quote:
This system already exists. The vehicles are called "taxis".
Or "Uber" or "Lyft" to be more modern.

There is also Car-2-Go, which sounds a bit more like what Ruth is describing- you log into the app, go to where the nearest car is waiting for you, drive to your destination park it, and walk away. (It's supposed to be a good idea if you are going to a party and know you are having more than one drink- take a car there, take a cab back, no need to figure out how to get your actual car the next morning with a morning head.) You see them here and there, but no, they don't seem to have made a huge difference in the traffic situation.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Completely disagree. Self-driving cars will mean a lot fewer cars. I would like to open up the car app on my phone, order up a car to take me somewhere, and have it come around and pick me up and take me there, and then go back into the queue of available cars for others to call up.
Currently, my car is a combination of a means of transport and a cupboard with wheels. It contains a load of stuff I might need from time to time, so that it's available to me as and when I need it. I have no desire to lug that stuff around by hand on the offchance, so your proposal for a fleet of robot taxis wouldn't help me.

There's also, of course, the feature that I don't have to wait for my car, and I know my car will be available when I want it. If you think it's bad getting stuck in traffic, how much worse would it be to be stuck without even a car to sit in?

I doubt that private ownership of cars (whether they are self-driving or manual) will be mandated at any point in the foreseeable future. So if you wish to own a car you will of course be free to do so. I suspect, though, that you will quickly discover that it is a rather costly means of storage, and might find it far more efficient and cost-effective to invest in rolling luggage or some other system. Even duplicating items (reading glasses, over the counter meds, jackets, etc) at both work and home, installing lockers in the workplace, would be significantly less expensive than owning, insuring and maintaining a private car. That won't work everywhere or for everyone, which is why private ownership won't be outlawed, just diminished over time. Much like horse-and-buggies.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Wouldn't it be better still to be stuck at home doing your work there?

Sometimes, I do, and if I was just going to go to work and sit in my corner and get on with things, I'm often more efficient at home. Anything involving meeting with other humans, and the opposite is true. I have lots of phone meetings, often with people I know well. These meetings are very much more inefficient than in-person meetings. They're not less efficient than spending a day on a plane, followed by an in-person meeting, which is why we have them. For local people, I'd far rather make them all spend half an hour driving to a conference room so we can talk face-to-face.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
So if you wish to own a car you will of course be free to do so. I suspect, though, that you will quickly discover that it is a rather costly means of storage, and might find it far more efficient and cost-effective to invest in rolling luggage or some other system.

You're probably right that should such a system arise, it would do 80% of what my car does, and if it's significantly less money, then I won't be able to justify not choosing the cheap option. It will be worse, though.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

The real benefits of driverless cars in the near future are likely to be on long journeys cross country. It's pretty clear that if you've got to drive London to Inverness or, worse, New York to San Francisco, that there are benefits to not having to pay attention the whole time.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
They could also free up the roads for pedestrians if they can safely avoid running us down when we cross the road.

Unlikely, if they can't tell the difference between sunlight and a tractor-trailer.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
There's also, of course, the feature that I don't have to wait for my car, and I know my car will be available when I want it. If you think it's bad getting stuck in traffic, how much worse would it be to be stuck without even a car to sit in?

I am okay with you wanting to take a car, either as self driving or drive yourself. Myself, I want an app that tells me when the bus is coming, and to bring my bike on the bus and commute without gridlock or stress, and I want you to pay for the privilege of taking a car including for the road construction for it, maybe by a per mile or per km charge to infrastructure. Because if I don't need the road, what should I pay for its construction and your use of it? I also want the bus (or other transit) to have priority, because there are 60 of us versus 1 of you in your self-driven car.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
on long journeys . . . there are benefits to not having to pay attention the whole time.

That's why God created passenger trains.

[ 05. July 2016, 21:55: Message edited by: Amanda B. Reckondwythe ]

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
They could also free up the roads for pedestrians if they can safely avoid running us down when we cross the road.
Unlikely, if they can't tell the difference between sunlight and a tractor-trailer.

The tesla isn't a self-driving car though. It's not meant to be left unattended while the driver watches a film, it's just sophisticated cruise control at this point.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
on long journeys . . . there are benefits to not having to pay attention the whole time.
That's why God created passenger trains.

And if you've ever travelled by train from London to Inverness you'll know that Satan is responsible for setting fares.

Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
They could also free up the roads for pedestrians if they can safely avoid running us down when we cross the road.
Unlikely, if they can't tell the difference between sunlight and a tractor-trailer.

Early days. And the first fatality in millions of kilometres. Do you know how many fatalities manual cars have had in the mean time? (I don't, actually. I'm just assuming it would be a high number.)

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
They could also free up the roads for pedestrians if they can safely avoid running us down when we cross the road.
Unlikely, if they can't tell the difference between sunlight and a tractor-trailer.
Early days. And the first fatality in millions of kilometres. Do you know how many fatalities manual cars have had in the mean time? (I don't, actually. I'm just assuming it would be a high number.)

I think the figure I saw was something like 1 death per 100 million miles on US roads vs 130 million for the Tesla with the cruise control activated. Obviously the statistical significance of the latter figure is highly questionable.

Posted by Curious Kitten (# 11953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
on long journeys . . . there are benefits to not having to pay attention the whole time.
That's why God created passenger trains.
And if you've ever travelled by train from London to Inverness you'll know that Satan is responsible for setting fares.

And the journey times.

Why does it take me the same amount of time to get to Inverness as my mum? I live 150 miles nearer.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I don't mind the journey times if I can take the sleeper.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Wouldn't it be better still to be stuck at home doing your work there? With a bit of imagination and technology many modern jobs don't require attendance at a workplace at all. No travel to work, possibly ten hours a week saved. Not the mention the expense.

I tend to agree - insisting that everyone move around at the same time has multiple effects of which congestion is merely one symptom, it should be seen as the madness for which it is.

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
Absolutely! Self drive cars could make private transport public.

At which point cars will start to have most of the same problems that buses and trains do. Grease, grime, graffiti, litter, and lingering B.O. Granted, you would not have to put up with other people's crotches uncomfortably near your face, and things like that...

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Wouldn't it be better still to be stuck at home doing your work there? With a bit of imagination and technology many modern jobs don't require attendance at a workplace at all. No travel to work, possibly ten hours a week saved. Not the mention the expense.
I tend to agree - insisting that everyone move around at the same time has multiple effects of which congestion is merely one symptom, it should be seen as the madness for which it is.

Another mental thing is the way that banking and insurance head offices, and other outfits that employ absolutely masses of staff, all cluster together in a 'city centre', when most of their staff don't need to be close to the head offices of competing firms. That creates untold traffic problems, local authorities focus their efforts entirely on mitigating those problems, and god help you if you need to catch a bus to work, and work is NOT in the central city.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

I have a problem with trusting a computer to safely get a car (with me in it) anywhere, on its own. Unless we're talking KITT, from "Knight Rider". He was a full, thinking, feeling person who had enough intelligence and knowledge of the world to make wise decisions. (And even he had a learning curve.) He just happened to be made of different stuff than we are.

Any kind of computer or AI built today isn't going to be like that.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

Where the HELL is the personal jetpack for consumers that I was promised in my comic reading days?

WHY CAN'T CARS FLY YET?

What the hell are you doing, science?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I have a problem with trusting a computer to safely get a car (with me in it) anywhere, on its own.

Having worked in computers for 25 years, I must agree. Some idiot is going to forget to cross some T or dot some I in the code, and it will cause the car to crash into a mountain or something. Computers are only as good as the people who program them, and I trust coders less than I trust my own driving. Having been a coder for many, many years.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

My car is almost self driving already! Adaptive cruise control, parking stopping/starting automatically - all I do is steer!

We already trust computers with our safety all the time aeroplanes, traffic lights, hospital equipment, the list is endless. Tho computers can fail, they don't make anything like as many errors as humans.

Bring on self driving cars [Smile]

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Originally posted by Croesus:

quote:
This system already exists. The vehicles are called "taxis". I'm not sure that the human driver is the sticking point that would, with its elimination, cause a lot more people to forego a private vehicle in favor of a public one.

I don't know how much taxis cost where you are, but here it costs £10 for a four mile journey from the train station to my home, £25 for the nine mile journey to the airport, and when my husband took ill and work and taxied home, it was £35 for a 13 mile journey.

Taxis are prohibitively expensive; that's why no-one uses them unless they can put it on expenses.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Self-driving cars will mean a lot fewer cars. I would like to open up the car app on my phone, order up a car to take me somewhere, and have it come around and pick me up and take me there, and then go back into the queue of available cars for others to call up.

Aside from the fact that the system already exists with human-driven cars, there is one big problem with this scenario.

If you have the same number of people making their journeys, then the number of cars on the road at the same time won't change. Actually, quite the opposite because you will have a lot of extra journeys with those driverless cars moving from where they're parked when not in use to where someone is who wants to use it, and back to parking again at the end.

The only way to reduce traffic is to reduce the number of individual journeys. That means either everyone travels less (eg: more working at home, or living closer to work) or increasing the number of people per vehicle (eg: use more buses/trains, or car share), or both. I don't see any requirement for driverless cars to do that.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

You can improve traffic flow (while not actually reducing traffic) with driverless cars as driverless cars can travel closer together as they're not reliant on human reaction times.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

On highways you would improve traffic flow by regulating speed and reducing distance between cars (and, reducing accident frequency). On urban streets where traffic flow is constrained by traffic lights then the benefits would presumably be less (you still gain from reduced accident frequency). The only way to really reduce congestion is to reduce the number of vehicles on the road at the same time.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
You can improve traffic flow (while not actually reducing traffic) with driverless cars as driverless cars can travel closer together as they're not reliant on human reaction times.

If you join the cars up it is safer still and you need far fewer engines.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I want you to pay for the privilege of taking a car including for the road construction for it, maybe by a per mile or per km charge to infrastructure. Because if I don't need the road, what should I pay for its construction and your use of it?

What's your bus driving on, then?

I'd be fine with a usage charge for roads, as long as it had some basis in fact rather than being plucked from someone's politically correct arse.

So vehicles will pay a per mile tax proportional to the fourth power of their axle weight (that's more or less the damage the vehicle does to the road). Your bus is a vehicle, so will have to pay, and recover the charge as bus fares from its passengers. My car will pay. Bikes can go free - they have so little mass that they're not worth counting.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Pedestrians and bicycles, wheelchairs and scooters to be banned? Streets are for cars and cars alone!

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

quote:
I don't know how much taxis cost where you are, but here it costs £10 for a four mile journey from the train station to my home, £25 for the nine mile journey to the airport, and when my husband took ill and work and taxied home, it was £35 for a 13 mile journey.

Taxis are prohibitively expensive; that's why no-one uses them unless they can put it on expenses.

And driverless cars on call would be appreciably less? Doubt it.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

A significant part of the cost of a taxi is the salary for the driver. Even on minimum wage and assuming the driver has a fare 70% of the time that's £10 per hour. Of course, a taxi driver will be on more than minimum wage, and is probably lucky to have a fare more than half the time, so £20 or more per hour is more likely, possibly more. In urban traffic at 30mph, a 4 mile journey is about 10 mins, which is more than £3 just for the drivers salary. That will be saved in a driverless taxi, but there will be additional costs for the vehicle (which will be more expensive than a car needing a driver), plus the depot will need people to make sure each car is clean before it goes back out again. Other costs - fuel, insurance, the staff taking bookings etc will be similar.

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

Of course it would also create unemployment among taxi drivers as well. Just as an aside.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

Cars are expensive to own and cheap to use. If you have to own a car (in order to make some journeys - at times of night when public transport doesn't run, to visit people and places in the countryside where public transport is non-existent or one-bus-a-day from 5 miles away) then using it is often the cheapest and quickest way to make even those journeys where you do have a choice.

Guarantee people an affordable low-waiting driverless taxi option for every journey, then they don't feel compelled to pay the upfront costs of car ownership, and they can afford to take public transport for those journeys for which it is an option.

And if it's automated you can put in differential pricing to incentivize spreading the peak.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Never mind all that. If they're more likely to pass with a safe clearance than human drivers and if they're less likely to overtake whilst also turning left, then I want them, and I want them tomorrow.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A significant part of the cost of a taxi is the salary for the driver. Even on minimum wage and assuming the driver has a fare 70% of the time that's £10 per hour. Of course, a taxi driver will be on more than minimum wage, and is probably lucky to have a fare more than half the time, so £20 or more per hour is more likely, possibly more. In urban traffic at 30mph, a 4 mile journey is about 10 mins, which is more than £3 just for the drivers salary. That will be saved in a driverless taxi, but there will be additional costs for the vehicle (which will be more expensive than a car needing a driver), plus the depot will need people to make sure each car is clean before it goes back out again. Other costs - fuel, insurance, the staff taking bookings etc will be similar.

But another cost savings should be insurance for self-driving cars, at least at whatever point you can demonstrate they're far less likely to be involved in accidents.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

But the argument is not merely self-driving cars versus normal cars. It is self-driving cars versus public transit.

Who needs transit when you've got the Google Car coming down the road?

They can replace public investment in transit infrastructure and can be privately owned and run. The article goes on to suggest that we should probably stop public spending on roads and infrastructure for cars if we're going to ditch public transit in favour of these self-driving autos.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
But the argument is not merely self-driving cars versus normal cars. It is self-driving cars versus public transit.

Who needs transit when you've got the Google Car coming down the road?

They can replace public investment in transit infrastructure and can be privately owned and run. The article goes on to suggest that we should probably stop public spending on roads and infrastructure for cars if we're going to ditch public transit in favour of these self-driving autos.

Wait, don't self-driving cars still need roads? I'm a little unclear why privately-owned driverless cars would not need roads but privately-owned human-driven cars do.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

The argument in the article is that private cars spend 90% of the time doing nothing but sitting parked somewhere. Therefore, so the argument goes, you only really need 10% of the number of cars if they're shared resource. 10% of the number of cars = less space for roads.

The weakness of the argument, indeed the fatal flaw, is that the private cars we currently have spend 10% of their time being driven, and it's the same 10% of the time almost everyone else is driving their car. To reduce the road capacity would require everyone to be driving at different times. But, if you could do that you would make the same road space savings with driven cars.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Or - reduce road space and make conditions for the cars of either type congested and troublesome so that public mass transit (anything non-car) is the preferred option?

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
...and I want you to pay for the privilege of taking a car including for the road construction for it, maybe by a per mile or per km charge to infrastructure. ...

Ever heard of gas taxes? In Ontario, that's 37.7 c/l now, and another 4.3 c/l coming in 2017, for a total of about 42 c/l. What do you think that is for?

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Or - reduce road space and make conditions for the cars of either type congested and troublesome so that public mass transit (anything non-car) is the preferred option?

So you've been to Minneapolis, then...? [Biased]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Ever heard of gas taxes? In Ontario, that's 37.7 c/l now, and another 4.3 c/l coming in 2017, for a total of about 42 c/l. What do you think that is for?

It doesn't pay for roads. It goes into general revenues at both provincial and federal tax levels. A B.C. analysis indicated something like $50 per car per year gets spent on roads via gas taxes. Even if Ontario has a much more directed gas tax toward roads, say $100, it is a pittance toward the total spent on roads which are paid for out of other tax revenue. Not fair!

I'd like to see a per km (or per mile) fee to drive so that drivers pay directly for roads. Or make gasoline much more expensive I'd be willing to pay my share as a pedestrian and cyclist, but not for car infrastructure.

[ 09. July 2016, 00:29: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
...and I want you to pay for the privilege of taking a car including for the road construction for it, maybe by a per mile or per km charge to infrastructure. ...
Ever heard of gas taxes? In Ontario, that's 37.7 c/l now, and another 4.3 c/l coming in 2017, for a total of about 42 c/l. What do you think that is for?

Using fuel taxes to pay for roads has its problems. The foremost being that, when they are not sufficient, it can be difficult to allocate additional funds.
Using the general fund tax to pay for roads is also problematic in that there is constant competition for the same pool.
Road maintenance requires long-term planning and advance allocation. Neither of which government is spectacularly good at.
It is no accident that the countries with the best roads are small and rich.
I have seen promising schemes to solve transportation issues, but they would require massive investment and massive inconvenience to build.

ETA: ISTM, self driving cars are not a safe or efficient solution without centralised monitoring and oversight.

[ 09. July 2016, 03:23: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

Roads for cars would not cost much less to maintain just by reducing car traffic. It's the big heavy trucks that tear up roadways.

I have friends who live on dirt roads, every couple years shovel some dirt to full ruts is all the maintenance needed for daily car and pickup truck use. Add trucks, whole different game.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Roads for cars would not cost much less to maintain just by reducing car traffic. It's the big heavy trucks that tear up roadways.

I have friends who live on dirt roads, every couple years shovel some dirt to full ruts is all the maintenance needed for daily car and pickup truck use. Add trucks, whole different game.

Not in rainy UK. My brother has a private road which only cars use. Mending potholes is a major yearly task as so much gets washed away.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I have a problem with trusting a computer to safely get a car (with me in it) anywhere, on its own.
Having worked in computers for 25 years, I must agree. Some idiot is going to forget to cross some T or dot some I in the code, and it will cause the car to crash into a mountain or something. Computers are only as good as the people who program them, and I trust coders less than I trust my own driving. Having been a coder for many, many years.

If your car is less than ten years old, you're already dependent on that undotted code in the microprocessors in your car. Just because the software is written by hardware engineers
and not programmers does not improve it.

I hope that self driving cars become reasonably available before my eyesight goes. Public transit here continues its decline as they take the peripheral routes away to fund the central bus lines. But hey, they're going to put in light rail if we fund it. It will go to three miles away from me below a 300 foot hill and they plan to consider extensions to my neighborhood in 2025. That's not build it in 2025, that's start planning in 2025.

[ 09. July 2016, 07:34: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The argument in the article is that private cars spend 90% of the time doing nothing but sitting parked somewhere. Therefore, so the argument goes, you only really need 10% of the number of cars if they're shared resource. 10% of the number of cars = less space for roads.

The weakness of the argument, indeed the fatal flaw, is that the private cars we currently have spend 10% of their time being driven, and it's the same 10% of the time almost everyone else is driving their car. To reduce the road capacity would require everyone to be driving at different times. But, if you could do that you would make the same road space savings with driven cars.

Here in the car driving capital of the world, almost everyone actually isn't driving the same 10% of the time. I work 8-5, and I know just by the number of cars parked on the streets I drive or walk to work every morning that there are a hell of a lot of people who don't have to be at work at 8 am; more than half the available curb space is still taken by parked cars when I'm on my way to work. I know refinery workers who work 4 10-hour days a week, nurses who work 12-hour shifts, and others who have to be at work before 6:30 am because that's what time it is in California when the stock exchange opens in New York. Also, people in various service jobs aren't all driving during rush hour. The coffeehouse closest to me opens at 5:30 am, so the people opening and working the first shift drive before I'm even awake. The restaurants in my neighborhood close around 10 pm, so their staff sure isn't driving home from work when I am.

In the greater Los Angeles area, weekday rush "hour" is roughly 5-10 am and 3-7 pm, with the afternoon rush starting as early as noon on Fridays and running well into the evening, depending on the time of year and the events taking place. If you're on the west side of LA, there is frequently a mini lunch-time rush hour as well. The traffic up and down the 405, the freeway running parallel to the coast throughout all of Los Angeles and Orange Counties, is generally heavy all the time; other than during the wee small hours of the morning, it's either heavy and moving or heavy and not moving.

Also, you mentioned the constraint of traffic lights further upthread. The city of Los Angeles has synchronized every single traffic signal. They've got sensors in the road at every intersection that send info about traffic to a computer that adjusts the operation of the traffic lights accordingly. But drivers still of course do whatever they want. If cars didn't have drivers, they could be tied into this synchronized system.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Here in the car driving capital of the world, almost everyone actually isn't driving the same 10% of the time.

You're right, my simplistic criticism of a simplistic argument is too simplistic. Of course, cars aren't driving all at the same time. But, to get to the point where we only need 10% of the cars requires more than just noting that cars are parked 90% of the time. As you note, everywhere has rush periods in traffic (I don't think there is anywhere where that is an hour, the morning rush being 5h long is probably at the longer end of the range - here it's normally from about 7.30 to 9.30), which by definition means that car use is not evenly distributed through the day. To cut the number of cars to 10% on the basis of the articles "they spend 90% of the time parked" would only work if car use was distributed evenly throughout the 24h day, and throughout the week. Without otherwise increasing the number of people in each car or decreasing the number of journeys. And, as I've said the only way to make a significant dent in traffic volume is to do one, or both, of those - driverless cars should make traffic flow better, but there would still be the same number of cars on the road at any given time.

Community shared driverless cars add journeys (the car going from wherever it drops off one passenger to picking up the next/or to a parking spot until needed). We've all sat in traffic noting how many single occupant cars there are, imagine sitting in traffic and seeing cars with no occupant just heading somewhere to pick up their next passenger.

quote:
Also, you mentioned the constraint of traffic lights further upthread. The city of Los Angeles has synchronized every single traffic signal. They've got sensors in the road at every intersection that send info about traffic to a computer that adjusts the operation of the traffic lights accordingly. But drivers still of course do whatever they want. If cars didn't have drivers, they could be tied into this synchronized system.

But cars, driverless or otherwise, are all heading to different places. Especially in an urban area - the lights are there precisely because cars are entering and leaving at each block, going both ways down the roads, crossing over other roads, because that is how they get to their individual destinations. Everywhere that I know of synchronises the traffic lights in some manner, usually to prioritise traffic flow on one road, in one direction. The good systems change the priority at different times of the day (eg: in the morning give priority to traffic heading towards the city centre, in the evening priority to traffic leaving). But, they all rely on traffic being stopped at red much of the time. All driverless cars do is to reduce the time taken to pull away when the lights change, reduce accidents from people trying to cross an intersection as the lights change. Unless the number of cars driving in that space at that time is reduced there will be no significant reduction in traffic volume or journey times.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Roads for cars would not cost much less to maintain just by reducing car traffic. It's the big heavy trucks that tear up roadways.

I have friends who live on dirt roads, every couple years shovel some dirt to full ruts is all the maintenance needed for daily car and pickup truck use. Add trucks, whole different game.
Not in rainy UK. My brother has a private road which only cars use. Mending potholes is a major yearly task as so much gets washed away.

It is the rain doing that damage. Belle Ringer is correct, roads are built for heavy vehicles. A 18 wheel truck does as much damage as nearly 10,000 automobiles. Other very large numbers for buses, rubbish removal

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
To cut the number of cars to 10% on the basis of the articles "they spend 90% of the time parked" would only work if car use was distributed evenly throughout the 24h day, and throughout the week.

And of course it isn't evenly distributed. But I think you are vastly underestimating how many cars are just sitting there parked even during the busiest driving time of the day. On p. 11 of this paper (pdf) from the Eno Center for Transportation you can see a graph of what percentage of the cars in Seattle are in use throughout the day -- at the absolute busiest time, in a city which uses more of its cars than an average American city, just 11% of all cars in the city are on the road. The rest are parked. So the notion that we could get rid of up to 80-90% of the cars isn't crazy. We only need the total number used at the peak usage time (plus some spares, because cars going into the shop for repair won't cease).

The real problem isn't simplistic arithmetic. The real problem is getting people to be okay with sharing. But I think they'll get over it if they don't have to shell out the megabucks we spend on car ownership.

quote:
Community shared driverless cars add journeys (the car going from wherever it drops off one passenger to picking up the next/or to a parking spot until needed). We've all sat in traffic noting how many single occupant cars there are, imagine sitting in traffic and seeing cars with no occupant just heading somewhere to pick up their next passenger.

Yes, badly managed, that's what we could have. Well managed, the car that dropped me off at my job at 8 am would pick someone up from the apartment buildings across the street - one of the people I see heading to their cars when I'm going in the gate at work -- and take them to their job.

quote:
Everywhere that I know of synchronises the traffic lights in some manner, usually to prioritise traffic flow on one road, in one direction. The good systems change the priority at different times of the day (eg: in the morning give priority to traffic heading towards the city centre, in the evening priority to traffic leaving). But, they all rely on traffic being stopped at red much of the time. All driverless cars do is to reduce the time taken to pull away when the lights change, reduce accidents from people trying to cross an intersection as the lights change. Unless the number of cars driving in that space at that time is reduced there will be no significant reduction in traffic volume or journey times.

Stopping at red lights is indeed a problem. Driverless cars would mean we could have slot-based intersections, according to a lab at MIT, eliminating traffic signals and stopping at intersections altogether.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
The real problem isn't simplistic arithmetic. The real problem is getting people to be okay with sharing. But I think they'll get over it if they don't have to shell out the megabucks we spend on car ownership.

Agreed, a greater willingness to share will solve a lot of problems. But, that would also result in removal of one of the objections to public transport in general. When the car you're in is no longer "my car" then it becomes easier to accept that there can be other people in it, and car sharing becomes easier. If you're more comfortable sharing space in your vehicle with 2-3 others, why not 10-15 in a small bus? or more people in a train carriage?

And, of course, we're talking of something much bigger than just the local neighbourhood. This isn't a community tool shed where everyone in the neighbourhood chips in a bit of money and can use the community lawn mower, chain saw or hedge trimmer as needed. For it to work, the community -ownership would have to extend to at least the entire city, possibly the entire State or nation. When many people have difficulty with the concept of the state owning and running the health service, how would they feel about the state owning all the cars?

quote:

quote:
Community shared driverless cars add journeys (the car going from wherever it drops off one passenger to picking up the next/or to a parking spot until needed). We've all sat in traffic noting how many single occupant cars there are, imagine sitting in traffic and seeing cars with no occupant just heading somewhere to pick up their next passenger.
Yes, badly managed, that's what we could have. Well managed, the car that dropped me off at my job at 8 am would pick someone up from the apartment buildings across the street - one of the people I see heading to their cars when I'm going in the gate at work -- and take them to their job.

Which works if you mix residential and commercial areas throughout a city. If you have large areas where people work and different large areas where they live (which is, by and large, the situation for most large towns and cities) then there won't be a residential building across the road from an office block. So, we would need to not only change attitudes to community ownership but also significant changes to the way we organise our cities.

quote:
Stopping at red lights is indeed a problem. Driverless cars would mean we could have slot-based intersections, according to a lab at MIT, eliminating traffic signals and stopping at intersections altogether.

Really all that needs is active communication between the car and a central control centre. It's easier with driverless cars, but in principal if you tell your car where you're going, the car tells the controller, the controller works out that if you drive at 25mph to the next intersection there will be a gap that allows you to go through without stopping, and the car tells you to travel at 25mph. The difficulty comes when someone decides that the limit is 30mph and so they should do that, and reach the intersection before there's a gap. It only takes a small minority of drivers to ignore instructions and the whole system breaks down in heavy traffic. Which basically needs 100% obedient drivers or driverless cars, or roads with greater capacity than is used to accommodate the few individuals who don't do exactly as they're told.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
But I think you are vastly underestimating how many cars are just sitting there parked even during the busiest driving time of the day. On p. 11 of this paper (pdf) from the Eno Center for Transportation you can see a graph of what percentage of the cars in Seattle are in use throughout the day -- at the absolute busiest time, in a city which uses more of its cars than an average American city, just 11% of all cars in the city are on the road. The rest are parked. So the notion that we could get rid of up to 80-90% of the cars isn't crazy. We only need the total number used at the peak usage time (plus some spares, because cars going into the shop for repair won't cease).

Regardless, I don't see how that would reduce the need for roads, because at any one time the same number of cars is still going to be driving on the roads compared to the situation without self-driving cars - it's just that it'll be the same cars at 9am as at 3pm.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Really all that needs is active communication between the car and a central control centre. It's easier with driverless cars, but in principal if you tell your car where you're going, the car tells the controller, the controller works out that if you drive at 25mph to the next intersection there will be a gap that allows you to go through without stopping, and the car tells you to travel at 25mph. The difficulty comes when someone decides that the limit is 30mph and so they should do that, and reach the intersection before there's a gap.

Or when someone hacks into the system and makes the controller tell all the cars to ignore each other and just "think" for themselves.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

Vehicle to vehicle communication would allow cars to travel more closely together and improve traffic flow, which means we could have the same number of cars travelling in fewer lanes.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Or, more vehicles in the same number of lanes.

And, anyone care to guess why car manufacturers are keen on driverless cars?

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Vehicle to vehicle communication would allow cars to travel more closely together and improve traffic flow, which means we could have the same number of cars travelling in fewer lanes.

Pray tell how these cars communicate with pedestrians, bicycles, wheelchairs, dogs. They interrupt traffic flow.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

Alan: Because someone is going to develop them, and they'd rather not have new companies do it and leave them with nothing at all to sell.

[ 09. July 2016, 18:44: Message edited by: RuthW ]

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Vehicle to vehicle communication would allow cars to travel more closely together and improve traffic flow, which means we could have the same number of cars travelling in fewer lanes.
Pray tell how these cars communicate with pedestrians, bicycles, wheelchairs, dogs. They interrupt traffic flow.

People would get a green slot, just as they get an indication of when to cross a busy street now. Dogs will have to be leashed, which is already the case in most cities.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Vehicle to vehicle communication would allow cars to travel more closely together and improve traffic flow, which means we could have the same number of cars travelling in fewer lanes.

This seems to be based on the notion that safe travel distance between vehicles is a matter of data and control, rather than something driven primarily by factors like mass, speed, and conservation of energy. This is, at best, a debatable point. An automated control system may apply the brakes more quickly than a human would, but my guess is that braking distance, rather than reaction time, is the critical factor in determining safe distance between vehicles. It's possible, perhaps even likely, that the a self-driving car would give itself more space between itself and the vehicle it's following than than a human driver, who may be risk prone or have an exaggerated sense of how fast his car can stop.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

You're assuming cars would all act independently, but once they're autonomous, there's no reason for that. If you have a string of cars all in communication with each other and the road itself, they could all go exactly the same speed and brake in coordination with each other and thus travel more closely together. They wouldn't each be independelty reacting to what other cars are doing; they'd be acting together. Like railroad cars, but with software coupling them.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
You're assuming cars would all act independently, but once they're autonomous, there's no reason for that. If you have a string of cars all in communication with each other and the road itself, they could all go exactly the same speed and brake in coordination with each other and thus travel more closely together. They wouldn't each be independelty reacting to what other cars are doing; they'd be acting together. Like railroad cars, but with software coupling them.

Once again, I think you're simply ignoring the likelihood that current, human-driven cars are already driving at distances which would be considered unsafe by a machine calculating a safe following distance. Plus there's the problem of what happens when the lead car stops not because it's braking but because it's had a breakdown of some sort. The following car may be able to brake at the same rate, but if the lead vehicle stops faster than its brakes allow (e.g. it's hit an obstacle of some sort, or had a mechanical failure causing it to veer unexpectedly into the adjacent lane of traffic) the following car will need space necessitated by physical factors (the aforementioned mass and speed) rather than reaction time. It's far from obvious that a computerized system will decide distances shorter than the current human-preferred ones are optimal.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Pray tell how these cars communicate with pedestrians, bicycles, wheelchairs, dogs. They interrupt traffic flow.
People would get a green slot, just as they get an indication of when to cross a busy street now. Dogs will have to be leashed, which is already the case in most cities.

That might work if you have laws against jaywalking. Here, it's every freeborn Englishman's right to walk along even a 70mph expressway if he so desires.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Alan: Because someone is going to develop them, and they'd rather not have new companies do it and leave them with nothing at all to sell.

Though, that's not going to happen is it? Self-driving cars will be a niche market, an optional extra on top of the range cars. Cruise control has been available for longer than I've been alive, yet it's a long way from being universally available. Same for automatic transmission, with the majority of drivers (outside the US at least) opting for manual.

Although there will be some considerable kudos to being first to market with a self-drive car, it's not going to destroy the market for standard cars or leave other car manufacturers with nothing to sell. The number of cars sold for the first few decades will be minimal, you might compare it to uptake of electric cars. By which time the technology will be licensed out, and every manufacturer will be offering it in their high-end vehicles.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
You're assuming cars would all act independently, but once they're autonomous, there's no reason for that. If you have a string of cars all in communication with each other and the road itself, they could all go exactly the same speed and brake in coordination with each other and thus travel more closely together. They wouldn't each be independelty reacting to what other cars are doing; they'd be acting together. Like railroad cars, but with software coupling them.

And if someone hacked that system, they could cause one heck of a pile-up accident.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Little story about Car 2 Go. Two weeks ago we were visiting our son in Portland, which has Car 2 Go. The very weekend we were there there was an organized Naked Bike Ride in which the riders met at a park near where our son lives and ride into downtown Portland (typical keep Portland weird activity) That evening 6 Car2Go vehicles appeared in front of his house. Bikers had driven them to the rally point and left them for the bike. They were still there two days later. Oh, and we were unlucky not to see the bike ride.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Once again, I think you're simply ignoring the likelihood that current, human-driven cars are already driving at distances which would be considered unsafe by a machine calculating a safe following distance.

First, what is your basis for claiming this is likely? It might be, but this is not substantiated here.

Second, human-driven cars are travelling at varying speeds with varying amounts of distance between them, and people change lanes at least as much on whim as need. Regularizing all these things through computer programming would improve traffic flow. How this all works is explained in this this well-reported Globe and Mail article.

quote:
Plus there's the problem of what happens when the lead car stops not because it's braking but because it's had a breakdown of some sort. The following car may be able to brake at the same rate, but if the lead vehicle stops faster than its brakes allow (e.g. it's hit an obstacle of some sort, or had a mechanical failure causing it to veer unexpectedly into the adjacent lane of traffic) the following car will need space necessitated by physical factors (the aforementioned mass and speed) rather than reaction time. It's far from obvious that a computerized system will decide distances shorter than the current human-preferred ones are optimal.

Scientific American reports that the US Dept of Transportation is working on a new rule that would make vehicle-to-vehicle communication mandatory because it will help avoid crashes. You might be right about the distances between cars, or wrong, but either way, it's clear from everything I've read that an automated system of cars and roads would be a lot safer than letting people do whatever damn fool thing they please, which is what we currently do.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Self-driving cars will be a niche market, an optional extra on top of the range cars. Cruise control has been available for longer than I've been alive, yet it's a long way from being universally available. Same for automatic transmission, with the majority of drivers (outside the US at least) opting for manual.

Self-driving will start out as an optional extra on luxury cars and then will filter down to the rest, according to this article in The Economist. Cruise control and automatic transmissions are nearly universal in the US; I own the cheapest car Honda sells in the US, and it has cruise control. American auto insurance businesses are sure enough that self-driving cars are on their way that they noted in their Security Exchange Commission filings that such cars pose a threat to their business.

All of you engaging with me on this -- do you have anything beyond just kind of how things look to you to back up your opinions? Because government, industry, and academia are all saying that we're going to have self-driving cars and that they're overall going to be a good idea, reducing crashes, saving lives, freeing up time currently spent driving, and using less fuel.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Little story about Car 2 Go. Two weeks ago we were visiting our son in Portland, which has Car 2 Go. The very weekend we were there there was an organized Naked Bike Ride in which the riders met at a park near where our son lives and ride into downtown Portland (typical keep Portland weird activity) That evening 6 Car2Go vehicles appeared in front of his house. Bikers had driven them to the rally point and left them for the bike. They were still there two days later. Oh, and we were unlucky not to see the bike ride.

So? Self-driving cars would not just sit there.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Alan: Because someone is going to develop them, and they'd rather not have new companies do it and leave them with nothing at all to sell.
Though, that's not going to happen is it? Self-driving cars will be a niche market, an optional extra on top of the range cars. Cruise control has been available for longer than I've been alive, yet it's a long way from being universally available. Same for automatic transmission, with the majority of drivers (outside the US at least) opting for manual.

According to this site, manual transmissions accounted for less than half the worldwide market in 2012, and were expected to decline further (along with conventional automatics) in favor of CVTs, automated manual double clutches, and electric drives.

I don't know what will happen with self-driving cars, but I don't think automatic transmissions or cruise control are optional extras for the top of the range, even outside the US - and OEMs certainly can't treat them that way if they want any share of the US market, where they've been standard for decades.

[ETA: cross-post with RuthW, obvs.]

[ 10. July 2016, 01:43: Message edited by: Dave W. ]

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

Just tossing a thought into the discussion -

If I had transportation available at whim but didn't need to be alert and rested and energetic enough to drive safely, I would be on the highway a lot more.

Tonight I would have been at a Celtic concert in a neighboring town, I would first have gone out to eat with a friend in that town. But I lack the physical energy to be alert for an hour round trip plus a meal plus a 3 hour concert (and pre and post concert). Cut out the need to certain of full alertness after an event, and a lot more activities become possible.

But not if the cost of individualized transport is much more than the cost of owning a ten year old car in good condition; after a few years my car ownership cost is little more than insurance and gasoline.

Cheap individualized reliable transportation would be a huge benefit to the semi-housebound who don't have the energy or eyesight or attentiveness to drive well; they'd be able to get out and do stuff, which definitely would increase miles on the road.

Just something to factor into the calculations.

If I had a reliable self driving car right now, I'd be on the road tomorrow to go visit a dear friend 1200 miles from here who I might never see again unless I become able again to drive long distances safely.

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

I don't drive at all. I never got a driver's license. But if a self driving car was an option, I might very well start. As it is, I take mass transit (being blessed here in New York City with a fairly decent mass transit system) and don't add any traffic to the roads. Give me a self driving car and I would. I can't be the only person in this situation.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Because government, industry, and academia are all saying that we're going to have self-driving cars and that they're overall going to be a good idea, reducing crashes, saving lives, freeing up time currently spent driving, and using less fuel.

And, I agree with all of that. Self-driving cars should reduce accidents (and associated deaths), they will allow 'drivers' the opportunity to do something else on the commute to work (whether it's a good thing to enable workers to work on their commute as well as time in office is another issue), and should increase the fuel efficiency of each car as it drives in a more efficient manner.

What I do not see happening is self-drive cars reducing the number of vehicles on the road at peak times. Even if the cars are state property for use as needed rather than privately owned. Indeed, as stated, the chances are that in allowing people who currently don't/can't drive to use a car it's likely to increase the number of journeys (more than offsetting the fuel savings in the process).

I also do not see a rapid change to driverless cars once they become approved, and many of the gains in terms of traffic management won't be seen until the majority of vehicles are in the system.

I for one do not see the value in driverless cars. But, then again, I'm also sticking with my manual transmission (the only reason to change would be if a car I buy in the future has an electric drive, in which case giving up the manual transmission is a reasonable price to pay for the lower-carbon footprint of an electric or hybrid vehicle). It would be nice if I'm stuck in traffic to engage an auto-drive for a couple of minutes so I can turn on the phone to let whoever I'm visiting know I'm in traffic and will be late. Or, maybe, on a long journey do the same if I start to get tired and avoid taking a break for coffee and fresh air. But, not worth the considerable extra cost when I don't need the feature on a regular basis.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I think the move will be gradual, we will first have adaptive cruise control and lane positioning, automatic parking etc as standard. Then the move to driverless will seem an obvious next step.

It could be that the 'driverless' function can be switched on and off for motorways etc at first, before more and more cars become enabled. Then, once a majority is reached, the whole network may be adapted.

Interesting times.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

One simple fact that often is overlooked in discussions about cars and drones is that we're not really talking about "self-driving" cars, any more than planes with autopilot are "self-flying." These systems not either-or, they're a bit of both. So, e.g. pilots handle the take-off and landing but the autopilot handles the cruising. Cruise control keeps your vehicle's speed constant, but you can still change lanes and brake if necessary.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

There has been one fatality now, due to autopilot technology that is used by Tesla. The auto drive system uses a series of cameras and forward looking radar which keep the car between the lines maintain proper distance between vehicles. Apparently, a semi truck crossed in front of a Tesla where the driver was using auto drive. The theory was that it was so bright the cameras did not recognize that a truck had crossed over into the Tesla lane and did not brake.

I think this has been the second crash for Telsa autopilot but this is the first fatality.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deadly-tesla-crash-exposes-confusion-over-automated-driving/

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
One simple fact that often is overlooked in discussions about cars and drones is that we're not really talking about "self-driving" cars, any more than planes with autopilot are "self-flying." These systems not either-or, they're a bit of both. So, e.g. pilots handle the take-off and landing but the autopilot handles the cruising. Cruise control keeps your vehicle's speed constant, but you can still change lanes and brake if necessary.

On the contrary.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

I really think it's partially whether or not one is used to relinquishing control. As an adult non-driver who bikes and rides public transportation, I am very used to trusting humans (unreliable) to take me from place to place. Trusting something else that's unreliable (computer) to take me from place to place? Sure. When I want to do it myself, I don't want an engine either. I want the feel of bicycling.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I really think it's partially whether or not one is used to relinquishing control.

Yes.

My husband uses the adaptive cruise control very little 'it doesn't do what I want it to!'

I love it, one less thing to do. But, I have just read that it's unsafe in the rain and can cause aqua-landing and crashes, if this is true it calls into question the whole driverless car thing.

I checked on snopes - there is some truth in the claim too, but maybe only at high speeds, which we shouldn't be using in rain/slush/ice anyway.

I expect driverless cars would go pretty slowly in rain/slush/ice which many drivers wouldn't like at all!

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

On a couple of occasions driving a hire car in the States I've had cruise control, but basically never used it as I didn't really see the need. I kept finding I needed to change speed slightly, even on the Interstate, and each time had to reset the cruise control - far too much hassle. That was before the advent of adaptive cruise control of course, which as I understand it allows you to change speed when needed while keeping the cruise control on. Which seems equally pointless, if you're changing speed for conditions anyway why have a control to keep your speed constant?

But, then again I also struggle with an automatic transmission. Partly because it takes a while to stop trying to push the clutch pedal, changing gear properly being instinctive. Mainly because it doesn't always pick the right gear for the situation. When behind slower moving traffic with limited time to overtake you need some power to accelerate harder to get past safely, which means changing down a gear. Automatics don't do that, and thus I stay behind slower traffic longer waiting for a longer stretch of clear road to pass safely. I've also found automatics struggle to find the right gear in snow and ice, when you would want to be in a slightly higher gear to reduce revs and hence stop the wheels from spinning - you go slower but have much more control.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
On a couple of occasions driving a hire car in the States I've had cruise control, but basically never used it as I didn't really see the need. I kept finding I needed to change speed slightly, even on the Interstate, and each time had to reset the cruise control - far too much hassle. That was before the advent of adaptive cruise control of course, which as I understand it allows you to change speed when needed while keeping the cruise control on. Which seems equally pointless, if you're changing speed for conditions anyway why have a control to keep your speed constant

No, it adapts by keeping an even distance from the car in front, up to the speed you choose. I use it all the time, it's marvellous in creeping traffic - stops and starts for you, closer at low speeds. You choose the distance at higher speeds and set it. It's especially useful in 30mph zones full of speed cameras.

I love it.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
On a couple of occasions driving a hire car in the States I've had cruise control, but basically never used it as I didn't really see the need. I kept finding I needed to change speed slightly, even on the Interstate, and each time had to reset the cruise control - far too much hassle.

It depends where you're going, terrain and number of vehicles on the road. I can understand it is faint use in populated areas with heavy traffic. But very nice if you're driving say, from Calgary to Winnipeg. 14 hours of driving on relatively flat terrain, with moderate amounts of vehicle. Speed limits of 100 or 110 km/hour (two way highway or 4 lane divided), and the other driver's speeds are predictable and not very much varied at usually 10 km over the speed limit. It reduces frustration of people speeding up and slowing down thereby positively influencing safety by making everyone much more predictable. It also relieves the pressure on the right foot, sore back and butt.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
No, it adapts by keeping an even distance from the car in front, up to the speed you choose. I use it all the time,

I don't have the fancy adaptive cruise control - I have the bog-standard version that would merrily drive me into the back of the car in front if I wasn't paying attention.

I use it all the time. Setting the cruise control is one thumb on the steering wheel. I'm confused by how Alan finds it more hassle than manually (pedally) regulating his speed, but each to his own.

But then, contra Alan, I find that I'm not altering speed all that much when I drive. Get on highway, accelerate to speed limit*, hit cruise control, and follow line of cars all doing the same thing. Adjust speed by a couple of mph to match traffic. It makes driving a little less tiring - both mentally and physically. It also makes my driving more efficient - I find that I get 5% or so better fuel efficiency with cruise control on than if I don't use it.

*Yes, OK - on the interstates round here, that would be 10-15 mph over the posted limit, along with all the other traffic.

I'd use the adaptive control, but I'm too cheap to consider it worth paying for. Not sure I'd use the lane-tracking thing, though.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You're right, my simplistic criticism of a simplistic argument is too simplistic. Of course, cars aren't driving all at the same time.

The important point is that people are currently making certain journeys. If we remove personal cars and replace them with self-driving taxis, people will still want to make all the same journeys at the same times - they just won't be in personally-owned cars. This doesn't alter congestion (except marginally, if self-driving cars don't drive like dicks, and perhaps a self-driving car would be on average smaller).

So road usage doesn't change.

You wouldn't need so many parking lots, though, and you wouldn't need to have parking lots in quite such central positions.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

I'd use the adaptive control, but I'm too cheap to consider it worth paying for. Not sure I'd use the lane-tracking thing, though.

I use both adaptive control and lane-tracking - they both came as a package on my car. I did find that to start with I was more prone to my attention wandering - but then I've had the same feeling when I've driven an automatic car - you soon adjust though. I can see that eventually more and more driver aids will come in, even in lower end cars, and at the same time self driving cars will become cheaper and cheaper.

I don't see the fuss around the dangers - yes, they'll be occasionally prone to doing odd things - but so does most machinery as do humans [drive a few times in a large city like London and you'll see all sorts of ludicrous things going on]. The sense that someone rational is driving is often illusory at best.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I'm confused by how Alan finds it more hassle than manually (pedally) regulating his speed, but each to his own.

It's because my root foot being anywhere other than on the accelerator is just wrong. Probably related to wanting to use the clutch when I want the car to change gear, except it's not there on an automatic. 20 years of driving instills certain unconscious habits that are hard to shake when put in a car which drives differently from what you're used to. Since I've never owned a car with cruise control or an automatic gear box, nor considered buying one, I don't really get to practice. Even the cars I've hired (either personally or for work), except in the US, have not had that option - even a couple of higher end vehicles (SUVs) needed for work.

quote:
But then, contra Alan, I find that I'm not altering speed all that much when I drive.

Likewise, traffic permitting, I'll drive on the motorway at basically a fixed speed (and, like everyone else, 5mph over the limit). Though it's unusual to go more than a few minutes without traffic backing up enough that I need to change speed - slow down because of something slower in front, or speed up a bit to get passed slower traffic while aware that the car behind is closing. Unless I'm driving in the very early hours.

If I find myself slowing for any other reason that's a very good sign that I'm getting tired and it's time for a wee break. Take away that cue and I'm probably likely to keep on going until I really am passed the point where I should be driving.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Or, more vehicles in the same number of lanes.

And, anyone care to guess why car manufacturers are keen on driverless cars?

Manufacturers want more people able to buy and use cars. Driverless cars would mean elderly wouldn't have to give up their cars and mostly stay home. Blind, even children below today's driving age could own and use a car.

I can envision a system starting out with enticements to buy a driverless car by giving commuters special lanes with a higher speed limit because a well programed machine could move faster in dense traffic safely. Maybe lower toll on expressways, the automated toll readers read the chip that designates "this car is driverless." (I'm assuming truly safer way to transport, so the State has something to gain in getting people to adopt driverless.)

There will always be human controlled cars, including antique cars, there will always be accidents caused by unanticipated weather (sudden storm or blizzard making roads suddenly unsafe), there will always be cars that suddenly malfunction (tire blowout), or loads that fall off a truck and the next car hits it because nothing can stop that fast! It wont be accident-free driving. But just cutting accidents 20% would save huge amounts of rescue and medical expenses.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Manual and auto transmission cars have cruise control. There is nothing about manual transmission that says anything about that. I have had 4, 5 and 6 speed manual cars with it. Except, in North America, the latest trend is that the stripped down versions at the low ends of models of cars tend to not have cruise nor air conditioning.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

If you're being taken for a ride in a self-driving car -- one of the ones with no human controls at all -- and it runs a red light, who gets the ticket? When the cops pull you over, what can they ask you?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I don't remember if anybody has addressed this yet; if so, I'm sorry to steal your thunder.

One supposes that the manufacturer of the vehicle has the ability to "push" updates to firmware. The vehicles then become part of the Internet of Things, and susceptible to hacking. Nothing is fully hack-proof. So the hackers could conceivably program the car to do something deadly, and many people will die. Is this just the price we have to pay for the wonderful benefits we'll receive?

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If you're being taken for a ride in a self-driving car -- one of the ones with no human controls at all -- and it runs a red light, who gets the ticket? When the cops pull you over, what can they ask you?

If you have no means of control over the vehicle, you have no way of committing a crime with it - whether or not you happen to be sitting in it when it does something bad.

One cannot, of course, charge a robot with a crime under the law as it stands. Some design or maintenance failure resulting in a self-driving car that you own doing something bad is no different in law from having a wall you built at your house fall onto a sidewalk. If the wall hits someone and hurts them, it may be that you have civil liability, and it may be that you are guilty of criminal negligence. You may also be guilty of building code violations. But you can never be guilty of assault unless you're behind the wall and pushing.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't remember if anybody has addressed this yet; if so, I'm sorry to steal your thunder.

One supposes that the manufacturer of the vehicle has the ability to "push" updates to firmware. The vehicles then become part of the Internet of Things, and susceptible to hacking. Nothing is fully hack-proof. So the hackers could conceivably program the car to do something deadly, and many people will die. Is this just the price we have to pay for the wonderful benefits we'll receive?

It can already happen.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

That just took me to a quote by Taylor Swift. It was a good quote, but not quite what I was expecting.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If you have no means of control over the vehicle, you have no way of committing a crime with it - whether or not you happen to be sitting in it when it does something bad.

One cannot, of course, charge a robot with a crime under the law as it stands. Some design or maintenance failure resulting in a self-driving car that you own doing something bad is no different in law from having a wall you built at your house fall onto a sidewalk. If the wall hits someone and hurts them, it may be that you have civil liability, and it may be that you are guilty of criminal negligence. You may also be guilty of building code violations. But you can never be guilty of assault unless you're behind the wall and pushing.

So if my Google car kills somebody, who is liable? Google? The programmer(s)? The cell network?

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

That would presumably not be different in principle from killing someone because your brakes fail due to the incompetence of either the manufacturer or your garage.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The vehicles then become part of the Internet of Things, and susceptible to hacking. Nothing is fully hack-proof. So the hackers could conceivably program the car to do something deadly, and many people will die. Is this just the price we have to pay for the wonderful benefits we'll receive?

Quick answer - yes.

A sociology prof once pointed out we could make cars far safer than they are - build them like tanks, limit speeds to 25 mph, a wreck wouldn't cause a scratch much less injury or death. He said as a society we have decided it's better to have cars that kill several thousand people a year and be affordable by most people (used or new) than perfectly safe cars at a price that makes them unaffordable for most. Part of the price we pay for affordable cars that can go faster than a bicycle is a certain amount of yearly injury and death.

Similarly every bit of confidential info transmitted by web or stored on a web-linked site is vulnerable and yet medical records are automatically stored on the web, so are government secrets or there couldn't have been wikileaks, so are confidential legal records, bank records, you name it, all of it vulnerable to hackers and everyone in charge of setting up systems knows it and yet businesses and governments people figure the cost of occasional breeches is less than the benefit of putting it all on line. How many people, notified their yahoo or linked in or whatever account was hacked, drop out of the web vs just create a new password?

Driverless cars will get hacked and society will say "oh what a horrible accident the hacker caused" as they buy an upgrade driverless car because the convenience of being able to read a book or answer emails instead of watching the road trumps the inconvenience of reading news reports of some accident somewhere (which of course "wont happen to me").

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That just took me to a quote by Taylor Swift. It was a good quote, but not quite what I was expecting.

Bugger. If you hover over the link, you can see that where you end up is no where you are supposed to go.
Here is a different link to a similar story.
Here is a poorly written article putting it into a different perspective. They really do not know how to write and don't appear to fully grasp how vulnerability works. They even incorrectly "correct" the definition of hacker. The balance of the article, and reality, is that it is indeed a real fear.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

The first one shut me down because it mistakenly thought I have an ad blocker. (I have a trace-back blocker.)

The second one has some problems. Here's one:

"...by then the automaker had fixed the software to make such a hack impossible for vehicles on the road?"

Make a hack impossible. Riiiiiiight. Pull the other one.

"Here's the simple truth. No hacker has ever taken remote control of a stranger's car. "

Uh, yeah. And how many fully self-driving cars are there on the road right now, outside of test cars owned by the manufacturers? Let me guess..... ZERO? It's so comforting that none of those zero cars have been hacked.

This article really isn't talking about fully-automated self-driving cars. As such it's questionable how applicable these calm reassurances are to the questions of this thread.

Yes, we should avoid scare tactics and technophobia. We should also be wary of science writers peddling panaceas.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
We should also be wary of science writers peddling panaceas.

Calling him a science writer denigrates both. At least by the quality of that article. I was going to associate it with the demise of proper journalism standards, but the guy has been around since 1988. He is more a person who types words about technology than a science writer.

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That just took me to a quote by Taylor Swift. It was a good quote, but not quite what I was expecting.
Bugger. If you hover over the link, you can see that where you end up is no where you are supposed to go.

So somebody hacked the link to an article about what hackers can do?
[Eek!]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

No, I think it is a bug on Forbes site. They always link you through a quote of the day. Typically, you are then redirected to the article you want. Or I missed a bit of the url and it didn't know what to do.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0