# The "car train" revisited. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 15, 2009, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-car-train-revisited/481381 "2009-01-15T04:10:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-car-train-revisited/481381/61 "2010-12-17T20:38:51Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So… no gyroscopic jet packs? ☹ > > Not even jumpsuits for the military? No, no jet packs. Not for the general public. A few high-risk daredevils may use them perhaps. But jetpacks can only carry enough fuel to last for a few minutes at most, meaning every flight has to be a well-timed, well-planned excursion. They’re dangerous as hell, because any failure in the system means death (you’re not high enough for a parachute to work). Will the military use them? If they find a need, I suppose. Perhaps a platoon of people who can jump over a barrier very quickly might be useful in some cases and worth the risk. But you’ll never see them in widespread public use. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-car-train-revisited/481381/62 "2010-12-17T21:45:17Z")
A [jet pack update](http://www.gizmag.com/first-commercially-available-jetpack/14423/)! 🙂 > [@](#): > > The Jetpack is constructed from carbon fiber composite, has a dry weight of 250 lbs (excluding safety equipment) and measures 5 ft high x 5.5 ft wide x 5 ft long. It’s driven by a 2.0 L V4 2 stroke engine rated at 200 hp (150 kw), can reach 8000 ft (estimated) and each of the two 1.7 ft wide rotors is made from carbon / Kevlar composite. > > There is always risk associated with flying so Martin Aircraft has been careful to equip the pack with redundant systems that will take over in the event that the main system goes down. If a crash-landing is required, a pilot-operated toggle will rapidly fire a small amount of propellant deploying a ballistic parachute (similar to a car airbag) which will allow the pilot and jetpack to descend together. It also has an impact-absorbing carriage, patented fan jet technology and 1000 hours engine TBO (Time Between Overhaul). Small vertical take-off and landing aircraft (VTOL) are not subject to the same limitations as other helicopters and fixed wing aircrafts but Martin Aircraft have built it to comply with ultralight regulations and therefore suggest it as at least as safe to operate, and claim it is the safest of all jetpacks yet built. > > The Jetpack achieves with 30 minutes of flight time and is fueled by regular premium gasoline, though you will undoubtedly earn some disbelieving stares at the petrol station. Since it has been built according to ultralight regulations no FAA recognized pilot’s license is required to fly one in the U.S., though this will depend on a country’s specific requirements. However, despite being significantly less complex than a helicopter to fly as pitch and roll are controlled by one hand, thrust and yaw by the other, Martin Aircraft won’t let anyone take receipt of their jetpack before completing their specially-developed Martin Aircraft Company approved training program. The pilot must also weigh between 140-240 lbs. … at $86,000 it is pitched at the level of a high-end car. As sales and production volume increase they expect this to drop to the price of a mid-range car. … the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is developing “highways in the sky” technology - 3D highways based on GPS tracks. Initial tests have been positive but the technology is unlikely to be implemented for another 10 years yet so for the meantime initial use will remain recreational as with jet-skis, snowmobiles and ultralights. So in terms of technical feasibility and safety, “never” may be an overstatement. Actually … uh … “taking off” … as a product? I don’t see it. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-car-train-revisited/481381/63 "2010-12-18T00:56:47Z")
Be very wary of companies like this. This company looks more legit than some, but there are a lot of companies out there that are promising all kinds of fantastic devices that will never see the light of day. Often they advertise them in magazines like Popular Mechanics, offering ‘info-kits’ for sale for $25 or $50, and seeking ‘investors’. Excited potential buyers (or dreaming kids) plonk down the money, and get a few pamphlets in the mail consisting of rendered drawings, a crappy little technical booklet full of made-up statistics, and little else. Eventually, you discover that the company’s real product is the ‘info-kit’, and the fanciful aircraft they are ‘selling’ is nothing more than a fiberglass mockup shell. Have a look at this: [The SoloTrek XFV](http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2002/01/49792). Look familiar? It was in ‘flight trials’ ten years ago, and was supposed to be available within a year or two. The company even had NASA on board for some form of testing. It failed, and the company is gone. The guy who designed that also ‘designed’ a VTOL airplane called the “Aurora 400” which was heavily advertised in Popular Mechanics - [see it here](http://books.google.ca/books?id=HOMDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA150&lpg=PA150&dq=Aurora+400+VTOL&source=bl&ots=WP9QMl4fw0&sig=pa3-X2MeGEumVWVlCVtflajvxHk&hl=en&ei=X_wLTbnCEcbcngfS0pSADg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Aurora%20400%20VTOL&f=false). Note the $37 price tag for a ‘47 page development report’. That was the real product, and no one ever saw an Aurora 400. Sometimes these companies actually do real engineering work, but are run by people who lack insight or common sense and don’t understand how unreasonable their plans are. The prototypical (heh) example of this would be the [Moller Skycar](http://www.moller.com/). Paul Moller is a real professor of aeronautical engineering, and has built some pretty cool stuff. But his ‘Skycar’ has been suckering investors and kids desperate for his ‘info-kits’ for something like 30 years now. It’s always only a year or two away from real flight trials. His performance numbers don’t add up, most other engineers who look at the design think it’s a draggy, uncertifiable mess with so many technical hurdles and safety issues that it doesn’t have a hope in hell of ever being more than a one-off prototype which will be lucky to ever even get the point where it can transition from hover to vertical flight, let alone be a practical vehicle. But every year or two, some credulous organization like CNN or People Magazine will get sucked in to the hype and do a big feature on the Skycar, saying that it will be flying in a year or two and that a revolution in personal transportation is just around the corner. This no doubt results in a new flood of money to Moller who, judging by his current website, uses it to commission more 3D renderings of the thing looking cool in the sky instead of spending the money on actual research. Back to that Australian ‘jetpack’. It looks like it actually flies, but don’t take its claim of safety too seriously. It suffers from the same flaws as the SoloTrek - a ballistic parachute doesn’t help much when you’re within a few hundred feet of the ground, and devices like this would spend almost all their time in that regime. It uses a 2-stroke engine to save weight, but those engines are not as reliable as typical aircraft engines. It’s a complex device full of moving parts that have high loads on them (imagine the gyroscopic precession forces on those big rotor pods). If any of those components fail - instant death. Helicopters and airplanes have passive safety - a helicopter will auto-rotate to the ground if the engine fails, and an airplane will glide. This thing becomes a brick if the engine fails. And that’s probably the best failure - if a pod breaks or it throws a rotor or ingests a large bird, it’ll probably shake itself to pieces, and you with it. One day, one of these companies will get far enough to make something that’s actually saleable. If they do, it’ll be $150,000, and will be sold as an experimental device, available only to well-heeled homebuilt aircraft enthusiasts with a high tolerance for risk. And a few will be killed flying it, and then the rest of them will be mothballed or trotted out for use under controlled conditions as demonstrators or movie props - like the actual jet pack that’s been around for decades and works just fine so long as you don’t fly it for more than half a minute or so. Here’s the [real deal](http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/diy-flying/4217989). Hey, it’s only $150,000 for a 30 second range. Well, $150,000 and the cost of a good orthopedic surgeon, anyway. Apparently, they have a tendency to destroy knees, since you’re landing on your legs wearing 150 lbs on your back. I wish I didn’t have to be so pessimistic about this, because I was one of those kids drooling over those fantastic ads. If I’d had the money for the info-kits, I would have purchased all of them. Too bad almost all turned out to be frauds. So whatever happened to Michael Moshier, the guy who ‘developed’ the Aurora 400 and the SoloTrek XFV that got so much attention a few years ago? It looks like he’s selling an ‘Anti-Aging Straight Talk’ report - only $29.95 for a PDF file. He’s also a [Confidential Business Consultant](http://www.greenfrogcommunications.com/), touting his ability to earn tons of money for 35 years while not producing a single viable product. He specializes in ‘Way Out of the Box’ thinking. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-car-train-revisited/481381/64 "2010-12-18T05:24:05Z")
[This one](http://www.martinjetpack.com/the-company.aspx) though seems to be a real deal. It even made [TIME’s 50 best inventions of 2010 list.](http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2029497_2030622_2029786,00.html) No not a practical solution for traffic congestion and I am sure it produces a ton of CO2. And no doubt riskier than riding a motorcycle without a helmet. But still pretty damn cool. I’m with Time’s assessment though: “The commercial application may be more for first responders than for early adopters.” More relevant to this thread is another on Time’s 50 best list: [Google’s driverless car](http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2029497_2030622_2029788,00.html). > [@](#): > > Whatever you call it, Google’s new Prius — tricked out with radar sensors, video cameras and a laser range finder — has driven itself 140,000 miles without an unscheduled meeting with a light pole. Other geek squads have been running driverless vehicles in the California desert for years, partly at the behest of the U.S. Department of Defense. But only Google can rev the petabyte-sucking mapping technology that guides its car along busy streets and highways. The goal is safety — an admirable one given the world’s million-plus auto fatalities each year. Driverless technology is logical and efficient, and in the near future, it could transform your commute into stress-free transport on a motorized sofa. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-car-train-revisited/481381/65 "2010-12-18T06:24:32Z")
The Solotrek was also one of Time’s 50 best inventions about ten years ago. Never underestimate the ability of an uneducated ‘tech journalist’ to be snookered by some shiny renderings and a model. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-car-train-revisited/481381/66 "2010-12-18T15:19:17Z")
The Solotrek was a real machine. It failed to meet its backers required development schedule and lost funding. Honestly, as an item of engineering the concept seems well within reach. But the real world uses for such a product are small, as much as it is the stuff of boyhood fantasies. Why anyone is even investing in the concept today at all is beyond me. Thinking about it, the real world uses - military recon, search and rescue operations - robot vehicles and drones could do or be developed to for those functions cheaper and better now. (And I’d think the flying debris and updrafts of disaster circumstances would make them poorly suited for a first responder purpose.) As for traffic congestion, well the “car train”/platooning, which does not require the sophistication of Google’s fully self driving vehicle concept but might benefit from it in the not unforeseeable future, is a much more practical solution. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2011, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-car-train-revisited/481381/67 "2011-01-07T12:53:48Z")
Another [update](http://www.greencarcongress.com/2011/01/audi-highlights-vehicle-to-vehicle-communication-technology-at-ces-travolution-project-as-a-model.html#more) of how the technology to “car train” is marginally advancing. > [@](#): > > Audi highlights vehicle-to-vehicle communication technology at CES; travolution project as a model … Car-2-X communication does not require a central service provider to pool and process information. The participating vehicles themselves perform these tasks by spontaneously networking with one another. … Audi’s specialists are also looking into the area of traffic information with road preview and extended navigation. Audi is furthermore involved in the field of driving and safety, where it is working on the intersection assistant. This involves cars exchanging their data, so that they can alert each other if there is a threat of collisions. … Autonomous driving could be one future outcome of this new level of connectivity. Many Audi models are already capable of largely recognizing their environment thanks to their sensors. With future Car-2-X modules and additional cameras, the vehicle will then be able to drive itself whenever the driver wants it to do so, for instance in congestion or in stop-and-go traffic. Audi regards this scenario not as dictating to the driver, but as an offer to the driver. ---
**Author:** ![Lust4Life](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ecc23a/32.png) [@Lust4Life](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lust4Life)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-car-train-revisited/481381/68 "2011-01-12T16:20:32Z")
It’l never work, just like the internet,mobile phones,Pcs, cable and hovercrafts don’t work. Until a few years down the line when all the Luddites will conveniently forget that they made this statement as oft times before. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2011, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-car-train-revisited/481381/69 "2011-01-17T20:11:31Z")
Honestly, someone let me know if posting updates regarding this concept is just annoying and I’ll stop but unless told to do so, here’s another: That SARTRE test [went off well](http://www.greencarcongress.com/2011/01/sartre-20110117.html#more). > [@](#): > > The EU-financed SARTRE (Safe Road Trains for the Environment) project has carried out the first successful demonstration of its vehicle platooning technology … Platooning is designed to improve a number of things: Firstly road safety, since it minimizes the human factor that is the cause of at least 80% of the road accidents. Secondly, The estimated fuel consumption saving for high speed highway operation of road trains is in the region of 20% depending on vehicle spacing and geometry. It is also convenient for the driver because it frees up time for other matters than driving. And since the vehicles will travel in highway speed with only a few meters gap, platooning may also relieve traffic congestion. … The technology development is well underway and can most likely go into production in a few years time, Volvo noted. What may take substantially longer are the public acceptance and the legislation where 25 EU governments must pass similar laws. [Sprint](http://www.greencarcongress.com/2011/01/sprint-20110115.html) is also working on “Machine to Machine” communication, but they do not currently discuss using that capability for a platooning application. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2011, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-car-train-revisited/481381/70 "2011-01-18T18:45:16Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Honestly, someone let me know if posting updates regarding this concept is just annoying and I’ll stop but unless told to do so, here’s another: > > That SARTRE test [went off well](http://www.greencarcongress.com/2011/01/sartre-20110117.html#more).[Sprint](http://www.greencarcongress.com/2011/01/sprint-20110115.html) is also working on “Machine to Machine” communication, but they do not currently discuss using that capability for a platooning application. I think this is great, and I’m glad you’re posting updates. I’ve been reading all kinds of articles lately about ‘platooning’ tests. Most of the major car manufacturers seem to be working on this stuff. GM demonstrated platooned electric vehicles at CES this year. Ford also introduced the all-electric Focus, which seems to me to be a better electric than the Volt. These are all great developments. ---
**Author:** ![bahia\_hombre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@bahia\_hombre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bahia_hombre)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2011, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-car-train-revisited/481381/71 "2011-07-03T20:36:59Z")
[http://www.sartre-project.eu/en/Sidor/default.aspx](http://www.sartre-project.eu/en/Sidor/default.aspx) ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2011, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-car-train-revisited/481381/72 "2011-07-04T05:42:17Z")
Generally, people may be going in the same general direction, but tossing a car off at Keokuck like a sack of mail while dressing up the rest of the train will be disruptive. Logistics is an art most people do not understand. As an aside, my great grandfather worked here: [Railroader Printing Building - St. Paul | Home of E.G. Insig… | Flickr](http://www.flickr.com/photos/9827698@N04/2576437002/) until he was 85, setting up the presses to print long stretches of rail lines and sidelines to schedule trains without killing anybody. In the late 19th century this was a step forward. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2011, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-car-train-revisited/481381/73 "2011-07-04T17:00:26Z")
That Google self-driving car… The blurb implies (though doesn’t actually state) that it’s been tested on busy streets, but how? Where would they have gotten approval for testing it on busy streets? Did they have a human in it ready to override? ---
**Author:** ![bahia\_hombre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@bahia\_hombre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bahia_hombre)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2011, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-car-train-revisited/481381/74 "2011-07-04T22:07:37Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > That Google self-driving car… The blurb implies (though doesn’t actually state) that it’s been tested on busy streets, but how? Where would they have gotten approval for testing it on busy streets? Did they have a human in it ready to override? Google has apparently tested their self-driving cars around Silicon Valley and San Francisco, with no crack-ups, presumably with local permission and always with someone at the ready in the driver’s seat. The car-train concept has a human professional driver in the lead vehicle, with the rest of the platoon following so is not completely driverless. Now that Nevada has approved testing of driverless cars within the state, I’m wondering how quickly Google will increase the number of them in operation, find commercial uses, and/or make them available to early-adopter type people. I’m also wondering what type of road enhancements would help the effort? Brighter lines for the cameras? Maybe some kind of simple guide wire along the road to communicate with the car? I suppose it will be the legislative & legal processes that determine the rate of progress more than the technology aspects. ---
**Author:** ![bahia\_hombre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@bahia\_hombre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bahia_hombre)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2012, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-car-train-revisited/481381/75 "2012-06-02T04:31:31Z")
Successful road train test in Barcelona: [https://rumors.automobilemag.com/volvos-road-train-project-a-success-on-public-roads-144319.html](https://rumors.automobilemag.com/volvos-road-train-project-a-success-on-public-roads-144319.html) ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2012, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-car-train-revisited/481381/76 "2012-09-04T14:47:24Z")
The slow march of progress … an update[in this week’s Economist](http://www.economist.com/node/21560989) > [@](#): > > Autonomous vehicles for individuals may still be a few years away, but they are already being used in industry. Late last year Rio Tinto, an Anglo-Australian mining giant, decided to increase its fleet of self-driving trucks, which haul iron ore, from ten to 150 vehicles within four years. Manufactured by a subsidiary of Komatsu, a Japanese firm, each truck is the size of a three-storey house and uses satellite positioning to carry nearly 300 tonnes of ore along predefined routes. An accident, then, could be very nasty indeed. But James Petty, head of Rio Tinto’s robotic-trucks programme, says the trucks’ emergency-braking and evasive-action systems have not been triggered once since the technology was introduced in 2008. > > One reason is that as well as using the usual plethora of sensors, the trucks inform each other of their position and speed using “vehicle to vehicle” (V2V) wireless links, so that they can, for example, co-ordinate their actions at junctions. Human truck-drivers, by contrast, regularly have to take evasive action. They also demand salaries of around A$100,000 ($100,000) to work in the remote Pilbara region of Western Australia. … More about autonomous driving vehiclesin the article. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2012, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-car-train-revisited/481381/77 "2012-09-04T17:59:08Z")
Interesting. Of course, that’s a very special case. I believe that before long it will be technologically feasible to have cars that can safely navigate, if not in cities then at least on the highway, and communicate with each other to improve fuel economy, provide shorter average trip times, and reduce accidents and fatalities. However, I don’t see it happening in the US due to our legal system and the way that industry responds to it. While it would be easy to argue that a system saves thousands of lives each year, whenever there isserious damage or loss of life, it’ll be attributed (by plaintiff) to the manufacturers, who will be liable for millions in damages. For anything like this to fly, manufacturers would need some kind of indemnity or loss caps. Of course, many of us wouldn’t really like to see indemnity or loss caps, because with those in place, manufacturers can get sloppy. Most Americans (or at least, a large minority) would rather keep their lives in their own hands than trust it to some system, even if the odds are better with the system. BTW, I didn’t see the Google car project mentioned above. That at least demonstrates that we’re getting close, technologically. ---
**Author:** ![Mdcastle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/958977/32.png) [@Mdcastle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mdcastle)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2012, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-car-train-revisited/481381/78 "2012-09-04T18:20:00Z")
My main problem with this is it wouldn enable them to charge us up the wazoo for driving, to the extent electronic tolling isn’t doing that already. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-car-train-revisited/481381/79 "2012-09-07T13:22:41Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > Most Americans (or at least, a large minority) would rather keep their lives in their own hands than trust it to some system, even if the odds are better with the system. I think the Insurance industry would have something to say about that. They care about the odds, not your comfort. If the odds favor automated driving, you’ll get a discount for automated driving, or a different level of coverage, like no deductible collision for no additional charge. That is the sort of concrete benefit that people are going to need to start switching to automated driving. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2012, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-car-train-revisited/481381/80 "2012-10-19T19:36:29Z")
A reasonable time to update again … Besides Google’s more recent progress and [promises](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/25/google_automatic_cars_legal/) > [@](#): > > Sergey Brin is promising Google’s self-driving cars will be available for everyone within five years, and says that his company’s current fleet of vehicles has managed to drive 50,000 miles without humans having to take the wheel. [China is now](http://www.greencarcongress.com/2012/10/nsfc-20121019.html) trying to get into the game. > [@](#): > > Xinhua. China is planning a 120 km test drive from Beijing to Tianjin for autonomous vehicles in 2013, according to the National Natural Science Foundation. > > The vehicles are designed to perceive their environment, process it and respond accordingly with the help of GPS, ultrasonic radar and a variety of sensors. > > In addition to the 2013 test, the vehicles are scheduled to undergo a longer test drive from Beijing to the city of Shenzhen in south China’s Guangdong Province, located some 2,400 km away, Would people pay extra for it? Apparently [20%](http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/04/27/self_driving_cars_the_price_of_an_autonomous_vehicle_.html) say they would pay an additional $3K for it. > [@](#): > > Americans are increasingly interested in buying self-driving cars, though some blanch at the price, according to survey results released yesterday by J.D. Powers and Associates. According to a press release (the full study isn’t available to the public), the firm’s annual look at consumers and emerging auto technology found that 37 percent of drivers are interested in an autonomous vehicle. But upon learning that a self-driving car will cost an extra $3,000, the figure dropped to 20 percent. > > On the Verge, Jeff Blagdon argues that self-driving cars would make financial sense for many commuters: “Call us crazy, but in the US, at the $16.57 median hourly wage being able to get work done during your half-hour commute would be worth about $4,140 a year, which would make an extra $3,000 for autonomous driving a steal.” > > Who is most interested in paying a premium for a self-driving car? Men, drivers between the ages of 18 and 37, and those who live in urban areas. Sure add in an insurance discount. And the emerging place of car sharing programs … how about an app that let’s you order up the vehicle you need for the occasion and it drives to meet you at the designated time and place? But I still the first big market being truck platoons. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-car-train-revisited/481381.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-car-train-revisited/481381.md?page=5)