No you totally missed what I mean. The defense dept. , petroleum industry and etc were examples. Examples of where tons of money over many many years, don't always come up with a solution, the first time or any time for that matter. But the electric car industry/ development in it's short period of time and small amount of money spent is a failure to some in the thread.

And you guys know full well that what is/has happened with the defense dept. is done mostly by outside contractors, not the dept. itself, but it's the government that's throwing the money at it. Money that could be put to better use for humanity.
So I think is funny, as in strange, to spend money on one thing but be totally against spending it on something that could be beneficial.

You are still throwing out a classic strawman argument. Your whole funny/strange observation is based on the claim that everyone, at least those in this thread, that objects to the money being spent by government on this has no objection whatsoever to the money being spent by government on any of those other things. What is your basis for that claim?

I think it's funny, as in strange, that when asked to back up your claim that we "seem to think that all of the money thrown at the defense department comes up with a working weapon the first or every time," the example you come up with is someone saying what they would do differently if the government gave them billions of dollars to develop a new automotive propulsion system.

 

Throwing all the money in the universe at the problem won't change the laws of thermodynamics. I would never use the DOD in any example of product development success related to efficiency.

Just as a point of info, the whole self driving car experiment is financed by DARPA which is part of the defense department. I've often said that all the research on self driving cars would not be happening if it was funded with 100% private capital.

 

Just as a point of info, the whole self driving car experiment is financed by DARPA which is part of the defense department. I've often said that all the research on self driving cars would not be happening if it was funded with 100% private capital.

GPS is the secret sauce that allows for modern self driving cars. None of the modern cars can navigate very far with just cameras, sensors and a road atlas instead of stored detailed GPS maps. Map-less is being worked on but we're only at the beginning stages.

 

Self driving technology adds another worm in the can of liability and insurance coverage.

The insurance companies for the car makers -and the car's owners- are going to have the last word in whether this self driving fad ever gets on the road in any significant number.

 

What is your basis for that claim?

Just what has been said so far.

 

Self driving technology adds another worm in the can of liability and insurance coverage.

The insurance companies for the car makers -and the car's owners- are going to have the last word in whether this self driving fad ever gets on the road in any significant number.

I've said it before in this thread: I don't think owners will have the last word, insurers will. If/when the data show that autonomous cars are less dangerous, insurance companies will charge prohibitive premiums for people that want to drive themselves, if they ensure them at all. If a human driver kills someone, they'll immediately be sued into poverty for the audacity of endangering the public with their egotistical desire to drive their own car.

 

I've said it before in this thread: I don't think owners will have the last word, insurers will. If/when the data show that autonomous cars are less dangerous, insurance companies will charge prohibitive premiums for people that want to drive themselves, if they ensure them at all. If a human driver kills someone, they'll immediately be sued into poverty for the audacity of endangering the public with their egotistical desire to drive their own car.

Again:

 

Again:

I appreciate the sentiment, but when you can no longer buy insurance to drive yourself...

 

I appreciate the sentiment, but when you can no longer buy insurance to drive yourself...

I'm pretty sure the Association will have a insurance option by then and the rich won't care.
http://humandriving.org/

Long before any possible future of universal mandated self-driving I'm pretty sure my hands will already be as stated. I expect a long period where cars are almost but not quite autonomous.

 

I'm pretty sure the Association will have a insurance option by then.
http://humandriving.org/

Long before any possible future of universal mandated self-driving I'm pretty sure my hands will already be as stated. I expect a long period where cars are almost but not quite autonomous.

I agree. It's not something you and I will have to deal with. My kids will take away my driving privileges long before State Farm does.

 

I agree. It's not something you and I will have to deal with. My kids will take away my driving privileges long before State Farm does.

We still have cars on the road without seat belts in vintage cars so I think human driving will always be legal but expensive.

 

We were so much happier when we weren't protected.

 

We were so much happier when we weren't protected.

It's called freedom.

 

I've said it before in this thread: I don't think owners will have the last word, insurers will. If/when the data show that autonomous cars are less dangerous, insurance companies will charge prohibitive premiums for people that want to drive themselves, if they ensure them at all. If a human driver kills someone, they'll immediately be sued into poverty for the audacity of endangering the public with their egotistical desire to drive their own car.

The problem is actually quantifying the level of safety of 100% self driving technology in terms of hazardous failures per million miles traveled. Cars do not run on rails and there are still too many variables that can intervene and cause a hazardous condition. However, the later models of purely manually driven cars already have all sorts of gadgets and gizmos to make maneuvering safer and they can be driven much further without an accident.

So I suspect insurance companies already take into account the make and model of the car being insured and a late model car (with state of the art controls) should get a lower premium.

 

The problem is actually quantifying the level of safety of 100% self driving technology in terms of hazardous failures per million miles traveled. Cars do not run on rails and there are still too many variables that can intervene and cause a hazardous condition. However, the later models of purely manually driven cars already have all sorts of gadgets and gizmos to make maneuvering safer and they can be driven much further without an accident.

So I suspect insurance companies already take into account the make and model of the car being insured and a late model car (with state of the art controls) should get a lower premium.

Yes, my 2017 Subaru has some safety features that lower my premium. I think it’s a fairly small impact.

 

So I suspect insurance companies already take into account the make and model of the car being insured and a late model car (with state of the art controls) should get a lower premium.

It's a mixed bag. Yes, there are often small discounts for various safety features, but the underlying cost of a late model car tends to be so much higher than an older car that the insurance premium still tends to be higher.

 

This ain’t good..
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...tted-in-recent-job-cuts-sources-idUSKCN1PY00J

 

This ain’t good..
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...tted-in-recent-job-cuts-sources-idUSKCN1PY00J

It's no surprise to me.

I live in San Francisco and I can confidently say that the economy has been propped with tons of government $$$. Tesla would have never gone into business if it were not for government subsidies and even with all those subsidies, the company still isn't viable.

There are EV charging stations along the bus route I take downtown and when ever I've gone by some of them, I've never seen any of them in use. That's just an "anecdotal" observation, but I'm guessing it's a pretty accurate picture of how EVs are NOT catching on.

 

That's just an "anecdotal" observation, but I'm guessing it's a pretty accurate picture of how EVs are NOT catching on.

Or they are working so good that they don't need charged except when people are at home. The mile range of them is in the hundreds of miles you know? How often are you on the bus when they refuel?

 

I live in San Francisco and I can confidently say that the economy has been propped with tons of government $$$.

Some in many cities across both the world and the US would say that's a good thing, not a bad thing. You keep bringing up the cost of housing, would you rather live where I do that you can hardly give a house away now that the steel and auto plants have closed?