Thoughts on getting older

My dad passed away several years ago, and mom's gracefully slowing down, so us kids are dealing with taking care of her, handling caregivers, and seeing that she gets out for her errands.

Thinking about it, the self-driving car technology is going to change everything. While it's too late for our parents today, we kids are in an emerging age of automated transportation. Someday very soon, we'll be able to get in our cars and say "take me to the store", or fortunately/unfortunately, "take me to the doctor", all without needing to - or being able to - drive.

Assuming we can afford them, these cars will be a real game-changers for older peoples' quality of life, still being able to independently do our errands, see friends, and, well, be connected to society. It'll make getting too old to drive enormously easier for us all.

In reply to kb58:

Just this past weekend, two octogenarians were killed when they entered a freeway going the wrong way. Self driving cars should prevent that.

I love driving. I love the freedom. But when I'm in New York, I love taking the subway. Sometimes different situations require different solutions.

Yes I should have included public transportation in that. When I was in Japan, I didn't miss driving at all, the trains there were fantastic. Any place with good public transportation really helps out its elderly population, which is going to get a whole lot bigger over the next 30 years.

Getting older sucks (I'm 36 but...yeah). In 30 or 40 years I could see me trying to re-enact this scene:

And breaking a hip.

According to Bob Lutz, we, scratch that, you won't own those cars. You will just summon them with your communication device. Similar to using Uber only w/out a driver.

My father in law drives volunteers to drive rural cancer patients to doctors for treatment. My wife delivers meals on wheels to homebound elderly folks. There are needs not being met by current transportation options.

As my God father said to me (he is now in his mid 90's) "Getting old is not for the faint of heart."

outasite wrote: According to Bob Lutz, we, scratch that, you won't own those cars. You will just summon them with your communication device. Similar to using Uber only w/out a driver.

I Would like it if I went to work then the car drove itself home for my wife to use. Then when I get off it's waiting in the parking lot for me. It Would eliminate a vehicle and could easily work with our schedules.

As much as I love driving, I'll love it when self driving cars are prevalent. It's not like all the normal cars will be rounded as and systematically destroyed at that point.

I'll be able to have a few dinner drinks and make it home safely, get to work while working in the car, make it to the cabin while watching a movie (er I mean reading a thought provoking novel), but still be able to drive fun on the back roads in a NA Miata.

I (being the twisted individual that I am) am reminded of the joke which goes something like "When I die I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my 90-year-old great-uncle, not screaming in terror like the people in the car with him."

In reply to 1988RedT2:

A classic.

David S. Wallens wrote: Sometimes different situations require different solutions.

That's a fairly innocuous comment that's hard to disagree with without a context, but my overriding feeling is that most places that suck to drive in suck because of bad policy and unaccountable governance and underinformed voters. There are relatively few urban centers in the USA that actually substantially predate the automobile. Most places that have bad traffic are the culmination of decades of inadequate road planning/funding. Most people fail to realize that the cost of proposed road projects never actually built is simply translated into other costs that we bear anyway in lost opportunity/time spent in transit. We lose more in transit time than we would have paid in taxes to build a better infrastructure, we're just so bad at assessing costs like that that we all resist tax increases and bitch about all the traffic we just voted for while not accounting for its true cost in our lives.

Taking the driver out of a car doesnt in an of itself improve time lost to a bad road system. You have to make more changes than that to improve transit time, changes that would benefit the system even with human drivers. What it DOES accomplish is to let the humans take their minds off the road system. Which is exactly what led to inadequate roads and excessive traffic in the first place. But maybe with all that 'free' time we can spend a little more of our day in obsequious servitude to the work model that builds a place like New York City, a dense grid of massive infrastructure housing millions of workers who probably spend very little time questioning if the maze of metal and glass they can't park their car anywhere near looks anything like the world they would have liked to build if they had ever felt like they had a choice.

outasite wrote: According to Bob Lutz, we, scratch that, you won't own those cars. You will just summon them with your communication device. Similar to using Uber only w/out a driver.

Yes, i've read this as well from multiple sources.

People have a lot of misconceptions on what driverless cars would be. The potential future with TRUE driveless cars will be like this.

I think the most reasonable reality is that true driverless cars are the same as flying cars. Never going to happen. The subway isn't even allowed to be automated, even though it can be, it needs someone "operating" it. You are going to be required to operate your car.

I can't even imagine what it would be like in areas where Uber isn't allowed because of Taxi unions.

IMO true driverless cars are this generation's flying delorean. This opinion is based on reading much on the subject and knowing that vehicles are required to have someone driving them even when "automated".

Autonomous cars will be a boon to other populations as well. I have a niece with Down Syndrome who is very high functioning but will probably never be able to obtain a license. Being able to have personalized transportation services will greatly expand her opportunities.

kanaric wrote: The subway isn't even allowed to be automated, even though it can be, it needs someone "operating" it. You are going to be required to operate your car.

That gets funny around here. When the human crashes one, they switch to the fully automated system, for safety. Then when the automated system crashes one, they switch to the human, for safety.

I can't tell you have many times they've gone back and forth on this, always for safety.

Vigo wrote: But maybe with all that 'free' time we can spend a little more of our day in obsequious servitude to the work model that builds a place like New York City, a dense grid of massive infrastructure housing millions of workers who probably spend very little time questioning if the maze of metal and glass they can't park their car anywhere near looks anything like the world they would have liked to build if they had ever felt like they had a choice.

We had a discussion on the OT area about this very topic not long ago.

https://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/off-topic-discussion/autonomous-cars/110372/page1/

Getting old sucks, but it's better than the alternative.

kanaric wrote:

outasite wrote: According to Bob Lutz, we, scratch that, you won't own those cars. You will just summon them with your communication device. Similar to using Uber only w/out a driver.

You are going to be required to operate your car.

Herein lies the problem. Granny is driving 45mph in the left lane, and as a rolling chicane, causing huge backups behind her. In the "self driving car" scenario, this gets eliminated.

Except it doesn't.

Every self driving car will have a manual override. Most likely via the brakes. Granny is driving 45mph because she perceives anything faster is dangerous. So when her automated car tries to keep an orderly line at 65mph, and she keeps stabbing the brakes, we're right back where we started.

Autonomous cars are coming and coming fast. I think it'll be awesome for all sorts of reasons.

Getting in my self-driving car on a Friday evening after work, watching a movie, getting a night's sleep and waking up at the beach for a full two days of sun and sand. It isn't exactly Star Trek teleportation but the possibilities for improved leisure time are intriguing.

Individual transport "pods" are the only way to get around when population density simply doesn't support the public transportation model that works in cities. Public transport barely works in mid size cities like mine and is utterly impractical out in the country.

calteg wrote: Every self driving car will have a manual override. Most likely via the brakes. Granny is driving 45mph because she perceives anything faster is dangerous. So when her automated car tries to keep an orderly line at 65mph, and she keeps stabbing the brakes, we're right back where we started.

Or, on the other end you have someone who's in rush or otherwise just wants to go faster, overriding their car with the gas pedal. Either way it messes up the proposed system.

I've been telling everyone lately that when self-driving cars become the mandate, I'll just curl up in the back seat and take a nap. Wake me when we arrive.

the answer is simple...

Let's do the maths. Urban highways jammed with cars now. Autonomous cars open up transportation options for millions who cannot or choose not to drive. Congestion goes away and everyone is happy.

Yeah, right.

Mass transit, anyone?