Gross. Have you ever seen the poor/homeless people who ride buses?
Heh, as coincidence would have it, I just watched a show last night on PBS about… AUTOMATED CARS!! After watching that show my hearts not really into this debate anymore. I had no idea we have come so far with automated cars. Remarkable.
That said, I think if this industry were to really take hold, I there may be a paradigm shift in how we handle our transportation needs. Instead of buying a car, maybe your transportation needs is something you subscribe to. So instead of Time Warner Cable, you could have Time Warner Transportation Service.
Just push a button on your smart phone and in five minutes a car shows up at your door. (Or something like that. I’ll stop theorizing now.:D)
That would be a whole new industry requiring thousands of people to work it. I think that might offset the unemployed truck drivers.
Also, this may sound cold, but I don’t think we should ever hold back technology just so people can hold a job.
Not a day goes by that I don’t dream of when cars will be fully automated. It’s my belief that humans are too stupid, crazy, ignorant, arrogant, aggressive, lazy, uncoordinated, and unaware to drive.
The savings would be huge. If an automated system could cut down crashes even 50%, think of all the savings from property damage due to accidents, insurance, torts, lost time in traffic, electricity to power traffic lights, etc. The effects would be myriad. Not to mention the environmental benefits that flow from it.
Um, this is a joke, right? You can’t be seriously suggesting that in a democratic society people should be wimpily squeamish enough to reject the entire concept of mass transit simply because they might occasionally encounter a poor or homeless person on a bus, can you? No, I didn’t think so.
Mind you, I’m all in favor of making individual-vehicle transport more efficient and easier for its users. But it will be kind of pathetic if those users are clinging to individual-vehicle transport basically because they’re too timid to cope with any other form of transportation.
Still, thank you for making me feel all tough and badass today just because I’m not scared of seeing a poor person on the bus!
No, I’m not saying people should be afraid of buses. That’s why I said “gross” as in “those people are disgusting and just like feces-covered goats or piles of garbage I do not want to be around them” not “gross, I’m afraid of them.”
The issue of fear is a serious one though, lots of people are afraid of homeless (almost all mentally ill) and poor people (disproportionately commit violent crimes and muggings.) Others like myself just prefer not to be associated with them if we have the means to avoid it. Buses aren’t the same as having a personal vehicle that drives you around because of that reason–and also because buses run routes, a personal automated vehicle goes where you command it to go.
This. Self-driving cars will be common in 20 years; I’m hoping for 10, so that when the Firebug has to get his driver’s license, he’ll be doing it only so he can take over the car if the car’s guidance systems fail.
I’m all in favor of major infrastructure investment where warranted, but we don’t need to invest public money into this one. It’s coming, and really pretty soon.
Stranger says, “I fail to see the perceived demand for an automated passenger car.” Currently, we have on the order of 35,000 highway deaths a year. I will live to see that number drop under a thousand.
The other thing that will drive the demand for self-driving cars is that they’ll make car-sharing a la ZipCar much easier in more dispersed areas than at present: if the car can drive itself to your door, rather than your having to walk to it, ZipCar becomes profitable in the suburbs, rather than just in the cities, where you need enough customers within walking distance to support the car.
And once you have that, people can buy only as much car as they need. Right now, a family buys as much car as their expected maximum need is. That’s a big difference.
Wow.
Well, back to the automated car:
I think that going from “self-driving car” to “self-driving driverless car” may be more of a stretch than you suggest, though. A human occupant, even if not engaged in actively driving, might be an important back-up system should the car encounter a situation it can’t handle (and I don’t mean a collision emergency which a human, even an alert human, probably couldn’t cope with faster than a computer system, but some kind of system failure or traffic problem where overriding decisions have to be made).
So…you could get double billed for a car that only works properly half the time and that blares obnoxious advertisements for itself at random intervals? That sounds like a brilliant plan.
You seem to have missed the point, which isn’t that we should make people ride wagons to keep the buggy-whip makers in business. The point is that there is a large and powerful demographic that would be opposed to such a measure on the public dime, while if such a scheme could be implemented for a modest price tag it already would be by the commercial logistics industry that has sought to automate as much as possible, and replace the need for semi-skilled labor everywhere else.
The most persuasive argument for this type of technology is avoiding accidents. Of course, this assumes that such a system could be made sufficiently fail-safe, and capable of qualitative judgements at least as good as an attentive human driver. The reality is that the most comparable automated systems to this–automatic flight control systems in commercial aircraft–although capable of much faster responses than a human pilot, are nowhere near reliable enough under the wide array of potential circumstances to serve as a replacement for a human pilot.
It is also noteworthy that despite the problems displayed by air traffic controllers, the FAA NextGen system, while automating many aspects of compiling data, coordinating flight schedules, and identifying anomalies, maintains “man in the loop” control of all critical operations such as landing, take-off, and in-flight failures. Of course, a commercial aircraft, by virtue of both carrying a large number of people and posing a potential hazard to people on the ground, has a much higher expectation of casualty ranking than a passenger car (and a corresponding lower tolerance for catastrophic failure), but nonetheless, if such a system can’t be relied upon to protect vehicles that are regularly serviced and inspected, how could it be used with assurance on personal automobiles or a massive fleet of loaner cars that would see intermittent service at best?
Regarding this “Personal Rapid Transit” concept as a replacement for personal automobiles, it is nearly as much science fiction as Star Trek teleporters except for very restricted uses such as a campus-wide transportation network or point-to-point personnel transit. Even the most heavily used public transit systems are necessarily government subsidized, and obtaining the right-of-way for a single line extension is an effort requiring years and millions of dollars of studies and proposals before a single piece of rail is ever laid.
As far as “humans are too stupid, crazy, ignorant, arrogant, aggressive, lazy, uncoordinated, and unaware to drive,” I am in complete agreement, and would extend this statement to any number of other activities, such as:
[ul]
[li]voting in local or national elections[/li][li]yardwork with powered trimming tools[/li][li]commercial air travel[/li][li]expressing opinions about science and technology[/li][li]Christmas shopping[/li][li]raising children[/li][li]eating at a nice restaurant[/li][li]et cetera, et cetera[/li][/ul]
Of course, the yokel who slices off his hand with a Weed Wacker probably isn’t putting others in harm’s way, and certainly the number of completely unnecessary automotive deaths that result from incompetence beyond the wheel is abominable, but unless the plan is to completely eliminate the option of human drivers–an unlikely result even for an absolute autocrat–it will be the foolhardy and aggressive that will be the last to give up their car keys.
Stranger
I don’t think that’s true in this case, and not just for reasons of technological feasibility and economics.
If an automated car crashes, who is legally liable? In fact, how will insurance work at all?
And let’s say I’ve tested my car across the entire US highway, who’s to say that a new layout of road won’t be built tomorrow that could make my system spaz out?
Without state involvement I just don’t see it happening.
Some states are no-fault firstly. Secondly, if an automated machine in a factory causes an accident who is liable? Generally if the accident isn’t due to an error in the design or manufacturing of the machine, the owner of the machine is liable. If the machine had a design or manufacturing flaw then the manufacturer might be liable.
Personal auto insurance would just make the owner of the car’s policy liable for any accidents in which the car was at fault, whether the owner was driving it or not. That’s not too different from me being the owner of a car and letting a nephew drive it to the store, if he gets in an at fault accident and he’s say, a 17 year old kid who doesn’t own his own car or have his own insurance policy then my insurance is liable to cover the damages to the other car.
Yes obviously there are situations in which there are machines or robots and liability is a simple issue.
Automated cars on a road is not such a situation. Working out liability in motor collisions is already very complicated, and in the near future, while automation is a new tech and there are still doubts about reliability, plus how manual override fits in and it’s just another complicating factor.
That’s a fine suggestion but my point was things like legislation need to push forwards before things like this become a reality. The legislation you describe does not exist right now.
Some other posters seem to be implying that if automated cars become technologically possible, then they’ll be widely used without the government needing to get involved. That’s just not the case.
Automated cars?! freakin awesome!
now I can drink and drive with no problem! lol
Where was the technology two DUI’s ago?!?! lol
Unfortunately, we have not yet managed quality automated posting.
Personally I think that its almost a certainty that it will come, but doesn’t need a huge investment programme to make it happen.
I’m sure most airplane crashes are put down to ‘human error’ and not ‘auto pilot error’. I’d imagine the same would be true if we had auto cars everywhere. The idea of putting two tons of machinery capable of 100+mph in the hands of a 16 year old is pretty freaking dumb, but in the hands of engineers and squillions of hours of work by smart programmers seems to me to be a safer alternative.
I’d like to see auto cars mandatory for anyone who doesn’t pass more stringent health and skill tests, plus those over 70 and under 21.
I am a big fan of this dream.
And some of the benefits have not been listed
If a car is “computer controlled” -
a) how much less buffer space would be needed on the road? So we could probably fit at least 50% more traffic onto the same road network
b) how much less resources could be put into safety if cars basically never crashed?
c) how much more productive would our time be if we didn’t have to take care of a car stuck in jams?
Living in Singapore, I think they already have an awesome leg up to make this happen, and I would support them if they announced it
a) cars are only allowed on the road based on a 10 year (renewable) license - so it would be really easy to get the “non enabled” cars off the road
b) it is a really small country with a very “formal” road network that is really really well mapped
c) uncertainty (or “chaos” if you like) is relatively low here
d) cars are already fantastically expensive because of the tax load - it would be easy to switch some of that tax towards technology while still maintaining the same overall price
I kind of agree with XT on this one. Look at our current transportation system. Now imagine a transportation system based around automated vehicles.
What are the improvements from an economic viewpoint? Cargo and passengers are being moved around in both systems. How is the use of automated vehicles economically better than the use of driven vehicles? At most, you can hope that the benefit of fewer accidents will outweigh the long-term loss of jobs.
Okay, developing the new technology to have automated vehicles might be an economic gain. But why not apply those resources to something where new technology would have a direct gain as well as indirect gains?
Well that and ultimately it will be much faster, and the economic effect of a more efficient infrastructure can’t be overstated.
And many smaller benefits such as allowing people unable to drive to get around quickly.
And aside the indirect effect that boosting the economy has on jobs, there will be more direct effects.
For example, I may have a project that requires 2 guys to dig a ditch and 1 guy to drive a truck that would not be profitable right now. Throw self-driving trucks into the mix and now it’s feasible so I hire 2 guys (and sack no-one). It may sound like wishful thinking but it’s basically what’s happened to the Western labour market many times. Lots of things have been automated but the long term employment rate has not changed a great deal (note the current drop is pretty mild compared to previous recessions).
As someone who is poor & mentally ill (though not homeless… yet) this makes me feel all fuzzy & warm, thank you for your understanding nature.
BTW: I do shower, in fact my next shower is in two weeks, swimsuit season is coming!
Well I prefer not to be associated with you and your kind, but we can’t have everything can we.
Maybe I will take my shower this week and avoid the rush at the UN fountain.
From JustinC
As someone who is 82 YO, drives over 10,000 miles a year, and hasn’t put a scratch on a car in over 50 years, I find your suggestion intriguing, to say the least.
Although I do think all drivers over 70 should have to take a freeway driving test every year. Might get some of those slowpokes off the road!