Just pray that there are grandfather clauses for older cars...
Just pray that there are grandfather clauses for older cars...
I've often wondered this when I see these stupid safety systems creeping up.
Blind spot detection used to be the sterioscopic sensors below your forehead. Lane departure warning systems used to be your eyes as well. Automatic cruise control used to be your right foot. People are already suckey drivers and we are making them even more sucktastic every year. Give a car with ABS, a cage and 5-point harnesses to a GOOD driver and I'll show you the safest car on the road.
itsarebuild wrote:fromeast2west wrote: Active safety systems will soon be replaced by fully automated systems. ...... Fully automated systems will have to be more robust than the current active safety systems, and while not perfect they'll be a lot better than some of the insane drivers we have on the roads today. Fatalities should drop, insurance will get cheaper or disappear... and hopefully they'll leave a few roads that enthusiasts can still take in our outdated manual cars.not a chance this will happen. (thank whatever diety you wish) every equal rights and poverty action group will prevent it since the lower income folks cant afford $50,000 cars. sure some folks will buy them, but i seriously doubt there will be a measurable reduction infatalities as "stupid" cant be built into a system. and if you cant predict it, you are going to have a really hard time trying to defend against it.
they will declare self driving cars to be a "right", then they will just put a $40,000 "rebate" on them to allow the disadvantaged (can't say poor any more..) people to be able to buy them..
novaderrik wrote:itsarebuild wrote:they will declare self driving cars to be a "right", then they will just put a $40,000 "rebate" on them to allow the disadvantaged (can't say poor any more..) people to be able to buy them..fromeast2west wrote: Active safety systems will soon be replaced by fully automated systems. ...... Fully automated systems will have to be more robust than the current active safety systems, and while not perfect they'll be a lot better than some of the insane drivers we have on the roads today. Fatalities should drop, insurance will get cheaper or disappear... and hopefully they'll leave a few roads that enthusiasts can still take in our outdated manual cars.not a chance this will happen. (thank whatever diety you wish) every equal rights and poverty action group will prevent it since the lower income folks cant afford $50,000 cars. sure some folks will buy them, but i seriously doubt there will be a measurable reduction infatalities as "stupid" cant be built into a system. and if you cant predict it, you are going to have a really hard time trying to defend against it.
You forget one thing: Insurance will never, ever disappear.
In reply to itsarebuild:
What won't happen? Automated cars, or the outlawing of manual cars?
If it's the first, your too late. Googles cars are already on the roads (saw one this past Sunday in Berkeley, CA), and they're now legal in Nevada. VW is displaying an essentially production ready model that has an automated driving system that's being billed as an advanced cruise control system and seems to be enabled only for highway driving so far.
If it's the second, you may be right. Older vehicles will definitely be grandfathered at least until the number of people driving them is insignificant enough in terms of votes, or there is a demonstrable safety concern that can be used to get them off the roads... at which time there will probably be some sort of Cash for Clunkers program to force them off the roads.
Since most of these systems can be built with off the shelf components the cost of cars shouldn't go up very much. Once they're shown to be safer (and given Google's early results that's pretty much a given), then the lower cost to insure them should more than offset the cost of the systems over the life of the car.
As much as I hate frivolous lawsuits, manufacturers are responsible to back the claims that they make. It is their false advertising that leads to people being dependent on these systems. If your "active cruise control" isn't that "active", don't use it as a selling point.
Like mentioned many times, stop making it easier for crappy drivers to keep driving like idiots. And for gosh sake, quit the product placement of this crap in my TV shows!!!!
One more nail in the coffin of why we need to stop removing the driver from the act of driving.
Creating something more foolproof just creates a better fool.
DrBoost wrote: I've often wondered this when I see these stupid safety systems creeping up. Blind spot detection used to be the sterioscopic sensors below your forehead. Lane departure warning systems used to be your eyes as well. Automatic cruise control used to be your right foot. People are already suckey drivers and we are making them even more sucktastic every year. Give a car with ABS, a cage and 5-point harnesses to a GOOD driver and I'll show you the safest car on the road.
Don't forget a helmet, I'd hate to be on the losing side of a battle of steel tubing vs. my skull.
I am sorry there are way to many enthusiast in the US for manual driven cars to outlawed.
fromeast2west wrote: Once they're shown to be safer (and given Google's early results that's pretty much a given), then the lower cost to insure them should more than offset the cost of the systems over the life of the car.
You think the price of insurance will actually go down even if they are safer? That's cute.
In reply to 93EXCivic:
The same could have been said for CAFE standards, low speed impact safe bumpers, ABS, tire pressure sensors. .....
The economics alone are hugely in favor of fully automated systems.
To get on the road, these systems are going to have to be an order of magnitude safer than human drivers, and the tests that Google has done show that level of improvement is possible. That added safety will drive down the cost of insurance and provide an incentive to most drivers.
For transport companies, think of the amount currently spent to pay a truck driver. Let's say it's about 30k a year (pretty conservative). With taxes, benefits and other costs, it's probably 50k a year minimum to keep a driver in a rig. That driver can only operate about 8 hours a day, while an automated system could drive 24 hours a day; so to compete you need at least 3 drivers, plus coverage for vacations, sick days, weekends, holidays, etc. ... so let's say an automated system could do the work of about 4 drivers, with better safety and reliability.
The current near-productions systems have an estimated cost of 5k to 10k (retail)... against 200k of lower performing human drivers per year.. the transport and shipping companies are going to be all over this tech.
Then look at the people who can't currently drive who would be benefited: the elderly and handicapped come to mind real quick. If anyone tries to block this technology with scare tactics, they're going to have to come up with some real world reasons or they'll face a discrimination suit(s). Even if the populace pushes legislators to outlaw it, the courts will overturn without documented evidence to show that it's less safe that having humans behind the wheel.
Once it's widely adopted and accepted, it will be easy to show that manually operated cars are much less safe, and programs will be put in place to restrict them, then take them off the road entirely (possibly with limited exceptions like parades and exhibitions).
novaderrik wrote:itsarebuild wrote:they will declare self driving cars to be a "right", then they will just put a $40,000 "rebate" on them to allow the disadvantaged (can't say poor any more..) people to be able to buy them..fromeast2west wrote: Active safety systems will soon be replaced by fully automated systems. ...... Fully automated systems will have to be more robust than the current active safety systems, and while not perfect they'll be a lot better than some of the insane drivers we have on the roads today. Fatalities should drop, insurance will get cheaper or disappear... and hopefully they'll leave a few roads that enthusiasts can still take in our outdated manual cars.not a chance this will happen. (thank whatever diety you wish) every equal rights and poverty action group will prevent it since the lower income folks cant afford $50,000 cars. sure some folks will buy them, but i seriously doubt there will be a measurable reduction infatalities as "stupid" cant be built into a system. and if you cant predict it, you are going to have a really hard time trying to defend against it.
my guess is even that wont fly. there are just to many cars currently out there without it to make up the difference... rebate or not. it is more likely that the technology that is added will have little or no impact on the general pool of drivers or accidents until some other variable eliminates the current technology-less cars from viability. maybe fossil fuel cost or something like that. this is the only way i see the playing field ever being levelled enough to make the new technology function as intended and make any substantial gains against "user error".
hopefully i will be gone by then. it will make driving as exciting as riding an elevator.
In reply to fromeast2west:
The difference is that while a lot of those standards effect drivers, they do not remove the driver completely from the equation and those things can be defeated. Also when those things were brought along, old cars were not forced off the road.
fromeast2west wrote: In reply to 93EXCivic: The same could have been said for CAFE standards, low speed impact safe bumpers, ABS, tire pressure sensors. ..... The economics alone are hugely in favor of fully automated systems. To get on the road, these systems are going to have to be an order of magnitude safer than human drivers, and the tests that Google has done show that level of improvement is possible. That added safety will drive down the cost of insurance and provide an incentive to most drivers. For transport companies, think of the amount currently spent to pay a truck driver. Let's say it's about 30k a year (pretty conservative). With taxes, benefits and other costs, it's probably 50k a year minimum to keep a driver in a rig. That driver can only operate about 8 hours a day, while an automated system could drive 24 hours a day; so to compete you need at least 3 drivers, plus coverage for vacations, sick days, weekends, holidays, etc. ... so let's say an automated system could do the work of about 4 drivers, with better safety and reliability. The current near-productions systems have an estimated cost of 5k to 10k (retail)... against 200k of lower performing human drivers per year.. the transport and shipping companies are going to be all over this tech. Then look at the people who can't currently drive who would be benefited: the elderly and handicapped come to mind real quick. If anyone tries to block this technology with scare tactics, they're going to have to come up with some real world reasons or they'll face a discrimination suit(s). Even if the populace pushes legislators to outlaw it, the courts will overturn without documented evidence to show that it's less safe that having humans behind the wheel. Once it's widely adopted and accepted, it will be easy to show that manually operated cars are much less safe, and programs will be put in place to restrict them, then take them off the road entirely (possibly with limited exceptions like parades and exhibitions).
no one is blocking the technology. merely saying its successes will be diluted by unpredictable and therefore non defendable actions of other drivers, and its errors (active responses for no reason... which will at least be alleged (see drive by wire examples aplenty) will be glaring and libelous. and for that reason, it wont be the panacea it is billed as.
I'm actually one of those "Luddites" that would add ABS to the list. I've had problems hauling the car to a stop just because there was a patch of gravel on the road (under just one wheel) that caused the system to kick in. No wrecks yet, but I'm not a big ABS fan.
EDIT: Sorry guys, don't know why it double-posted.
Kind of agree there. Abs murders my ability to stop quickly when it kicks in, and on the other side of the coin, traction control only seems capable of getting me stuck in the snow.
Maybe this stuff actually works in high tech cars, but in cheap/old cars, they only seems to make things worse in situations where they are intended to help. Thanks for mandating this "technology" 
failboat wrote: I wonder the same thing aloud when that mercedes benz commercial plays on tv, the one with all the drivers praising the MB for saving them when they dozed off behind the wheel, or may or may not have been paying full attention when a truck stopped in front of them. Kind of pisses me off. Pay attention when you are driving, people.
It pisses me off knowing these clods would have been 6 feet under a mere 5 years ago, yet they are on tv promoting fellow retards to buy a MB so when they doze off it can save their ass too. I'd like to hear their opinion on darwinism because it's becoming increasingly difficult to flush the gene pool.
YaNi wrote:failboat wrote: I wonder the same thing aloud when that mercedes benz commercial plays on tv, the one with all the drivers praising the MB for saving them when they dozed off behind the wheel, or may or may not have been paying full attention when a truck stopped in front of them. Kind of pisses me off. Pay attention when you are driving, people.It pisses me off knowing these clods would have been 6 feet under a mere 5 years ago, yet they are on tv promoting fellow retards to buy a MB so when they doze off it can save their ass too. I'd like to hear their opinion on darwinism because it's becoming increasingly difficult to flush the gene pool.
I read something once back during the Cold War, can't recall who wrote it. But the hypothesis was that nuclear weapons would be the end of the human race even if we never use them. He went on to say that the problem was, without large-scale conventional wars, people stupid enough to stand up in a foxhole just to discover that "that noise" was a sniper rifle being loaded wouldn't be eliminated from the gene pool. It was crazy stuff, I wish I could find it..
In reply to itsarebuild:I sure hope you're prediction is the correct one. Maybe me and Jesse Jackson will have a common cause we both truly believe in....amazing possibilities.
You'll need to log in to post.
