Driverless cars?

SVreX wrote: This is obviously a complex question, which will require the expertise of many, many lawyers and insurance adjusters and actuarial tables to sort out. Not a question that can be answered by a simple guy from GA and another from Barbados.

I'd like to ask a body shop what percentage of their repairs are for vehicle-to-vehicle or vehicle-to-stationary object impacts vs. deer and other "environmental" damage. I'd do it myself, but there are no deer around here

SVreX wrote: You are optimistic toward the technology. I believe in the law of unintended consequences, and don't really believe it will put body shops out of business.

I don't like to let the fear of unintended consequences keep me from getting the intended and certain benefits.

You guys all forget...WE are not the target beneficiaries for autonomous transportation.

Your government does not have a department of automotive enthusiasm, they have a department of transportation. The government policy makers view the driving public in much the same way as we do a transport truck hauling pigs and cows to the slaughter house. They need us to get to our jobs as efficiently as possible so that we can generate the tax dollars that they feed on.

The culmination of the autonomous car is to end private ownership of the vehicles. People will access cars in much the same way that UBER works today. Only there wont be a driver in the transportation module.

What makes the driverless vehicle so appealing is the consistency and predictability of actions. Humans don't do well with the merging thing: If every vehicle entering an intersection knows to the inch what and where the other vehicles are going to do, intersections could operate with the efficiency of a communications switch. In theory you could merge two lanes and never have a slow-down, same for bumper to bumper traffic moving at 80 mph. Road rage would be a thing of the past.

The good news is that I think that suck a far fetched future would be good for the automotive hobby. Race tracks would be built and financed by the enthusiast who are not catered to by mere transportation.

GameboyRMH wrote: I don't like to let the fear of unintended consequences keep me from getting the intended and certain benefits.

Me neither.

But I am pretty good at planning for them.

I frequently make money on jobs because I see stuff coming that others do not.

I don't call that fear. I call it opportunity.

The question at hand is whether it will effect body shops and mechanics. Doesn't really matter whether people are afraid of it or not.

You are not really taking a position of "no fear". You are taking a position advocating a technology on the speculation that it will reduce accidents and deprive body shops of work.

Are you trying to make mechanics afraid?

NOHOME wrote: You guys all forget...WE are not the target beneficiaries for autonomous transportation. Your government does not have a department of automotive enthusiasm, they have a department of transportation. The government policy makers view the driving public in much the same way as we do a transport truck hauling pigs and cows to the slaughter house. They need us to get to our jobs as efficiently as possible so that we can generate the tax dollars that they feed on. The culmination of the autonomous car is to end private ownership of the vehicles. People will access cars in much the same way that UBER works today. Only there wont be a driver in the transportation module.

Interesting.

Sounds like the mass transit I mentioned earlier, in individualized pods.

GameboyRMH wrote:

Curmudgeon wrote: See: taking over in case of something really confusing the much vaunted autonomous systems.

But how often will it get "really confused" and will the driver even get any hints that they should take over? Consider the "paper blowing across the road" scenario you pointed out. With on-road debris, the safe thing to do is assume they're made of stone anyway - but a paper or bag blowing is a thing you should ignore. Improvements in object recognition could look for things that aren't touching the ground at all, things that don't match a human size/form, things that float like a human shouldn't, and assume that it's safe to hit them. Even if the car misidentifies paper as a dangerous obstacle, it won't need to cause an accident. Nearby cars can be alerted of emergency maneuvers, either via V2V comms or very quick perception without comms. A car may stop for paper in the road for no reason, but the car behind it will stop for a stopped car, and so on.

Exactly my point. No one will bother to learn the basics, instead they will rely completely on the car. That's going to become a real problem.

In the article about Google's cars posted earlier, the engineer they were talking to implied he wouldn't trust his own son to drive. He said his personal deadline for Google's autonomous cars is before his 11 yr old son turns 16.

That's kind of scary, he trusts the judgment of a box full of ones and zeroes programmed by other humans more than that of a human. Hmmmm...

Curmudgeon wrote: That's kind of scary, he trusts the judgment of a box full of ones and zeroes programmed by other humans more than that of a human. Hmmmm...

I thought the only time a google car has crashed to date was when a human was driving it?

I wasn't aware a Google driverless car had crashed? I thought that was a camera car for Google Maps. EDIT: According to Wiki, one was rear ended at a light in 2010 and another was involved in a crash in 2011 while being driven manually. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_driverless_car#Incidents

NOHOME wrote: You guys all forget...WE are not the target beneficiaries for autonomous transportation. Your government does not have a department of automotive enthusiasm, they have a department of transportation. The government policy makers view the driving public in much the same way as we do a transport truck hauling pigs and cows to the slaughter house. They need us to get to our jobs as efficiently as possible so that we can generate the tax dollars that they feed on. The culmination of the autonomous car is to end private ownership of the vehicles. People will access cars in much the same way that UBER works today. Only there wont be a driver in the transportation module.

There is another intermediate beneficiary of the technology.

Google.

Googlecars are not transportation devices.

They are data collection devices, driven voluntarily by their "owners" millions of miles per year.

Since Google is a mapped-based service, Googlecars will use their sensors to identify and upload data for other Googlecars to utilize.

So, if a new light pole goes up which is not in the map, a Googlecar will "see" it and add it. Same thing if I add a mailbox post on the weekend.

So, each of us will be in the business of gathering data for Google to benefit from.

Ok, so it will capture optical inputs. That may mean that Streetview will have exponentially more data collectors (driven for free), and therefore more current info. Maybe they will see my kids in the yard, or a drug deal going down.

But what else will they collect? Who says it will only be optical?

Wifi signals? Login passwords? License tags? Expired registrations? Audio signals? Insurance actuarial data?

Will they have internal sensors in the vehicle? Audio conversations? Facial recognition? Eye and hand movements? How about health monitoring?

Cell phone records? Employment history?

If they collect this data, how will they use it? Will they sell it to insurance companies? Government? The highest bidder?

I realize I am speculating, and going WAAY outside the box, but if Google builds a Goolgecar, I guarantee it will be a uber data collection device.

from wikipedia (take that for what it is):

Incidents:

In 2010, an incident involved a Google driverless car being rear-ended while stopped at a traffic light; Google says that this incident was caused by a human-operated car.[28] In August 2011, a Google driverless car was involved in a crash near Google headquarters in Mountain View, California; Google has stated that the car was being driven manually at the time of the accident.[29]

Do yall think people will be banned from driving regular cars?

SVreX wrote: I realize I am speculating, and going WAAY outside the box, but if Google builds a Goolgecar, I guarantee it will be a uber data collection device.

Agreed. Just like every piece of technology we already use was when it came out.

Maybe this means that googlecars will be cheaper (or free) because Google will subsidize them in return for the data? Like the search engine is free...

Maybe you will only have to pay if you want to listen to your own music while you travel, and not google's ads specifically chosen for you.

CaptianDawg27 wrote: Do yall think people will be banned from driving regular cars?

My prediction is that while people will not be legally banned, the insurance cost of driving your own car will be prohibitively expensive enough that people will be effectively banned.

EDIT: this is for commuting on public roads. I see a rise in private facilities that allow you to drive as an enthusiast (race, high-speed, tune, cruise, etc).

SVreX wrote:

NOHOME wrote: You guys all forget...WE are not the target beneficiaries for autonomous transportation. Your government does not have a department of automotive enthusiasm, they have a department of transportation. The government policy makers view the driving public in much the same way as we do a transport truck hauling pigs and cows to the slaughter house. They need us to get to our jobs as efficiently as possible so that we can generate the tax dollars that they feed on. The culmination of the autonomous car is to end private ownership of the vehicles. People will access cars in much the same way that UBER works today. Only there wont be a driver in the transportation module.

There is another intermediate beneficiary of the technology. Google. Googlecars are not transportation devices. They are data collection devices, driven voluntarily by their "owners" millions of miles per year. Since Google is a mapped-based service, Googlecars will use their sensors to identify and upload data for other Googlecars to utilize. So, if a new light pole goes up which is not in the map, a Googlecar will "see" it and add it. Same thing if I add a mailbox post on the weekend. So, each of us will be in the business of gathering data for Google to benefit from. Ok, so it will capture optical inputs. That may mean that Streetview will have exponentially more data collectors (driven for free), and therefore more current info. Maybe they will see my kids in the yard, or a drug deal going down. But what else will they collect? Who says it will only be optical? Wifi signals? Login passwords? License tags? Expired registrations? Audio signals? Insurance actuarial data? Will they have internal sensors in the vehicle? Audio conversations? Facial recognition? Eye and hand movements? How about health monitoring? Cell phone records? Employment history? If they collect this data, how will they use it? Will they sell it to insurance companies? Government? The highest bidder? I realize I am speculating, and going WAAY outside the box, but if Google builds a Goolgecar, I guarantee it will be a uber data collection device.

This Pandora's Box has had the lid open for a while now. There is no putting the genie back in the bottle, so as humans, we will just learn to adapt. We have done it before.

CaptianDawg27 wrote: Do yall think people will be banned from driving regular cars?

Maybe, because if all cars are autonomous, there are huge benefits to be had. Cars will be able to drive as quickly as is efficient just inches apart. There won't be any need for stop lights or signs, cars can arrange to avoid each other, even if they're going through intersections at the same time and missing each other by inches. Speed limits on highways could be done away with, the occupants could choose how far above the limit they want to go at their own fuel expense.

I also think a Google car would be a massive data collection device, good thing Google isn't the only manufacturer

CaptianDawg27 wrote: Do yall think people will be banned from driving regular cars?

Interesting question. I have to say probably not, there's simply too many variables to have a blanket 'no driving by a human' law or laws. I also have to say I'm sorta happy to know I probably won't be around if or when this kind of crap takes over, I sometimes despair of the future of humanity and this sort of laziness is one reason why.

Curmudgeon wrote:

CaptianDawg27 wrote: Do yall think people will be banned from driving regular cars?

Interesting question. I have to say probably not, there's simply too many variables to have a blanket 'no driving by a human' law or laws. I also have to say I'm sorta happy to know I probably won't be around if or when this kind of crap takes over, I sometimes despair of the future of humanity and this sort of laziness is one reason why.

Do you own and use a power lawn mower? Snow blower?

I could make a similar laziness argument about those. Especially in a country where everyone is dying of fatness. Get out and push one of those human-powered spinny-blade mowers. Ahhh the HUMANITY!

Maybe Google will trade data with insurance companies to subsidize the purchase cost of the vehicle.

So, the Googlecar can be sold to the "buyer" at a price of $45K, but the insurance company pays an additional $30K for the use of the data collection device. And perhaps other companies will pay fees also. Repo companies buying license plate info? etc.. etc.

The real cost of the vehicle might be $150K, but very doable to the "buyer". Of course, if the thing is wrecked, the insurance claim will be MUCH higher than the purchase price.

There's a lot they could do very easily. They could gather info regulated by governments, HIPAA (legal, since they are not a medical services provider), military info, whatever.

The real challenge has absolutely nothing to do with the technical transportation and safety problems. The real challenge is the legal issues.

Curmudgeon wrote:

CaptianDawg27 wrote: Do yall think people will be banned from driving regular cars?

Interesting question. I have to say probably not, there's simply too many variables to have a blanket 'no driving by a human' law or laws. I also have to say I'm sorta happy to know I probably won't be around if or when this kind of crap takes over, I sometimes despair of the future of humanity and this sort of laziness is one reason why.

True story.

I certainly won't be buying a self driving car ever.

If they ban regular cars, would they ban motorcycles too? I don't see that happening.

I'd be happy to have one, although if there were any enjoyable street driving to be had around here I might think differently. Commuting would be a lot less stressful and more enjoyable (or productive).

93EXCivic wrote: If they ban regular cars, would they ban motorcycles too? I don't see that happening.

I agree I don't see banning motorcycles either. I do think that autonomous controls could be adapted to motorcycles quite easily though.

On an unrelated side-note, who is 'they'?

rcutclif wrote: On an unrelated side-note, who is 'they'?

The government of wherever you live.

Or the Illuminati, if you prefer

rcutclif wrote:

Curmudgeon wrote:

CaptianDawg27 wrote: Do yall think people will be banned from driving regular cars?

Interesting question. I have to say probably not, there's simply too many variables to have a blanket 'no driving by a human' law or laws. I also have to say I'm sorta happy to know I probably won't be around if or when this kind of crap takes over, I sometimes despair of the future of humanity and this sort of laziness is one reason why.

Do you own and use a power lawn mower? Snow blower? I could make a similar laziness argument about those. Especially in a country where everyone is dying of fatness. Get out and push one of those human-powered spinny-blade mowers. Ahhh the HUMANITY!

I do own a riding mower. Way too far south to need a snow blower, thankfully.

I'm referring to intellectual laziness more than physical. [harrumph] When I was a kid, everyone (or so it seemed) in my neighborhood owned bicycles and more than a few had dirt bikes. We used to do all kinds of crazy crap on them, in the process maybe getting bumped and bruised but we learned how to operate the damn things. Now all I see is kids playing World of Warcraft or some such crap on iPads, iPhones, etc., they do not learn the real world. Now these same kids will have driverless cars? That gives me a sad. [/harrumph]

"They" might be Google.

"They" did a pretty good job of shutting down any paid internet search services. Though it wouldn't technically be a ban, I am pretty sure "they" could make alternatives to driverless cars pretty unbearable.