Slashdot Mirror
The Future of Cars According to Toyota
Paulrothrock writes "HowStuffWorks has an interesting story about Toyota's concept, um, car, the PM. In addition to seating only one person and having its hubless wheels driven by electric motors, it incorporates wireless networking so that drivers could surrender control to another human-driven PM and relax as someone else drives them to work. And it reclines!"
Pardon me, but that's bullshit. No one I know would want a one-passenger car. I mean, yeah, that might be nice for the commute to and from work. But what about the weekends? How are you gonna go to a rave and take 10 people with you in that thing? I think caravans were a little 19th century.
And what about people with kids? Are they gonna come out with a "follower" model? And how exactly is one gonna haul groceries home?
This will be great for those guys who only go to the office, then home to surf the net till it's time to go to work again. But people with lives and friends are gonna keep driving multi-passenger vehicles. Especially in rural areas, where we don't have great things like cabs and subways.
Only the purest of souls seek enlightenment. Everyone else just wants power.
- The drivers legs are used as the front bumper
- Virtually no cargo room
- Can't bring the kids along, since they won't be allowed to even sit in your PM until they get a drivers license
- I'm not about to let some other jerk drive for me. What if he cuts someone off and doesn't leave enough room for me?
- It's top heavy (although it can recline, alleviating this problem somewhat)
This is just another concept car that will never see the light of day, at least not in it's current form.I read the internet for the articles.
The main problem I have with this car is the same reason I don't ride my motorcycle any more: 3000+ lb vehicles.
It would be fine if every single person on the road had a bike or one of these things, but with 99% of vehicles on the road today being 3000+ lb monsters, I don't want to be anywhere near them.
The drivers legs are used as the front bumper
...
Driving is dangerous. You're only safer in a SUV if you hit a little car. Hit something stationary or another SUV and the energies involved are much higher. Nevermind stopping distance and handling. We'd all be safer if drivers were a little more aware of their mortality.
Virtually no cargo room
A large percentage of the time, I have virtually no cargo. Like everyone else.
Can't bring the kids along, since they won't be allowed to even sit in your PM until they get a drivers license
Everywhere I am aware of in North America, kids get free bus rides to school if it's too far to walk. Life's tough. Be glad your kids haven't been drafted to go fight over oil.
I'm not about to let some other jerk drive for me. What if he cuts someone off and doesn't leave enough room for me?
I'd love to pay someone to drive for me, like a taxi service or an automatic driving lane. Do you know how much productivity you could gain?
It's top heavy (although it can recline, alleviating this problem somewhat)
Seen a SUV recently?
..don't panic
The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
To them it's like game over on a console.
That's EXACTLY what came to mind when I read that. Imagine - you're steering this car through a little 3d raceway. The ability for abuse is mind boggling, but, what's worse, is it sort of removes the element of threat and leaves the "driver" in a more detached position. When you drive your own vehicle, your skin is on the line. When someone else drives your vehicle, they don't have that issue.
I could see some idiot putting the car on cruise control remotely (either through poor design or as a hack to the vehicle/controller) and getting up to go get a pepsi or a beer or something.... just not a good situation.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
In 1904, cars weren't practical, horses were the norm, and very few people had ever seen the aircraft that had flown less than a year ago. Steamships were the fast way to cross the ocean. I'd be careful about what you predict for this century. For life in 2100, a mix between a motorcycle and car seems pretty mundane.
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
The idea is that you have a normal car *and* one of these. Much like the Smart cars we have in Europe. I have to say I don't see the advantage. You're still going to get stuck in traffic. I do think they should install short range radio in all cars as standard though so that you can shout at the twats in front of you.
t ml
Rather than a big car and a small car I have a car and a motorcycle. Use the bike to commute, swish through traffic and use the car for carrying stuff and longer ranges.
A Solectria Sunrise would be a much better vehicle to be aiming at:
http://www.evuk.co.uk/hotwires/rawstuff/art24.h
Yeah... 1997... It can actually do 375 miles on a single charge.
Deleted
Some key benefits to the idea of letting one person drive a gaggle of cars are
- You can design the cars to densely tailgate each other to take advantage of slipstreaming. That buys you significant gains in gas mileage since most of a car's power at highway speeds is spent just moving air out of the way.
- Cars can move at much higher speeds since human reaction times are removed from the chain. Right now, if you're in a line 100 cars long, it takes at least 50 seconds from the time the first car in line moves before the 100th car gets moving. With this technology, when the first car moves, all the cars move. When the first car stops, all the cars stop.
- It allows for self-assembling trains. Fixed rail is well, fixed. Cars go wherever anyone wants to go when they want to go. By allowing one person to drive, and everyone else to follow, you'll have long strings of cars (just like you have train cars) that can peel off when they wish and can join when they wish. You get most of the efficiency of trains without having to coerce people into living in certain areas or travel to certain destinations.
This incarnation of Toyota's may not make it to market but, with tort reform, some variation of this tech is going to happen. The advantages are just too great for it not to happen.Obviously this car is not to bring your two kids anywhere.
From the Georgia DOT:
Metro Atlanta commuters collectively travel an estimated 112 million miles daily, with (AFAIR) a 50 mile round trip average. That's a guestimated 2.4 million commuters. 88% alone in their cars... that's over 2.1 million solo commuters.
That's hundreds of thousands of vehicles daily on each of the major interstates.
Imagine you replace 2 of the four to 7 lanes (depending on which of the interstates and at which part) with lanes for this vehicle... each current lane would be wide enough to handle more than one of these vehicles in width, so you could replace, for example, 2 lanes with three for this kind of vehicle.
Sound ridiculous? People use motorcycles, some places have motorcycle lanes. We have HOV lanes. Why would something like this be so far fetched?
And while I realize it might be funny to talk about being hacked or having bad reception, just because a car could be remotely controled doesn't mean is has to be.
By separating these vehicles from the rest of traffic, you are minimizing the danger.
And you would still have your precious SUV, big enough to carry eight passengers while towing a house, so that you could take your two toddlers to the supermarket.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
That said, an enclosed scooter like the BMW C1 makes much more sense than the four-wheeled PM because you can operate it in a narrow vehicle lane and park in a motorcycle space. With anti-lock brakes, roll cage, and harness, and a superfluous helmet required in some jurisdictions, its no rolling coffin. And you can buy it now.
I liked Manhattan the couple of times I visited it. Traffic wasn't a huge problem because no one drives there; you take the subway or a taxi. There are loads of people on many sidewalks, yes, but you get used to it. The air quality isn't any worse than the suburban sprawl I currently live in (Phoenix). And it isn't known for terribly high crime either, at least in Manhattan itself.
The main problem with the place, however, is that the cost of living is astronomical. Every time some anti-sprawl person talks about how we need to live in a high-density city with public transit, I immediately think of Manhattan and Boston, and remember how there's no way I could afford to live in one of those places. There's a reason sprawl occurs: land is much cheaper in the suburbs, and people can afford to own their homes instead of just being renters.
The living space in high-density cities is also a problem. Unless you're a millionnaire, there's no way you could afford 2000+ s.f. of living space in a dense city. But in the suburbs anyone can afford a decent-sized house. Personally, I like having a garage with power tools, an extra room for my computer and electronics projects, and a back yard with a couple of trees. Dense urban living is only realistic for people who are single and don't spend much time at home.