"Your" Are you currently living...Somewhere else?

 

Finding driverless solutions to mixed human traffic won't be easy in the US. The chaos of your typical third-world evening commute will require supercomputer scale artificial idiot emulation to work in mixed traffic.

https://www.wired.com/story/self-driving-cars-chaotic-cities-traffic/

At some point, retrofit kits will be available and subsidized by insurance companies and/or government. Kind of like digital TV conversion boxes. Insurance will be too expensive and the benefit of converting everyone to auto-mode will be too high not to have everyone in the same mode.

 

At some point, retrofit kits will be available and subsidized by insurance companies and/or government. Kind of like digital TV conversion boxes. Insurance will be too expensive and the benefit of converting everyone to auto-mode will be too high not to have everyone in the same mode.

I've said it before on the same topic: Cold. Dead. Fingers.

 

Not sure what you mean. Remember I am talking about a system where ALL cars (not the firetruck) are auto. Therefore, if the light is green (and you would not really need light anyway) the path is clear. If there is a child, deer or elephant on the road the normal crash avoidance would get involved.
But you are right, the system fails now because there are still humans involved today...


We sort of do anyway, that's what traffic lights and sirens on the firetruck do now.
But again, I agree. This would be a nightmare to implement currently. I, however, have no doubt that this will happen..

Consider the scale of the task of making all cars driverless.

There are currently somewhere around 260 million passenger cars in the U.S. alone. New auto sales in the U.S. are something like 16 million a year. So even if every driverless car sold remained in operation and each new driverless car replaced an existing human-driven vehicle, you are talking over 15 years. Even if mandated by law, you are probably talking two to three decades to make the switch. And consider all of the people that can barely afford to operate 30 year old cars now and who certainly can't afford the price tag of a driverless vehicle. This isn't going to be like when TV went digital and the government addressed that issue by simply giving everyone that wanted one a cheap converter box.

Plus, there are still going to be all kinds of situations in which driverless cars are going to be a pain. Consider someone going up into the national forest to cut down dead trees for firewood. They're not only possibly off anything that resembles a road, but where they are going and where it makes sense to park would require mind reading on the part of the car since I want to park where I am not at risk of being hit by THAT tree when I cut it down but also where I can get up right next to the tree after I cut it down but am also not at risk of getting blocked in regardless of where the tree actually falls. Then there's the issue of recognizing where they can and can't drive based on things like how packed the ground is, whether there are animal burrows that need to be avoided, what protected flowers must be steered clear of, and on and on.

 

Consider the scale of the task of making all cars driverless.

There are currently somewhere around 260 million passenger cars in the U.S. alone. New auto sales in the U.S. are something like 16 million a year. So even if every driverless car sold remained in operation and each new driverless car replaced an existing human-driven vehicle, you are talking over 15 years. Even if mandated by law, you are probably talking two to three decades to make the switch. And consider all of the people that can barely afford to operate 30 year old cars now and who certainly can't afford the price tag of a driverless vehicle. This isn't going to be like when TV went digital and the government addressed that issue by simply giving everyone that wanted one a cheap converter box.

Plus, there are still going to be all kinds of situations in which driverless cars are going to be a pain. Consider someone going up into the national forest to cut down dead trees for firewood. They're not only possibly off anything that resembles a road, but where they are going and where it makes sense to park would require mind reading on the part of the car since I want to park where I am not at risk of being hit by THAT tree when I cut it down but also where I can get up right next to the tree after I cut it down but am also not at risk of getting blocked in regardless of where the tree actually falls. Then there's the issue of recognizing where they can and can't drive based on things like how packed the ground is, whether there are animal burrows that need to be avoided, what protected flowers must be steered clear of, and on and on.

Those calculations are mostly BS because it assumes none of the cars will get retrofits. All of the development done by UBer, Delphi, Magna and ArgoAI are done with retrofits. They are all driving on the streets of Pittsburgh. It works.

 

I've said it before on the same topic: Cold. Dead. Fingers.

I understand, it can really be exhilarating to grab that steering wheel and slam the pedal to the floor on your
Honda Odyssey.

 

I understand, it can really be exhilarating to grab that steering wheel and slam the pedal to the floor on your
Honda Odyssey.

... I've always pictured Joey as more of a VW Bus kind of guy...

​

 

I understand, it can really be exhilarating to grab that steering wheel and slam the pedal to the floor on your
Honda Odyssey.

0 to 60 in 6.6, top speed 117. It's not your grandma's minivan.

 

0 to 60 in 6.6, top speed 117. It's not your grandma's minivan.

I have one. However, More like 7.5 to 7.7 for 0-60

 

I have one. However, More like 7.5 to 7.7 for 0-60

There are minvans for speed demons.
https://www.topspeed.com/cars/chrysler/2017-chrysler-pacifica-hellcat-ar172693.html

0-60 time: 3.6 sec. Top Speed:175 mph

 

There are minvans for speed demons.
https://www.topspeed.com/cars/chrysler/2017-chrysler-pacifica-hellcat-ar172693.html

0-60 time: 3.6 sec. Top Speed:175 mph

I want to see the wind tunnel tests.

 

Consider the scale of the task of making all cars driverless.

There are currently somewhere around 260 million passenger cars in the U.S. alone. New auto sales in the U.S. are something like 16 million a year. So even if every driverless car sold remained in operation and each new driverless car replaced an existing human-driven vehicle, you are talking over 15 years. Even if mandated by law, you are probably talking two to three decades to make the switch. And consider all of the people that can barely afford to operate 30 year old cars now and who certainly can't afford the price tag of a driverless vehicle. This isn't going to be like when TV went digital and the government addressed that issue by simply giving everyone that wanted one a cheap converter box.

This is not something that is just going to happen. I would put it at about 10-15 years in Australia where most people keep there cars for less then 6 years. Not sure about else where.
But, we cant just say "this is too hard" or we would all still be on horse and carts. Imagine automating that...

Plus, there are still going to be all kinds of situations in which driverless cars are going to be a pain. Consider someone going up into the national forest to cut down dead trees for firewood. They're not only possibly off anything that resembles a road, but where they are going and where it makes sense to park would require mind reading on the part of the car since I want to park where I am not at risk of being hit by THAT tree when I cut it down but also where I can get up right next to the tree after I cut it down but am also not at risk of getting blocked in regardless of where the tree actually falls. Then there's the issue of recognizing where they can and can't drive based on things like how packed the ground is, whether there are animal burrows that need to be avoided, what protected flowers must be steered clear of, and on and on.

I also understand there is always going to be a need for manual cars\trucks\busses, but this is like the argument against electric cars.
Yes, there is always going to be cases that electric cars are no good, but for the other 98% of case it is a far better solution. Same for automation.

 

I also understand there is always going to be a need for manual cars\trucks\busses, but this is like the argument against electric cars.
Yes, there is always going to be cases that electric cars are no good, but for the other 98% of case it is a far better solution. Same for automation.

It's not an argument against automation. It's a hype reality check. If a human driver did what the Driverless Shuttle did we would call him a brainless deer in the headlights idiot from not listening to the passengers screaming for him to avoid the backing truck.

 

The stated purpose of self driving cars is safety. I think the real purpose is to null or collectively negate......liability. The most cost effective way to decrease liability is to limit activity.

In the future......only the rich will be able to drive. The premiums for personal liability to manually drive will be too high for regular people.

You can buy it, but you can't drive it. Sorta like property.....you can buy it and pay taxes on it.....but you can't enjoy it.......because someone else has control of it.

 

The stated purpose of self driving cars is safety. I think the real purpose is to null or collectively negate......liability. The most cost effective way to decrease liability is to limit activity.

 

If cars all drive twice as fast during rush hour, there would be half as many cars on the road at any given time. Computerized driving and inter-vehicle communication and 100% attentiveness and no diminished response times would allow higher speeds. Think of the savings on infrastructure and how much extra time you would be able to put towards work.

 

GopherT .......from a previous post.....your mini van won't go that fast.

How much do you weigh anyway? That's a slow van.

 

If cars all drive twice as fast during rush hour, there would be half as many cars on the road at any given time. Computerized driving and inter-vehicle communication and 100% attentiveness and no diminished response times would allow higher speeds. Think of the savings on infrastructure and how much extra time you would be able to put towards work.

Hi,

Accidents are not related to time on the road. They are related to the number of cars and the distance traveled. More cars and/or more distance means more accidents, regardless if they are on the road for 1 minute or 1 hour.
Fatalities on the road are also related to the speed limit. The higher the speed limit, the higher the incidence of deaths caused by accidents.

 

Hi,

Accidents are not related to time on the road. They are related to the number of cars and the distance traveled. More cars and/or more distance means more accidents, regardless if they are on the road for 1 minute or 1 hour.
Fatalities on the road are also related to the speed limit. The higher the speed limit, the higher the incidence of deaths caused by accidents.

Actually, 70% of all accidents occur within 10 miles of home.

For safety reasons, I never drive within 10 miles of my house.

 

I wonder if an autonomous vehicle can detect the absence of a road surface.

In 1980, a freighter collided with a support column of the Sunshine Skyway Bridge over Tampa Bay, causing collapse of the southbound span. The weather was bad, and visibility was nearly non-existent. 8 vehicles, including a Greyhound bus drove off the bridge, killing 35 people.

One driver was lucky enough to figure something was wrong and stopped -- likely saving many more lives.

If all the vehicles were autonomous, would they just keep driving over the edge, one after another? Scary thought.