Thoughts on Our Future With Self-Driving Cars

In reply to Driven5 :

I recently read an interview piece somewhere... wherin a transportation professor expert person hypothesized (and seemed to know what they were talking about) that self driving cars are better in many scenarios traffic wise that was not the case in the urban core. Even if the self driving cars have 4 passengers they will clog the urban core just the same as dumb cars as they are still way less human dense than buses or trains and pedestrians as the space needed for unloading, turning around, parking, fixing, towing, all that 'car' vehicle stuff remains low value urban clogging. I had not thought that until I read the piece but it is makes sense.

Everything Joe said.

You will definitely have to pry my steering wheel from my cold, dead, hands.

Driven5 wrote: Another huge benefit to mass implementation of self driving cars, is the potential for significantly reducing traffic congestion and travel times in more urban areas. And I think that's really where the line would get drawn. In more urban areas, there may be restrictions on driving your own car within the next few decades. But I don't believe that can, will, or should be able to extend to more rural areas for considerably longer after that. And when driving your own car in urban areas does inevitably go the way of the horse...You'll probably be able to find me operating an automotive 'dude-ranch' somewhere, so that city-folk can come out and experience what it was like to drive your own cars back in the day.

You're expecting the same people that can't figure out how to time traffic lights to be able to program millions of vehicles to ease traffic congestion. If you can't see the irony and laughability of that I can't help you.

And yes... we (as a society) have been giving up freedoms for the illusion of safety for decades. Sadly we end up with neither freedom nor safety in the end. Probably why I lean towards that whole Libertarian concept of you do you, I do me. I don't stop you, you don't stop me.

In reply to Shaun:

Obviously self-driving cars aren't as human dense as mass transit, and as such each self-driving car takes up just as much space as a dumb car on an individual basis, but I'd like to see where there is evidence that they would actually clog the urban core just as bad as dumb cars if utilized intelligently.

Ironically, the aversion of so many individuals to using mass transit, might ultimately be a significant part of the long-term downfall of individual driving in urban, and even suburban areas.

I love driving, but there are times when spending hours behind the wheel is a drag. I'd love it if an AI could take the drudgery out of long road trips and let me grab a nap.

Also, while I enjoy flying, I hate airports and airlines. Security theater, delays, clueless infrequent flyers trying to get away with five carry-on bags, crying babies, the entire experience sucks. Self-driving cars would completely replace domestic air travel for me, even coast to coast. Just wake me up when the car needs gas and let me out to stretch once in a while.

I'm on board with them, mainly due to safety. Traffic improvements are a bonus. Oh, and that^. Flying sucks. Autonomous cars could make regional travel so much better.

Mass transit only works when the population density reaches a certain point. While those limits are reached in places like New York, Chicago, LA,DC.... it doesn't in the other 95% area of the country. It's the same ol' Shtick with everything else. Lets push for the one solution to cover the entire country! It will either only work in the population density areas or more commonly it works for no one. Then it just costs everyone a fortune and we lose yet more liberties.

Bobzilla wrote: Mass transit only works when the population density reaches a certain point. While those limits are reached in places like New York, Chicago, LA,DC.... it doesn't in the other 95% area of the country. It's the same ol' Shtick with everything else. Lets push for the one solution to cover the entire country! It will either only work in the population density areas or more commonly it works for no one. Then it just costs everyone a fortune and we lose yet more liberties.

Correction.

Actual data I have seen shows that there are 2-3 mass transit systems in the entire country which can run without government assistance based on selling tickets alone.

So, if there are currently 30,000-50,000 traffic deaths per year in the US, and automated vehicles can cut that number in half (15,000-25,000) what kind of effect do all of those still-living people have? Over a decade, that's at least 150,000 more humans humaning up the place, along with all of the good and bad that entails. More available workers/fewer jobs? More tax base/more need for gov assistance? More need for food/less space to grow it? More strain on the environment/increased efficiency from robot overlords?

Driven5 wrote: Except for a dip during WWII, between 30,000 and 55,000 people have died on the road each and every year since ~1930.

Has the number of total drivers on the road annually grown over that period of time? A real measure would be the annual percentage of drivers who get into accidents, and the % of accidents that are fatal.

tuna55 wrote:

Bobzilla wrote: Mass transit only works when the population density reaches a certain point. While those limits are reached in places like New York, Chicago, LA,DC.... it doesn't in the other 95% area of the country. It's the same ol' Shtick with everything else. Lets push for the one solution to cover the entire country! It will either only work in the population density areas or more commonly it works for no one. Then it just costs everyone a fortune and we lose yet more liberties.

Correction. Actual data I have seen shows that there are 2-3 mass transit systems in the entire country which can run without government assistance based on selling tickets alone.

So, what you're saying is that the vast majority are not the panacea that we are told they are?

alfadriver wrote:

JimS wrote: You don't want to drive. Take a bus.

Which is great IF there is a bus to take.

Oh yes, the "lifes not fair" argument. People dont plan to fail, they fail to plan. If youre not interested in driving, plan to live in a place where the non-driving-life-choice is logical. Dont make youre inability to drive properly - aka not facetweeting every 8 seconds - my problem.

4cylndrfury wrote:

alfadriver wrote:

JimS wrote: You don't want to drive. Take a bus.

Which is great IF there is a bus to take.

Oh yes, the "lifes not fair" argument. People dont plan to fail, they fail to plan. If youre not interested in driving, plan to live in a place where the non-driving-life-choice is logical. Dont make youre inability to drive properly - aka not facetweeting every 8 seconds - my problem.

Bingo. Choices have consequences. We, as a society, have forgotten that.

Who here on this board (other than Mr. Wallens) has been behind the wheel of a self-driving car before?

"raises hand" I have. And it's WEIRD.

A co-worker has a Tesla Model S P90D, and regardless of what you think about electric cars: it's an incredible piece of technology. First off, it's by far the fastest car I've ever had the pleasure of driving. It's brain-meltingly fast, and your eyes and body don't know what to do when you mash the go pedal. You just hang on and do your best.

But the freaky part is Autopilot. My coworker LOVES driving, but he also LOVES technology. He says he can loaf to work on the highway while relaxing, sipping his morning coffee and reading the news. When the car needs him, it'l let him know. I tried it out, and the first impulse is to grab the wheel. He urged me not to, and the car started taking corners on its own and maintaining speed. When you want to take over, just grab the wheel or hit one of the pedals, and you are back in control. Simple as that. I'm sorry, but that's pretty damn cool from a technological standpoint. Strange, but cool.

Now, would I advocate for everyone to have a self-driving car? NO WAY. NEVER. But, if the option was there in more vehicles for a system like Autopilot, that wouldn't be such a bad thing, especially if you have a rural commute where you rack up the miles. In certain situations, it's brilliant.

Having experienced one, would I seek out that option in a vehicle? Not likely. It's too pricey, and probably useless on my commute, as I take a lot of back roads. And honestly, I hope it stays in the top tier cars, because the Corolla-driving road loafs I deal with on a daily basis would likely get more annoying and unpredictable if they were autonomous car road loafs.

Toyman01 wrote: Everything Joe said. You will definitely have to pry my steering wheel from my cold, dead, hands.

For the most part, I agree with both Joe, and Toyman. However, I don't necessarily see human operated cars being outlawed. I see them being cost prohibitive to insure. I also think the autonomous cars will "time" stop lights shortly after coming on line. Maybe they will be able to drive 1' apart since the human element has been removed. That should make up for having to drive the speed limit on the way to the city. Then again, maybe they'll be allowed to drive 120 mph with their superior brake modulation and space age sensors. I'm glad I'm middle aged. The future looks dull.

Image somewhat related.

Driven5 wrote: Except for a dip during WWII, between 30,000 and 55,000 people have died on the road each and every year since ~1930. As much as I hate to say it: If widespread implementation of autonomous driving cars can decrease that by an order of magnitude, which I believe it can, then there is absolutely no question in my mind about what should ultimately happen.

The medical community is trying to figure out how to deal with the organ shortages that will come along with autonomous cars. Never thought of that.

4cylndrfury wrote: Dont make youre inability to drive properly - aka not facetweeting every 8 seconds - my problem.

I'm confused by this argument. This is exactly the current situation in society. A lot of people can't drive well, are distracted, tired, drunk, etc. and still choose to get behind the wheel. As Bobzilla said, choices have consequences. Unfortunately those consequences aren't always just for themselves.

Giving the masses, the majority of people who find driving to be a chore, access to cars that can drive themselves sure as hell seems like a win-win scenario to me.

DrBoost wrote:

Driven5 wrote: Except for a dip during WWII, between 30,000 and 55,000 people have died on the road each and every year since ~1930. As much as I hate to say it: If widespread implementation of autonomous driving cars can decrease that by an order of magnitude, which I believe it can, then there is absolutely no question in my mind about what should ultimately happen.

The medical community is trying to figure out how to deal with the organ shortages that will come along with autonomous cars. Never thought of that.

It all depends on your POV. If you look at each and every case, you'll cry out in anguish at the unfairness of disease/accident/death and insist that we as a society do everything we can to save every single life no matter what.

But back up and look at the numbers facing our planet and increasing the rate of die off isn't just a good idea, it's darn near a requirement for the survival of the species.

Since most of us fall somewhere in the middle of that continuum, I'll say this. Self driving cars are the future, hopefully we embrace the tech and have it work for us because if we go down the nanny state path we end up with something between HAL and Skynet. And that would suck.

While Dan Brown has definitely beaten the Catholic church to death and back again in his books.... his latest I can actually relate to.

I personally don't care anymore. Seriously. What has happened with our society as a whole, I'm ready for it to burn down and a new forest to regrow. Maybe it's fatalistic. Maybe I (like many others) are just fed up with the stupidity and arrogance of all sides lately. Maybe it's a little of both.

Irregardless, you want your silly self driving car go for it. I will mercilessly make fun of you for it.

Driven5 wrote: In reply to Shaun: Obviously self-driving cars aren't as human dense as mass transit, and as such each self-driving car takes up just as much space as a dumb car on an individual basis, but I'd like to see where there is evidence that they would actually clog the urban core just as bad as dumb cars if utilized intelligently. Ironically, the aversion of so many individuals to using mass transit, might ultimately be a significant part of the long-term downfall of individual driving in urban, and even suburban areas.

You need evidence that thousands of cars entering a finite area will still cause traffic?

Liquid by definition has perfect volume utilization, and does it autonomously! Keep pouring water into a finite area faster than it can release it and you got a problem.

An individual person is as small a space as someone can cover, yet walking around Disney is still a damn mess.

Merging is one of the biggest slowdowns during rush hour sans accidents. But you cannot fold the cars like a zipper. You would need to recreate the space between cars to handle the next merge which means the strings of cars per lane will increase each time. Add enough merging cars and enough merges and the car at the end of the line ain't moving very fast.

I fully believe that all this effort for autonomous cars will fail. However many active assists will likely survive and be adopted.

Full autonomous cars are a fantasy just like flying cars in the 50s. They were convinced it would happen. It didn't. It's an incomplete and expensive answer for a question that has already been answered.

KyAllroad wrote: But back up and look at the numbers facing our planet and increasing the rate of die off isn't just a good idea, it's darn near a requirement for the survival of the species.

You're neglecting the option of reducing the birth rate instead. Of course, then one side will argue that saving lives through science and engineering is infringing on their freedom of unlimited procreation without overpopulating the planet. And the other side will argue that unlimited procreation is infringing on their freedom to save lives through science and engineering without overpopulating the planet. The question is, who gets to decide whose freedom gets infringed upon or lost?

The common theme in pretty much every major hot-button topic, which goes completely (and conveniently) ignored by both sides, is that BOTH sides are actually infringing on the others freedom. It is by no means a one way street, as each 'side' would so vocally try to get everybody else to believe.

So this whole notion of complete individual freedom as long as it doesn't infringe on another's freedom, also apparently known as "You do you, I do me. I don't stop you, you don't stop me.", is nothing more than a myth at best...And lie at worst. Every freedom ultimately comes at the expense of another freedom. To think otherwise is naive.

In much the same way, one side will argue their freedom to drive their own car, while the other side will argue for their freedom to not get killed by somebody driving their own car...It's not a question of simply losing freedoms, but rather is a question of which freedom is more important than which other freedom to society as a whole?

In reply to Driven5:

As long as berkeleying feels good there is ZERO chance that the birth rate will fall. And since we are all so very very wired to obey the pleasure center of our primate brains, that's not going away either.

The biological drive to reproduce is just ridiculous and (one could argue) completely against our self interests as a species. Look at parts of the planet which have been wracked with disease, famine, drought, and war for literally generations. Like Somalia for instance, you'd think that a sensible person would look around and say "no way I'm bringing my potential offspring into this environment". And yet the place is positively awash with kids.

And to fully steer this thread into the weeds, global famine or disease is the only realistic way to get the numbers back into the territory of "sustainable". The trick is something bad enough to make a real difference but not so bad that systems collapse and the population reduction becomes self sustaining and we regress to a pre-industrial condition.

Like, say.... a virus that limits reproduction to 1 in 3. that would work... for a while.

Also, personal freedoms are not fantasy nor a lie. Trying to force your way onto another is another story andsure doesn't follow the "you do you, I'll do me" philosophy in the least. It's like you're purposely ignoring what is said and going on a tangent.

If people would stop for a moment and realize the one simple fact of life: you're not getting out of it alive. So stop worrying about so much stupid crap. "I can't go to Paris now, the terrorists might blow us up" heard recently with co-workers. Sorry, I'm not that paranoid. IF my time is up, so be it. Until then I'll enjoy what I can. I just wish others would think the same way and stop trying to force others to do what they want them to.

if I could hop in my truck with trailer hooked up and show up in Florida 14 hours later only having to deal with fuel stops i'd be happy as hell.

4cylndrfury wrote:

Driven5 wrote: Except for a dip during WWII, between 30,000 and 55,000 people have died on the road each and every year since ~1930.

Has the number of total drivers on the road annually grown over that period of time? A real measure would be the annual percentage of drivers who get into accidents, and the % of accidents that are fatal.

Well, there are 200 million drivers in the US. 3% of them get into accidents each year. Half of those (1.5% of all drivers) are injury accidents. 0.0001% of the population (or less) are involved in fatalities... It's easy to be in the 97% of drivers that don't get into accidents each year. Extremely easy. It's mind-bogglingly hard to get that 0.0001% number much smaller. And really, at what cost?

But, and for those that think they'll move if autonomous cars get regulated into mandatory use, you really think there's going to be a developed nation that won't follow suit, that will also allow you the other freedoms you enjoy? Insurance companies being what they are, and safety of allowing a mix of autonomous and non-autonomous cars together will keep most civilized nations following the same path. Sucks for us that love to drive, but it's likely coming regardless and I really don't see it doing as much good as proponents claim (even if it would be nice to tell your car to take you home after a night on the town).