Nevada Approves Rules For Self-Driving Cars

Griller_GT writes with news that Nevada has become the first U.S. state to approve regulations for allowing self-driving cars on its roads. "Autonomous test vehicles will display a red license plate, Nevada officials said. If and when the technology is approved for public use, the cars will carry a green license plate. ... Nevada said it worked with Google, automobile manufacturers, testing professionals, insurance companies, universities and law enforcement to develop the regulations. Other states also have similar bills that will be voted upon to determine if they, too, can follow suit."

Comments

How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[Assmasher]

I've seen lots of video of them under ideal scenarios.

Let's get some crash video! :)

Hydroplaning, black ice, big potholes, road debris, silver-hairs stomping on the brakes, et cetera.

Should be entertaining, if disconcerting, to say the least.

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[petteyg359]

Here's an ideal scenario: Get all the manual idiots off the road, so the smart cars don't have to deal with them :)

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[rykin]

One could argue that those who drive a manual transmission are the only ones who actually know how to drive. ;)

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[Anonymous Coward]

The previous transmission lacked detail. Automatic and manual refer to the control of the vehicle, not the style of gearbox.

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[jellomizer]

In many ways these conditions can probably be safer with an automatic car then with a real driver.

There are some rather common ways dealing with these situations. But people when in a situation where their car isn't doing what they want they panic and stomp on the breaks which is usually better then nothing, however for cases where friction is reduced there is the general mind set. A car can change directions, accelerate/decelerate. However in reduced friction environment you can only do one. If you need to turn take your foot off the gas and turn slightly, if you need to stop stop without turning, if you need to speed up do so without turning, the car may still feel funny but normally for these cases there is only a few feet of travel until you get back onto a normal friction road, then you can correct your mistake. People panic stop and turn, then the car gets into an accident.

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[jellomizer]

No if you have ever ridden with someone with manual transmission you realize this isn't true. If you are going to get car sick it will be riding with someone who drives manual. Not so much that that are any better or worse. However when they change gears they tend to do it harder then on Automatic. So you feel jolts when they change. The driver doesn't notice this as much as he/she is expecting it, so it doesn't cause as much an issue.

Having drove manual for a while, I have been complements on how smooth I shift gears, however for people who haven't rid much in manual cars they are still feeling like I am driving sporadic.

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's an ideal scenario: Get all of the idiots off the road that don't use the proper care while guiding a 2 ton projectile so the people who do don't have to deal with them :)

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[mcgrew]

I know how to drive a stick, owned quite a few cars with manual transmissions, but I would argue that you're wrong. It's like saying that you don't know how to drive unless you know how to operate a manual choke and starter crank -- other primitive technologies that are thankfully gone.

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[Neil Boekend]

Here in Europe almost everyone drives manual. Most handle it without making the passengers sick, but maybe the Europeans are more resistant to this. Those who can't controll it seem to consider the clutch as a binary switch. I know one person who also considers the break and the gas pedal to be binary. I haven't sat in the car with her behind the weel but I have seen her on the road, it's terrible.
By the way: there is a big difference between different clutches. I have an old Opel Astra (1997). The clutch is extremely "long" (it starts to disconnect almost immediately after you touch the pedal, and you have to floor it to disconnect completely. This is a distance of more than 10 cm (4 inches) ) There are many newer cars with "short" clutches (as in "at one angle the clutch starts to disconnect and a cm (half an inch) lower it's disconnected completely"). These are better for racing as they allow fast swiching. They are not comfortable however, as you need to be able to controll the angle of your foot to a greater degree to let it connect smoothly. Most differences between clutch controll can be laid at the feet of the clutch design.

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[Riceballsan]

Well I don't know if that is the prime focus, considering their testing areas have been California so far, and AZ next. That being said I don't imagine ti would take that long for the cars to surpass humans in the art of dealing with emergencies. The knee jerk human instincts are almost always the worse thing you can do in the situation. When hydroplaning 9/10 people would slam on the breaks. A computer could actually asses the situation calculate out the balance of the car etc... I'm not saying they necessarily have already mastered such, but honestly if the goal is to outperform the average licensed driver in a panicked situation, I doubt that would be extremely difficult.

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the guy who keeps violently trying to shift due to a green light on a hill, all while drifting back 15 feet just to land on the car behind them's bumper?

No thanks. Too many douchebags in my neck of the woods who think a manual is cool, then have no clue how to operate it.

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[hawguy]

I've seen lots of video of them under ideal scenarios.

Let's get some crash video! :)

Hydroplaning, black ice, big potholes, road debris, silver-hairs stomping on the brakes, et cetera.

Should be entertaining, if disconcerting, to say the least.

I would guess that automatic cars would be even better than humans at any of these conditions:

Hydroplaning, black ice: The car has an excellent sense of traction of each wheel and can take the appropriate action (like reducing power to the slipping wheel(s)) without overreacting (slamming on the brakes because the driver feels the car start to slide), and can take proactive measures when sensors detect hazardous conditions (i.e. drive slower when ice/snow/heavy rain are detected rather than thinking "Hey, it's an SUV, I can drive 75mph through the snow, just like on the commercials.). Depending on what kind of sensors they use, it might be able to see perfectly through heavy fog/rain and in the dark.

Big potholes: I've never hit a pothole big enough to make me feel like I was going to lose control, but since the automatic car always has a firm grip on the wheel and is never distracted by changing radio stations or talking on the phone, I'd say it can do a better job.

Silver-hairs stomping on the brakes? It's the young drivers in sports cars that seem to have that problem -- most older drivers seem to drive slow and brake way before they need to. But this is where the automatic car has the real advantage - not only will it keep a safe following distance, but its sensors will sense the stopping car ahead and calculate the closing rate and will know exactly when it needs to panic stop, and it can do it faster than a human (which for most people means around 250ms just to recognize the threat and then a couple hundred ms to get pressure on the brakes). And the car will sense it regardless of whether or not the brake lights are working on the car ahead of you, and will stop even if it's not a car. If the sensor pod is on top of the car, that extra foot or so of height will help it see over hill crests better than a driver.

I hit a refrigerator on the road one dark night, an automatic car probably would have avoided it completely. I saw a pickup backing up on the road shoulder and was focused on him to see what he was up to and didn't see the refrigerator that had fallen off his truck until it was too late to stop. I started to slow when I saw the truck and hit the brakes as soon as I did see the refrigerator so was only going around 25mph when I hit it. The 'fridge was totaled, but the only damage to my car was a broken front turn signal.

Granted, a heads up display linked to sensors might be able to feed all of the same information to a driver that an automatic car has (threat ahead - object in road! Losing traction in left-front and left-rear wheels! You will have a collision, brake now and turn wheel 10 degrees to the left!) But it's still relying on the driver to react correctly and react quickly.

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a false statement. The other technologies you mention did not have advantages over their 'successor'. A properly driven manual is far more proactive than any automatic can be.

We are a long way off having the car being able to change gear in anticipation of what it about to happen, or to hold the current gear for a little longer because of something up ahead.

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[AlecC]

Hydroplaning and black ice I would expect them to be better than humans. We already have computers to handle this better than us - they are called ABS and traction control. Likewise, static obstacles like road debris and potholes I think they will be built to sense more reliably than humans: they can use radar and/or ultrasound as well as light. The difficulty is with moving objects, particularly those controlled by people (bad drivers, careless pedestrians, reckless cyclists), With less of a model of mind, they will either have to leave large safety margins (and hence go slower) or else take risks. Maybe they can get the risks down to where, given their superior senses and faster reactions, they will end up net safer than human drivers.

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[BattleApple]

Smooth shifting doesn't mean you're a good driver. It means you're wearing out your clutch

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[BattleApple]

Actually, I'm taking that back. If you match revs, you can shift smoothly with little slippage.

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[w_dragon]

Most modern automatic transmissions have a mode that lets you select the gear if you think you know better than the car. The really nice ones can shift gears faster than you can possibly do it in a standard, meaning that there's less need to anticipate what gear the car needs anyway.

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you can buy a modern manual with Synchro-Rev-Match (i.e. Nissan's 370Z-line). You still operate the clutch and gear lever, but the car's ECU rev-matches your downshifts for you.

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[ceoyoyo]

They probably do know HOW to drive (more likely than an automatic) but just choose not to do it.

I know people who drive standard who are terrible at rolling right up behind people at lights because they don't want to have to put the clutch in unless absolutely necessary.

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[hobarrera]

I belive above 99% of the cards worldwide have manual transmission.
If automated vehicles come to be, pedestrian will be an issue when they cross out of no-where, etc.

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[phorm]

Younger drivers seem to be more likely to do the hard-gas+hard-brake thing.
The main issues I've seen with older drivers is the drive-slow... speed up for awhile ... slow down again ... speed up awhile, and on occasion overall concentration issues (sudden turn off when almost missing an offramp, going against a one-way street etc)

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[Anonymous Coward]

The transmission in the car one drives has no effect on their knowledge of how to drive. The worst driver on the road could easily be driving a manual and a top notch driver could have an automatic.

We might as well go ahead and say that only those people with cars that put out over 250hp actually know how to drive or any other silly metric that effects the cars ability to perform, but has no effect on the drivers knowledge in regards to how to handle the car.

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[linuxwolf69]

I'd like to see a manual gear box in an automatic controlled vehicle... should prove interesting.

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[plopez]

You forgot to put "talking on a cell phn" on your list

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[Belial6]

If you are in tune with your car enough, you can frequently shift without the clutch. I have a Suzuki Swift, that I will periodically just shift without using the clutch at all. Of course, clutches today make about as much sense as using a crank on the front of your car to start it.

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[vux984]

I would guess that automatic cars would be even better than humans at any of these conditions:

Quite possibly. But I'm curious about navigating construction sites with bizarre merges, lanes that don't line up in the slightest to the pavement markings, detours through the oncoming lane, with the crew directing traffic with hand signals...

I'm also curious how it copes when the car in front of it breaks down in a single lane no passing zone. Does it just sit there until a tow truck takes the car away? Does it get out of the tow trucks way if necessary.

How it deals with a police car trying to pull it over for a broken tail light. How does it know the speed limit at every segment of road, and if the limits change how does it get updated... what happens if it blows through a speed trap a 1 mph over the limit. Does it obey the officer trying to make eye contact with the nonexistent driver while he holds his hand up to wave you down.

How does it know a police officer is waving it down and not some kids... will it drive into a back alley or field everytime someone steps onto the road and points at one?

Its one thing to leave enough distance in front, and to safely come to a stop if the car in front of you has an accident.

But then what? Can it move out of the way of the rescue vehicles? Can it navigate the makeshift detour the police are directing?

I think we are decades away from practical driverless vehicles that could operate without a qualified driver sitting there ready to take over. At best we'll need to see a driver in the seat at all times, ready to take over when the car reports that its unable to proceed. Hopefully the car can at least detect situations it can't manage well enough... but im skeptical of it even being able to do that.

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[smooth wombat]

This past July I gave a one day tour of New York City to a group of German tourists as a favor to my aunt (long story how this came about).

Once everyone was in the car, I reached down to put my car in reverse and the guy in the front looked at me with a surprised expression and pointed to the stick shift.

I looked at him and smiled, saying, "Yes, it's a stick shift. I'm not a lazy American." He chuckled at the comment.

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[geekoid]

Lazy? Stupid in most case. except sports car and large trucks.
YOU, and I, or anyone, isn't as quick or efficient as any modern automatic transmission.

Stick wastes fuel.

That said, I love driving a stick sports car.

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[Firethorn]

Check out Semi-automatic transmissions and formula one race cars with 'paddle shifters'. It's already been done, and with a unpredictable human still at the wheel as well!

Don't forget double clutch systems either. They're all computer controlled.

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't trust a computer to handle my safety and autonomy on the road.

Especially not one designed by someone who thinks I shouldn't have that autonomy.

No thanks to these. Keep them off the road.

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[BattleApple]

yeah that's true... I used to do that a lot. At the right moment, you can pop the lever in or out of gear with one finger, when there's no pressure on the gears
I haven't driven any automatics newer than 1999, but they always annoy me because they either shift when I don't want them to, or they don't shift when I do want it to. I have an automatic with a sport shift or whatever they call it, but there's still a lag in the shifting that you can't anticipate. It's like when you're a passenger, and your body lurches forward with every shift. Mine works like - push forward to upshift, pull back to downshift. For some reason I can't get used to it.. it's probably just me, but I wish it had the H pattern so I could tell what gear I'm in without looking at the dash. It just doesn't feel right. I rarely use it

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[andr00oo]

I've seen lots of video of them under ideal scenarios.

Let's get some crash video! :)

Hydroplaning, black ice, big potholes, road debris, silver-hairs stomping on the brakes, et cetera.

Should be entertaining, if disconcerting, to say the least.

I'd like to know what they do in a couple of non-ideal scenarios... kernel panic, BSOD

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[hawguy]

But I'm curious about navigating construction sites with bizarre merges, lanes that don't line up in the slightest to the pavement markings, detours through the oncoming lane, with the crew directing traffic with hand signals...

Good question - maybe part of a construction permit will be entering the location and lane configuration of construction zones. Or maybe instead of flags and warning signs, they'll use RFID tags and RF beacons that instruct the cars what to do

I'm also curious how it copes when the car in front of it breaks down in a single lane no passing zone. Does it just sit there until a tow truck takes the car away? Does it get out of the tow trucks way if necessary.

I always assumed the cars would have a manual override - after all, it doesn't know what parking space I want, it might want to park me in the spot closest to my destination, but I may want to park under the tree in the shade (or *not* want to park under the tree so the birds on the tree don't poop on my car) so I'll want to be able to guide the car to do what I want.

How it deals with a police car trying to pull it over for a broken tail light.

Seems like police would be able to broadcast a "pull over" signal that the car would obey. Or maybe the police can even signal "Go to the nearest police station" to pick up your ticket.

How does it know the speed limit at every segment of road, and if the limits change how does it get updated... what happens if it blows through a speed trap a 1 mph over the limit.

GPS's are getting quite good with speed limit databases -- a state that allows driverless cars should also require electronic publishing of speed limit zones. A car that detects itself going over the speed limit should refer itself for maintenance. If someone modifies a car to break the speed limit, they should be fined appropriately. Car manufacturers should be responsible if a non-tampered car exceeds the speed limit.

Does it obey the officer trying to make eye contact with the nonexistent driver while he holds his hand up to wave you down.

How does it know a police officer is waving it down and not some kids... will it drive into a back alley or field everytime someone steps onto the road and points at one?

Its one thing to leave enough distance in front, and to safely come to a stop if the car in front of you has an accident.

But then what? Can it move out of the way of the rescue vehicles? Can it navigate the makeshift detour the police are directing?

I think you're assuming driverless rather than "automatic" -- an automatic vehicle can allow driver overrides for unusual situations.

I think we are decades away from practical driverless vehicles that could operate without a qualified driver sitting there ready to take over. At best we'll need to see a driver in the seat at all times, ready to take over when the car reports that its unable to proceed. Hopefully the car can at least detect situations it can't manage well enough... but im skeptical of it even being able to do that.

Oh, I agree that 100% automatic cars are decades away. For now, they will be driver assisting vehicles.

I always figured that there will be special roads that are certified for automatic operation (and *only* for automatic cars - no manual drivers on those roads) -- those roads would follow guidelines for electronically readable signage, roadside markers, etc. When off of those roads, then the car would switch to driver-assisted operation.

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[vux984]

Good question - maybe part of a construction permit will be entering the location and lane configuration of construction zones.

First the road is diverted to a detour while they lay a conduit across, then they re-pave this side diverting traffic to the other, then they pave the other side and traffic flips over... and this all happens in a single 8hr shift.

Or maybe instead of flags and warning signs, they'll use RFID tags and RF beacons that instruct the cars what to do

a) And the national? international standards? de factor standards? for this stuff is nowhere in sight... at least not yet.
b) Will every flag girl have all new rfid equipped stuff anytime soon? I don't think so.
c) And can you imagine the security risks ... anarchist types diverting highway traffic into residential areas for the lulz. Car jackers redirecting cars into dark unlit alleys...

GPS's are getting quite good with speed limit databases -- a state that allows driverless cars should also require electronic publishing of speed limit zones. A car that detects itself going over the speed limit should refer itself for maintenance.

What could possibly go wrong? Jokers broadcasting limits of 5mph on an interstate... or 150mph in a school zone...or overriding gps signals...

I think you're assuming driverless rather than "automatic" -- an automatic vehicle can allow driver overrides for unusual situations.

If he's going to sit there alertly paying attention for unusual situations he might as well be driving. At least it'll give him something relevant to do while he sits there. Otherwise, if the car usually gets him from his garage to the office parking lot without incident day after day, then the day the car is going to need an assist then I guarantee the driver will be watching TV, reading a book, or maybe even taking a nap in the backseat...

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[hawk]

Crashes, hydroplaning, erratic driving?

this is Nevada. Have you *seen* our bad drivers? We have bad habits from all over the country. The last times looked, my uninsured motorist coverage was higher than my liability coverage!

Quite frankly, the average AI driver in my Judson' Mario cart game has more business on the road than our "real" drivers . . .

hawk, from las vegas

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[hawk]

I've drivien in New York. There, it's the accelerator and horn that are binary. . :)

hawk

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[Anonymous Coward]

At least as well as a human driver during a heart attack.

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[GuB-42]

Electronic road signals will be probably have to be approved by the state, and use cryptography to prevent spoofing.
And for each unusual situation the car will switch to manual. At first, it will be quite often, than, as progress is made this will become more rare, up to the point where we can really go full-auto.
It is also possible to combine manual override and a driver not paying attention. The car just has to enter some kind safe mode if the driver fails to react. For example, a car may stop in front of a construction site and wait until the driver wakes up. It may be annoying to others but it is usually not dangerous.

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[HiThere]

Not really. The starter crank only impacts driving before you get behind the wheel. If you don't have a manual choke, I don't think you can have a manual crank.

OTOH:
People who claim that they are just as safe when they divide their attention are telling me that they are never safe.

FWIW:
I don't think that humans have any business operating a heavy machine that moves at more that about 25 MPH. After that you outrun your reaction time. (And even 25 MPH is stretching it.) But some people are safer drivers than others...those who are careful to keep a large distance from the car ahead of them. They are also routinely hated by the drivers behind them, even though they are moving at the average traffic speed, because they can *SEE* that there's empty space in front of them.

I am quite convinced that any moderately capable robot would be a safer driver than 90+% of the drivers on the road today. If you say "what would they do about x dangerous situation?" my answer would be "They'll try to avoid it, or slow down." This is made easier because different senses can make things like black ice or puddles of water obvious rather than invisible.

That said, I'm not sure that current robotic drivers are "moderately capable". But the only way to find out is to try.

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[hawguy]

Good question - maybe part of a construction permit will be entering the location and lane configuration of construction zones.

First the road is diverted to a detour while they lay a conduit across, then they re-pave this side diverting traffic to the other, then they pave the other side and traffic flips over... and this all happens in a single 8hr shift.

So for this case, the construction permit can say "Variable conditions - use manual mode".

Or maybe instead of flags and warning signs, they'll use RFID tags and RF beacons that instruct the cars what to do

a) And the national? international standards? de factor standards? for this stuff is nowhere in sight... at least not yet.

That's ok, these truly autonomous cars are nowhere in sight either, it will take time to develop standards *and* the cars. International standards aren't strictly required, there are lots of things about cars that are customized per country - driver's side of the car, headlights, crash safety regulations, emission controls etc. Automatic car signaling standards could be yet another one of those things that makes it hard to import a car.

b) Will every flag girl have all new rfid equipped stuff anytime soon? I don't think so.

Why do you keep talking as if these automatic cars are coming "soon"? There will be lots of time to sort out those things in the coming decades, and would only be neccessary on roads that are certified for automatic cars.

c) And can you imagine the security risks ... anarchist types diverting highway traffic into residential areas for the lulz. Car jackers redirecting cars into dark unlit alleys...

Of course, with cars that are always connected to the internet, it's easier to validate that the beacon they are receiving is a Government Approved beacon. Fixed beacons like roadside markers can be tagged by location in a huge database kept onboard the car - if the car sees a beacon that is not where it's supposed to be, it ignores that beacon.

GPS's are getting quite good with speed limit databases -- a state that allows driverless cars should also require electronic publishing of speed limit zones. A car that detects itself going over the speed limit should refer itself for maintenance.

What could possibly go wrong? Jokers broadcasting limits of 5mph on an interstate... or 150mph in a school zone...or overriding gps signals...

That's what encryption and online validation is supposed to solve. If a construction beacon says "Speed limit 5mph", but when the car looks it up online, the database says it's really a 25mph beacon that's supposed to be across town, the car can report it and ignore it. They'd have to hack both the physical beacon and the online beacon database to reroute traffic successfully. And the car will still have onboard collision detection and road-edge and terrain detection built in plus GPS navigation so it's not like a hacker can force traffic off a cliff.

I think you're assuming driverless rather than "automatic" -- an automatic vehicle can allow driver overrides for unusual situations.

If he's going to sit there alertly paying attention for unusual situations he might as well be driving. At least it'll give him something relevant to do while he sits there. Otherwise, if the car usually gets him from his garage to the office parking lot without incident day after day, then the day the car is going to need an assist then I guarantee the driver will be watching TV, reading a book, or maybe even taking a nap in the backseat...

When they reach the level of automation that allows the car to drive itself, the driver can read a book or sleep or whatever. When the car needs help, it can say "Michael, there seems to be an unusual condition ahead, you didn't respond to my warning chime so I'm going t

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[Rich0]

That's OK, I don't trust you either. How about we just keep everybody off the road but me?

Face it - life is full of compromises. I doubt that autonomous cars are ready to take over yet, but I fully support getting manual drivers off the road once they are. I'll take the odd automatic car crash a few times a year over the daily massacres and huge auto insurance bills combined with long commutes that we face right now.

If cars were fully automated traffic control would be massively better - we'd spend far less gas and time getting from point A to point B. Time in vehicles would also be much more productive since nobody would have to drive.

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[rtb61]

The only things I will find really interesting is who is going to pay the insurance. The owner, the dealer, the car manufacturer or the road authority (they set the rules cars are programmed with, if the rules fail whose fault is it). Can a self driving car be stolen? Can it steal itself? Will it turn itself over to the nearest police station? Will the software coders deny all responsibility, you only allow the car to self drive at your own risk, if the software contains, faults known or unknown and or virus, you chose to allow the software to control you at your own risk. So self drive runs down a pedestrian at a crossing and kills them whose fault is it. Can't blame the driver for not paying attention, that is the whole point of self drive, even those software companies always love to blame the user.

Auto-driven cars are sure to trigger the blame game, with the owners and victims at one end and every other asshat seeking profits with no responsibility for costs at the other end and insurance companies somewhere in the middle looking to get their money back.

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[Spugglefink]

Lazy? Stupid in most case. except sports car and large trucks.

It's getting harder to find either one with a stick shift without special ordering it. I don't really like having an automatic in a truck, although I do have to admit to having taken a certain pleasure driving an 18-wheeler through a bunch of stop-and-go traffic while eating a slice of pizza.

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[Assmasher]

Lol... How about "driving while negotiating an SSL Cert with an unresponsive server"? ;)

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[cynyr]

Maybe if all the automatics come in a "DSG" style then that would be true, my car is a 4 speed slushbox that I can make "slip" getting on the high way. It is around 500lbs hevier than the manual, and about 5-7 MPG lower, and doesn't lend itself to basic hyperi-mileing as well.

I agree that the stick wastes fuel if we are talking about the "ultra-modern" DSG and CVT transmissions, but there are lots of cars out there that still have slushboxes. Also even the DSGs are not good at knowing that I'm going down a hill and would like to use the engine to maintain my speed instead of my brakes without taking manual control of the transmission.

Anyways, I'm hoping to get a manual trans in my next car, and baring that a double clutch automatic, but both of those are hard to find in decent trim level smaller cars.

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[cynyr]

sure they shift faster, they just ignore your input for anywhere from 200ms to 800ms before doing that super fast shift.

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I totally agree it's less efficient when it comes to fuel consumption.
I find it quite ironic coming from a citizen of a country where a SUV is seen as perfectely normal anf fine family vehicle but I agree.
Still manual gear is a huge part of the pleasure of driving (except in jams obviously).

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[cynyr]

Seems like police would be able to broadcast a "pull over" signal that the car would obey. Or maybe the police can even signal "Go to the nearest police station" to pick up your ticket.

Seems to me that anything that it could broadcast to a car could also be replayed to any other car. There is probably something that could be done to prevent that but seems hard to do.

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[hawguy]

Seems like police would be able to broadcast a "pull over" signal that the car would obey. Or maybe the police can even signal "Go to the nearest police station" to pick up your ticket.

Seems to me that anything that it could broadcast to a car could also be replayed to any other car. There is probably something that could be done to prevent that but seems hard to do.

Right now all it takes to get your wife to pull over on a dark road is a couple of red and blue flashing lights on any type of car, so it's not like there's a whole lot of authentication going on with the present system.

The smart car will be able to validate the digital signature on the command to pull over, and further, it can contact the police department computer to validate that is a real request. Or, maybe when the cop sends a "pull over command", instead of the command going to your car, it goes to the police dispatch center, a dispatcher validates it and sends it to Ford's auto-car network, and Ford's network tells your car to pull over.

Much harder to spoof than just buying a police light-bar on the internet.

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[Firethorn]

The liability thing, more so than 'insurance', is likely the reason why they need state approval, and probably some legislation or at least judicial rulings.

Personally, I think it's going to mostly be the 'owner', but with the maker of the automation system(which isn't necessarily the car manufacturer) will carry significant amounts of liability coverage 'just in case' a flaw is found in their system. From a legislative standpoint, I'd consider indemnifying them, or at least limiting their liability(as in 'no punitive awards if the programmers haven't figured out how to best handle situation X yet'), as long as they can demonstrate that their system is a standard deviation safer than average human drivers, so that it's automatically saving property/lives, and that they have an active program to make it better. Once they are able to meet that standard reliably, start tightening the screws like they did for crash standards. Something like 'you have to be within a standard deviation of the best unit on the market'.

I say the 'owner' because some states have 'no fault' insurance laws, where you don't carry insurance in case you hit somebody, you carry insurance in case some fool hits you. You also have the problem that the system is most likely going to fail when presented with unusual circumstances - trying to use the autopilot in a blizzard, for example. Or with poorly maintained tires, and the poor thing just wasn't able to cope with a blown tire(though tire damage should be assumed as a possibility to be programmed for). Or the system could otherwise fail through sheer neglect, so on and so forth.

If the maker has to pay for the insurance, they'll increase the cost of the system to cover it, but it 'should' be counter-acted by lowered insurance premiums on the part of the owner. If it's actually substantially safer, even if he has to pay the whole cost the insurance should be less.

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you break an ankle you will be happy to be driving an automatic.

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[graphius]

I will say that you don't know how to drive if you don't have at least a basic understanding of how a car works. A manual gearbox forces you to have a little more insight into the physics of driving a car.

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[smooth wombat]

Stick wastes fuel.

Hogwash. Sticks get better fuel mileage than automatics. Still. To this day. I routinely get better mileage than what the manufacturer says I should. Always have when driving a stick.

Those fuel numbers you see touted when advertising a car? Those are the numbers for a manual. There's a reason they do that.

Automatics, by virtue of how they have work, will always be less fuel efficient than a comparably driven stick. Speed or efficiency of shifting can't change that.

Hopefully the first of many

[pegasustonans]

If the rest of the states follow suit in the next few years, we may actually be able to purchase driverless vehicles in our lifetime.

I'm not holding my breath, though.

All it will take is one "think of the children" campaign courtesy of the chronically ignorant to derail this.

Re:Hopefully the first of many

[dotancohen]

If the rest of the states follow suit in the next few years, we may actually be able to purchase driverless vehicles in our lifetime.

For most trips, you can rent them. You don't even need to pay insurance.

It is called a bus.

Re:Hopefully the first of many

[pegasustonans]

If the rest of the states follow suit in the next few years, we may actually be able to purchase driverless vehicles in our lifetime.

For most trips, you can rent them. You don't even need to pay insurance.

It is called a bus.

I don't know where you live, but the buses I've seen have a driver.

Re:Hopefully the first of many

[petteyg359]

Last time I checked, there was somebody sitting at the front driving, and it was therefore not _driverless_.

Re:Hopefully the first of many

[Anonymous Coward]

For one or more of:
      * incredible cost
      * indirect slow trip
      * long wait

Re:Hopefully the first of many

[Internetuser1248]

All it will take is one "think of the children" campaign courtesy of the chronically ignorant to derail this.

Think of all the children that are killed by drunk/reckless drivers

Re:Hopefully the first of many

[dotancohen]

Last time I checked, there was somebody sitting at the front driving, and it was therefore not _driverless_.

Driverless in the sense "I don't have to drive it, I can do something else". That is the benefit of the autonomous vehicle, no?

Re:Hopefully the first of many

[Hijacked Public]

That and it would be capable of processing more input data faster than a human driver, thus making better decisions.

Re:Hopefully the first of many

[pegasustonans]

All it will take is one "think of the children" campaign courtesy of the chronically ignorant to derail this.

Think of all the children that are killed by drunk/reckless drivers

Good luck explaining that to paranoid crowds waving photoshopped placards of roadkill and screaming about robot vehicles on the rampage

Re:Hopefully the first of many

[kilfarsnar]

I'm not sure how faster data processing leads to more optimal decisions.

Re:Hopefully the first of many

[neyla]

1) Buses don't start at my home.

2) Buses don't go where I want to go.

3) Buses don't go -when- I want to go.

4) I cannot store my stuff from one shop in the bus while visiting a different shop.

5) The bus is full of strangers, some of which behave and/or smell bad

6) I can't choose the color of my bus, nor the seats, nor anything else.

7) The bus doesn't play the music I like.

8) The bus takes -much- longer, doing my 10-mile commute with dropoff of children in daycare by bus would mean taking 3 different buses each way (a total of 6!), and take a minimum of 2 hours extra time a day, compared to a car.

9) Did I mention it's expensive ? Even at $50/hour, the opportunity-cost of taking the bus is a mind-boggling $10.000/year. This is 4 times what I spend on my car.

Re:Hopefully the first of many

[mcgrew]

Faster decisions doesn't necessarily mean better decisions. However, I do think driverless vehicles will be far safer than vehicles piloted by humans. Humans are limited by emotion (fear, anger, impatience) while machines are not.

Rather than having people complain that they're dangerous, I suspect the main complaint will be "but that 100 mile trip took ten minutes longer!"

Re:Hopefully the first of many

[w_dragon]

Yes, but a bus doesn't leave the minute I want to leave, doesn't take me from the parking lot of the building I'm in to my front door, and generally won't work well at all outside of large urban areas.

Re:Hopefully the first of many

[Khyber]

>implying a machine would ever understand humans enough to develop the appropriate fuzzy logic to anticipate the myriad ways a human can fuck things up.

Re:Hopefully the first of many

[Oswald McWeany]

Yeah... and typically he is less human than my desktop.

Re:Hopefully the first of many

[mlts]

I can't think of any disadvantages of driverless vehicles once the kinks are worked out. In fact, on the highway, with a grid system, cars can be packed far closer together because there isn't need to have the space needed for human reaction time. Coupled with a local/regional highway computer, vehicles can be shifted from lane to lane depending on their destination and mechanical ability.

Heck, even roads could be designed differently because roads wouldn't have to deal with drivers behind the wheel who have 2-3 too many bowls, and 4-6 too many Bud Lights. Four way intersections on expressways could be made because the local computer could time when to send a northbound car so it doesn't hit an eastbound car that is currently in the intersection, or slow down a southbound car so it hits the intersection right after two cars going on a cross street pass.

Of course, nothing is perfect, but there was a time when computers were thought of never being the king of the chessboard, and now are top dog. Self driving cars were laughed off previously, but as connectivity and technology matures, it might be the answer to US transportation issues, especially in sprawling regions where a bus/train/tram system would be impossible.

This also would provide ease of renting/reserving cars. If someone didn't want to own one, they could have one reserved to be sitting in front of their place when they needed to go to work.

Re:Hopefully the first of many

[softwareGuy1024]

Sounds like the killer cars Monty Python cartoon.

Re:Hopefully the first of many

[Anonymous Coward]

10) They are crowded! Standing and getting jostled around every stop for an hour and a half gets old.

And big time on #8. The transit system here is terrible (and are currently strike actually.. ). Buying a car was _literally_ like adding an extra 2 hours of free time to my day.

Re:Hopefully the first of many

[bored_engineer]

I'm a civil engineer specializing in transportation. I was at a training lecture a few fears ago in which the lecturer suggested that freeway capacities will double with fully automatic cars.

I also saw a simulation a few years ago that showed the mixing of cross-traffic as you describe. The major limiting factor for intersection capacity is the intersection controls. Replacing the controls with such a system would increase the vehicle capacity through the intersection phenomenally. The trouble, though, is such a system would leave no room for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Re:Hopefully the first of many

[PRMan]

Yeah, but I won't have a bum who just vomited on himself and is currently shooting up heroine in my car... (A vivid memory from riding a bus as a kid.)

Re:Hopefully the first of many

[AvitarX]

Theoretically if you cycled through an all stop phase it would be more efficient, and allow more crossing.

If the all green time was 1.5 times as efficient as 1/2 green we get now, all you need to do to increase efficiency is keep the people crossing time below 1/3 the time.

Considering you could safely cross both directions with all cars having red, it could be a boost for pedestrians too.

Re:Hopefully the first of many

[mlts]

I wonder about that... if there were a "press button to cross" at intersections, which had a time delay to get all cars in the system stopped, then I wonder if this would be an issue. Freeways, it would be less of a problem because people won't be walking on those, but this definitely would rear its head in the city.

Re:Hopefully the first of many

[bored_engineer]

Still doesn't take care of bicyclists. As AvitarX points out below, you would need to have a long green phase to make this workable. The trouble is that this leaves pedestrians waiting a long time. If a driver or pedestrian waits too long, then they tend to take chances and cross against the light.

Re:Hopefully the first of many

[sl149q]

Just change the intersections to Pedestrian Scrambles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedestrian_scramble.

Automated cars use the intersection (interleaved with an automated reservation system) for a couple of minutes.

Then pedestrians get the intersection for a amount of time based on the number of people using it.

This is really old school. And not that hard.

Re:Hopefully the first of many

[geekoid]

no.
Not driving so you can do something else without sitting next to sick people, dealing with poor environmental controls,and the ability for it to go where i want.

Buses suck ass.

Re:Hopefully the first of many

[geekoid]

better, not optimal.

Anyways, it allows for better response in an emergency. The vehicle will always pay attention to whats in front of it..and behind it, and to the sides, all at the same time.
People, and I mean everyone, are not 100% focus on the road most of the time.

People in routine aren't as attentive; which is why test for driving are almost always horrid. I'm looking at YOU Mythbusters. Because they inevitably use someone who knows they are being watched, so the pay more attention. SO the comparison between actual driving, and driving while on the phone is useless.

Every wonder why anyone with any distraction is the same as being legally drunk?

Re:Hopefully the first of many

[geekoid]

you can add controls to the system that detect whats going on nearby, so as soon as something moves in front of the car, the system adjusts.
Ad it would sill be more efficient.

Re:Hopefully the first of many

[geekoid]

Have bicycles rind on the road, the cars can detect them easy enough.

Re:Hopefully the first of many

[geekoid]

They can. You use an interrupt that fires when anything outside the predetermined system interrupts the system.

Re:Hopefully the first of many

[trigpoint]

Where I live pedestrian lights are advisory. They are only enforcable for drivers and cyclists.

Re:Hopefully the first of many

[hawk]

Yes, but this could mesh dangerously with the various ethanol fuel initiatives . . .

Officer: [sniff] Have you been drinking?

Car: [hic] just a couple of gallons.

Passenger: and it worn't shell, err, share any width me!

hawk

Re:Hopefully the first of many

[Rich0]

Buses aren't driverless. That's why they have to stop at stop lights and other cars get in their way.

If they were part of a driverless transportation system then they'd basically start where your trip originates and proceed in a fairly direct route to where you are going, travelling at near top speed the entire time minus the odd slowdown to time intersections with other traffic. Your typical 20 minute work commute would take 5-10 mins...

Re:Hopefully the first of many

[Khyber]

You might want to watch youtube for a good example of how many different ways things can go horribly wrong. What's your car going to do when the person ahead of you slams on their brakes, you're boxed in on both sides, and there's another guy about to run up your tailpipe because he's following too closely?

It's certainly not going to pray for your safety to your deity of choice, that's for sure!

Coloured license plates to ID drivers

[dotancohen]

If coloured license plates could be used to ID drivers and their abilities, how about a system for allowing differing speeds based on:
1) Car type
2) Car condition
3) Driver experience

I think that most would agree that a 2012 model BMW driven by a professional racecar driver with 20 years' experience and no traffic infractions could be driven safely 20 KPH faster than a 1982 Peugeot with bald tires driven by a 18 year old who already has two infractions.

I did not invent this, I heard it proposed years ago. But I think that now with automated vehicles being distinguished from human drivers, that the time is ripe and the technology is here to implement it.

Re:Coloured license plates to ID drivers

[smi.james.th]

Different coloured plates may be useful, but I disagree that different rules should apply. I REALLY don't want racecar drivers with new BMWs tearing around the place. That's dangerous, frankly.

I've done a bit of track driving, I don't consider my ability to be much above mediocre for an enthusiast, but I'm better than your average driver. I'm fastidious about sticking to the road rules, just because not everyone has the same level of skill as me.

The roads are for transport, not personal amusement. I want to arrive safely at my destination, please. I'm not too bothered if you're bored because it's slow.

Re:Coloured license plates to ID drivers

[SJHillman]

So you have to change your license plate as your tires get worn down?
Although I'd love to see a system that allows better drivers to drive faster (and force crappier drivers to drive slower), there's too many other variables already in the mix to try to add more. The one place I see it working best, and maybe a good place to start, is on limited access highways that are already designed for high speed and high volume.

Personally, I'd much rather force better driver training before allowing people on the road at all. The test to get your license is a joke - the road test should at least take you into an area with traffic moving above 20 mph if it's going to gauge your abilities at all.

Re:Coloured license plates to ID drivers

[hipp5]

And how often do we check the condition of the car? Do you need to go in monthly to validate the good condition of your tires? What about when the 16 year old son of the race car driver takes the car out? Does he get the +20kph license plate? Or does he have to unscrew it and put his on?

I think the logistics of the whole thing make it a rediculous undertaking for marginal benefit (is there even a benefit?)

Re:Coloured license plates to ID drivers

[JazzHarper]

I think that most would agree that a 2012 model BMW driven by a professional racecar driver with 20 years' experience and no traffic infractions could be driven safely 20 KPH faster than a 1982 Peugeot with bald tires driven by a 18 year old who already has two infractions.

Worst of all is the 2012 BMW driven by an 18-year-old.

I'm not so sure that the red plate for autonomous vehicles is entirely a good idea. I'm think it might attract pranksters or worse.

Re:Coloured license plates to ID drivers

[dotancohen]

I am not bored because it is slow. I am trying to get _off_ the road as quickly as possible. That means either compressing the distance between my starting and ending points, or increasing the speed. Additionally, this plan has the side effect of giving tangible, real-world benefit to safe drivers (increased speed). That will give the aforementioned 18 year old a reason to stop racking up the infractions.

Re:Coloured license plates to ID drivers

[dotancohen]

Cars get a yearly inspection as it is where I live. The tag could be part of the inspection. Perhaps the whole tag need not be replaced, just a wide stripe down one side of it.

Re:Coloured license plates to ID drivers

[Anonymous Coward]

From pretty much every interview I've heard from professional motor racers is that they are a stickler for the rules of the road, none of them see the point of speeding and save it all for the track.

Re:Coloured license plates to ID drivers

[dotancohen]

And how often do we check the condition of the car? Do you need to go in monthly to validate the good condition of your tires? What about when the 16 year old son of the race car driver takes the car out? Does he get the +20kph license plate? Or does he have to unscrew it and put his on?

I think the logistics of the whole thing make it a rediculous undertaking for marginal benefit (is there even a benefit?)

Cars get yearly inspections as it is already. Tires are generally good for a few years.

How is the situation handled when it is a human piloting the car instead of the computer? Does he get out and change the plate? How about instead of changing the whole plate, the driver puts a coloured stripe next to the plate before starting on his way. There are other benefits to that as well.

Re:Coloured license plates to ID drivers

[Antimatter3009]

The point of speed limits is usually not to keep you from going "too fast", it's to keep everyone going roughly the same speed. Driving gets more dangerous when cars are all going vastly different speeds. That's why highways also have minimum speed limits. Having someone going 25 on a 60+ mph highway is just as dangerous as having someone go 100.

This is less of an issue where there's not much traffic (parts of the Autobahn, for instance), and you could maybe make it work by having different lanes going different speeds, but there is a point beyond just making you drive slower than you're capable of doing.

Re:Coloured license plates to ID drivers

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not bored because it is slow. I am trying to get _off_ the road as quickly as possible. That means either compressing the distance between my starting and ending points, or increasing the speed...

Have you tried turning the driving wheel?

Re:Coloured license plates to ID drivers

[u38cg]

I seem to recall (it may have been here, actually) a study where people's driving skills were independently assessed alongside how they drove. Driving skill was very strongly correlated to their tendency to follow the rules of the road.

Re:Coloured license plates to ID drivers

[gotpoetry]

An average one-way commute time for people in the US is 26 minutes (over an average distance of 16 miles). That is about 37 miles an hour. If we could get everyone to drive an average of 60 miles an hour the average commute would drop by 10 minutes. That is not very much and I am skeptical that much of an increase in average speed is even doable.

Re:Coloured license plates to ID drivers

[smi.james.th]

I'll concede that I don't know about any such statistics. The average driver of a BMW where I live though, is what is sometimes classified as a "plonker", most of whom think they've got more skill than Lewis Hamilton, though they do much more overtaking than what he does. More than once I've narrowly avoided being taken out by such a specimen.

In cases like that, adding more rules won't fix things I guess, because they don't even obey the existing ones. Taking them completely off the road would work.

Disclaimer: I'm a South African. YMMV.

Re:Coloured license plates to ID drivers

[Anonymous Coward]

Different coloured plates may be useful, but I disagree that different rules should apply.

I don't. I've had this idea for some time since I moved to Arizona and got to experience the joy/crap that is the HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle) lane. I suggest an Advanced Driver lane. You have to pass a test every year or every other year to get a plate for it but you can drive as fast as you want.

Re:Coloured license plates to ID drivers

[jd2112]

Drive slow so you can drive fast?

Re:Coloured license plates to ID drivers

[TheDarkMaster]

White car plate = Normal driver
Yellow plate = Agressive driver
Red plate = Killer driver >:)
Black plate = Death itself driver
Green plate = Yuppie driver, eletric car
Rainbow plate = Driver on drugs
Tartan pattern plate = burlesque speed capable driver (DO NOT try to overcoming this on road)

Re:Coloured license plates to ID drivers

[Anonymous Coward]

18 year-olds don't rack up the infractions because they drive badly, they rack up infractions because they get caught driving badly. Until caught being idiots everyone under your system would be rewarded with the right to drive faster until someone actually notices that they're behaving like idiots on the road.

Re:Coloured license plates to ID drivers

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical BMW drivers are type A personalities who have money because they break the rules whenever they can get away with it.

Re:Coloured license plates to ID drivers

[jellomizer]

The issue with automated cars is for people to see that it is automated and really not to try to get a behavior change out of the car.
Normally if someone thinks I am driving to slow they will tail gate me and make gestures of of frustration. Now I will see this and will provoke me to change my behavior.... If I am in a good mood Ill either speed up or just change lanes and let them drive by. If I am feeling like a jerk I will slow down and position by car with other cars in other lanes so they cannot pass me, of course the last time I did this I was disappointed because I saved the jerk behind me from getting a speeding ticket.

Re:Coloured license plates to ID drivers

[Quanticfx]

Oh how I love the HOV lane on the 101 on a Friday afternoon, until non-HO vehicles mess it up.

An advanced driver lane would be cool and the testing every year sounds like a decent idea. I think the best way it would work was if the lane was completely separated from the rest, but that would require separate off ramps for exits so probably wouldn't make sense from a monetary or road engineering viewpoint.

Re:Coloured license plates to ID drivers

[Anonymous Coward]

Tires are generally good for a few years.

That depends on how far you drive in a year. I bet you could not get a set of tires to last 40K miles

Re:Coloured license plates to ID drivers

[Gordonjcp]

You can already tell the 1982 Peugeot from the 2012 BMW already. One says "BMW" on the back and one says "Peugeot" on the back. Additionally, the number plate will have some sort of indication of the car's age.

Furthermore, the 2012 BMW is likely to be the one upside down in a hedge, or on the hard shoulder with its hazard lights on after yet another electrical failure, readily distinguishable from the Peugeot which you can find by following the slight oily haze for half a mile or so assuming it's past the half a million miles mark.

Don't get modern German cars. They're crap.

Re:Coloured license plates to ID drivers

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd guess not really doable since the average commuter doesn't have an on-ramp at their home, and an off ramp at the office. Ignoring things like grid lock on heavily used freeways, everybody still has to deal, at least a little bit, with stop signs, stop lights, and chunks of road where the speed limit isn't even 55. It's amazing how much even one red light can hurt your average mph.

Re:Coloured license plates to ID drivers

[Anonymous Coward]

As an amateur race car driver, I can tell you this: We lie lie LIE about how we drive on public roads.
Driving is not my day job, but ANY kind of sponsorship that we as a team can get is vital to us racing is REALLY expensive - losing it because one of us comes off as a dickbag by saying that he does 140Mph on a public road is not an option. So we claim we drive like saints and "Save it for the Track" - but we don't.

You think commuting is boring? You think it feels "slow"? My sense of speed is completely warped due to my track experience "fast" to me is very different from what "fast" is to your average driver. Highway speed limit to me feels like parking lot slow. 55Mph is barley moving. 100Mph is "ok". It's a subconscious perception of speed. I can't help it anymore. It "feels" slow.

Me, I take it easy in the car, meaning I don't do over 120Mph ever. This is not fast. 160 is fast - my daily driver can and has hit 167 on the track (and no it's not the track car - that IS a BMW). On the motorcycle though, I hit 160+ on a regular basis on the highway..

With that said. Yes I speed, everyone I know who tracks speeds. BUT we are all extremely predictable and cautious drivers who do not overdrive our line of sight, we don't run traffic signs we signal lane changes etc....just not at the speed limit.

PS. I do not ever use a cellphone while driving. I do not text etc. I drive stick. Automatics in my opinion are enablers of distracted drivers.

Re:Coloured license plates to ID drivers

[14erCleaner]

I'm better than your average driver.

Isn't everybody? ;)

Re:Coloured license plates to ID drivers

[Anonymous Coward]

Yearly inspections?

Cars get *no* inspections. If you can get it on the road, you can drive it. That's Florida. Where are you from?

On distinguishing autonomous vehicle modes, perhaps a special set of lights (maybe blue, since we don't have that color on cars, yet) on the front and rear to indicate autonomous mode, no lights when driven normally.

Re:Coloured license plates to ID drivers

[Glendale2x]

Nevada does not do vehicle inspections. We only have to do a yearly smog check.

Re:Coloured license plates to ID drivers

[PRMan]

To do that, we would have to reduce the inevitable accidents that happen every day. If only we could come up with a way of eliminating most accidents...

Re:Coloured license plates to ID drivers

[bored_engineer]

Bunk. The first problem is the cost. It's already ridiculously expensive to build a road, and now you want us to make it even bigger to accommodate your childish need to drive at "Ludicrous Speed."

The second problem is design. Do you know how much effort goes into the design of roads? We start with "design designations," including design speed. All of the curves, both horizontal and vertical are designed with this design speed in mind. Raising the design speed will generally raise the cost.

The third and fourth problems are both related to safety:

What happens when you blow a tire at 180 MPH? Bad Things.

Still another problem is with the addition of a single lane. The slowest driver will necessarily define the speed of the lane. Therefore, there has to be an escape, which means adding a second, very expensive lane, or you have to allow this high speed traffic to mix with the adjacent slower-moving traffic.

I've seen this suggestion before, and it's as stupid now as it was then.

Re:Coloured license plates to ID drivers

[Hythlodaeus]

Really, the point of speed limits is so police can pull people over at will because the posted limit is comically slow.

Re:Coloured license plates to ID drivers

[geekoid]

By the tine we could work something out, we won't have drivers anymore.

How do you rate someone who causes other people to be in accidents? How do you deal with the old person who is bitching because his plate color changes because his reflexes aren't as good?

If you really want something like that, then fight for actual driving test, reflex tests and a driving written test.

If you can't parallel park, use your blinker, drive out of a skid then you shouldn't be allowed to drive.

And it should be based on car type. Large vehicle, SUVS Truck, 64 cads, should require a different license class.

Re:Coloured license plates to ID drivers

[geekoid]

When someone drives faster then anyone else, it means everyone needs to have better reflexes, not just the 'professional' driver. OR have you not seen a crash at a race track full of profession drivers?

Re:Coloured license plates to ID drivers

[Reapy]

I know some people are capable of driving smartly at those speeds, but I've felt that the danger is what they leave in their wake. A lot of bad drivers freak out when a car rips past them at even 20mph + faster than what they are doing. I've seen some pretty crazy random moves from other people in reaction to someone weaving lanes or blowing by, and all those abrupt lane shifts and startled people are ripe opportunities for accidents.

Automated vehicles would get rid of this as was mentioned above. With computers at the helm and most likely differently designed cars, we could get everyone safely moving at 160mph I bet.

My greatest fear with them though is the 'hacker'. I'm not quite sure what keeps them on the road, but I imagine when you fully automate, road crews and such will need to communicate with the cars to tell them to fall into new patterns around construction. That, and an understanding of the sensors on the car will give people plenty of ways to communicate with the car or trick its sensors. What happens when that joker decides to divert cars to 'go left!' as they climb a scenic mountain top and are going around a hair pin. Or as a joke at prime time rush hour get several cars abreast to come to an abrupt halt? They will probably have a manual override, but people will most likely be sleeping or distracted in a fully auto set up.

I know that statistically the chances of that happening are probably much less than the types of stupid accidents that happen now, but it'll make it a hard PR sale until those kinds of situations are resolved.

Re:Coloured license plates to ID drivers

[geekoid]

What it means is that the car is driverless capable and in test or production.

Once some tipping point is reached, it won't matter.

Re:Coloured license plates to ID drivers

[geekoid]

" might attract pranksters "
hope so. Great way to test response to outside variables.

also, a great opportunity to try out the laser.

What do you mean no laser?

Re:Coloured license plates to ID drivers

[geekoid]

no, it's to get consistent speed. One which the average person can reasonably respond to when there is a change.

Re:Coloured license plates to ID drivers

[geekoid]

Don't derive anything from an 'average' across the country. It's not really a good number.

And that average has a huge variable from day to day.
The can will be on days that are above average. Fewer accidents, fewer looky loo's, better organizational driving around road work, drivelers cars using a zipper method of merging.

All that reduces the top end of the average significanty. So yeah, the average might drop form 26 min to 20 min but all of that will be from the high end being lowered.

Re:Coloured license plates to ID drivers

[Anonymous Coward]

Having someone going 25 on a 60+ mph highway is just as dangerous as having someone go 100.

It may be equally likely to cause an accident, but it's not equally dangerous: an accident in the second case is going to kill someone.

Re:Coloured license plates to ID drivers

[dotancohen]

I agree with your entire post, geekoid. There are too many unskilled drivers on the road.

Re:Coloured license plates to ID drivers

[dotancohen]

How about letting the "rewarded" drivers into privileged traffic, such as HOV lanes?

Re:Coloured license plates to ID drivers

[graphius]

If I am feeling like a jerk I will slow down and position by car with other cars in other lanes so they cannot pass me

You, Sir, are a dangerous driver and should not be allowed behind the wheel. It is attitudes like this that cause accidents, and it is drivers like this that bring about so many of the stupid traffic laws...

*yes I am ignoring the first half of your post to make a point.

Re:Coloured license plates to ID drivers

[Fastolfe]

Given that the vehicles need to process an insane amount of data to effectively operate autonomously, it seems useful to allow them to send a snapshot of some of that data to the police if you push a "some driver is driving criminally around me" button.

Colorblindness?

[bondsbw]

I thought we learned a long time ago not to use only color, especially red and green, to distinguish between signage.

Re:Colorblindness?

[i kan reed]

Being that the purpose of the signage is mostly used by government officials in legal matters, such details can be handled by paperwork as necessary. I don't seriously think there's such a thing as red/white colorblind, so differentiating between autonomous and traditional cars should be trivial even for the colorblind.

Re:Colorblindness?

[Stickybombs]

It really doesn't matter if the average colorblind person can't tell that the car in front of them is autonomous. The colored plates are more likely for police officers and such who need that information.
If someone is driving correctly, it won't make a bit of difference if they are following a real driver or a computer.

Re:Colorblindness?

[Anonymous Coward]

New rule, If you have Colorblindness, you can only use self-driving cars...

Re:Colorblindness?

[trongey]

I thought we learned a long time ago not to use only color, especially red and green, to distinguish between signage.

Where it the hell did you get that idea? Do you even live on the same planet that I do?

Re:Colorblindness?

[Anonymus]

Do you have any examples of street signage that use only red/green color to make distinctions? Over 7% of the population either have trouble with red/green or perceive them differently than others, at least according to Wikipedia. Traffic lights make use of position as well as color. Walk/go lights generally use color, position, and/or different icons to represent the permitted action.

Re:Colorblindness?

[SleazyRidr]

I think that you and the parent both live on the same planet, but he pays more attention to what happens on it than you do. The most common form of colour blindness is difficulty in distinguishing red from green, which occurs in about 8% of men. the fact that we use red and green so extensively is a sign of laziness, and doing things the way we've always done them because it's the way we've always done them. From my experience in chemical plants, red/green signals are not often used in the control rooms so as not to cause hazardous situations when people can't tell that they've changed.

Re:Colorblindness?

[PRMan]

Cops are not allowed to be color-blind. I have a friend who is not allowed to join the force because of very slight colorblindness, even though he is unbelievably accurate at naming colors.

Re:Colorblindness?

[trigpoint]

Traffic lights make use of position as well as color.

They do, and have used the same position in every country I have driven in, except Quebec.

Actually a good place to start.

[grub]

Nevada, and Vegas, are good places to party. It'd be interesting (though not exactly scientific) to see if impaired driving charges drop when people are able to take their own self-driving car home.

I think...

[Agent Z5q]

... they should put "Student Driver" on the side of the cars. That would ensure that other drivers would be sufficiently wary.

Re:I think...

[P-niiice]

Here in atlanta student drivers are like chum in the waters off Austraila. We feed on them.

Re:I think...

[Oswald McWeany]

In the UK they have an "L" on cars to signify a "Learner" driver.

Re:I think...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but you can't really rely on that given the number of people that forget that they're required to take them off when the learner isn't driving. Either that or there are a lot of middle aged learners illegally driving solo on the motorway...

Re:I think...

[SleazyRidr]

I'm not sure about UK laws, but in Western Australia you aren't legally required to remove them. My Dad drove around with the L plates on for years after I'd learned how to drive.

Too early?

[parallel_prankster]

Has automated driving reached a point where if there was an accident the fault would be on the driver and not the carmaker? Until then no one is going to sell these cars. It is a great idea, though, and combined with some other great idea of cheap fuel, I hope it replaces flying ( and getting raped by DHS) altogether.

Re:Too early?

[sakdoctor]

No, but it's reached the point where automated cars are better than the average human driver. A low bar to pass.

Re:Too early?

[w_dragon]

If they're to the point where they're writing legislation I assume they've at least started thinking about the laws that need to be modified to deal with the insurance issues.

Re:Too early?

[geekoid]

especially since the specifically talk to the insurance companies.

IT's not a hard problem.

Re:Too early?

[HiThere]

The squib said that the new laws were written in consultation with insurance companies, as well as with Google. Be interesting to see what they came up with.

Heard This On NPR On The Drive In

[EXTomar]

I heard this story on NPR on the way into work and it makes sense. You would need to license and register robotic cars differently so why not start now independant of whether or not Google's car works?

It's from Google...

[Dupple]

Now they really can track your location!

here's what will happen

[P-niiice]

Atlanta, 285 eastbound, 5:15 pm on a friday - boopbeep why did that dude signal left and turn righterrorerrorerrorerror [dies in a fiery crash]

Re:here's what will happen

[P-niiice]

boopbeep why is there a couch in the expresswayerrorerrorerrorerror

#1.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

A driverless vehicle may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm, unless in Reno and with the intent of observing said human's demise.

Re:#1.

[mutherhacker]

ROFL. Isaac Asimov meets Johnny Cash

Re:#1.

[DaFallus]

A driverless vehicle may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm, unless in Reno and with the intent of observing said human's demise.

Johnnycashcab?

Re:#1.

[VortexCortex]

Pulling up behind a car with a red license-plate, will be EXACTLY like squaring off with a Cylon.

Re:#1.

[geekoid]

I'd be tempted to bump it, very lightly.

Car goes out alone at night

[fleebait]

Next thing, after I go to bed, the car wants to go out on it's own, and just "hang out"

Morning: "Where did you go?"
Car: "Out"
Me: "What did you do?"

Car: "Nothing."

Re:Car goes out alone at night

[mark-t]

Naaah... it wouldn't get to that point. Most people don't have a given car as long as 13 years.

Re:Car goes out alone at night

[TheSpoom]

Yeah, but you have to think in car years.

Re:Car goes out alone at night

[martin-boundary]

What's your car's name, it's not Christine, is it?

A low bar to pass.

[SmallFurryCreature]

That depends, does that low bar show up on the cars sensors? No? Then what passes under the bar, passes. The rest, stays put.

Have you never seen any car chase movies?

Use the existing standard!

[GiantRobotMonster]

Green licence plates? Pah!
Everybody already knows that a sweeping line of red LEDs in the grill is how you recognise a self driving car.
Sheesh!

Re:Use the existing standard!

[Ksevio]

And when it changes to a single LED scanning back and forth you know it's gone rogue.

Re:Use the existing standard!

[jellomizer]

I agree!
However the question is should the speed of the sweep be proportional of the speed of the car?

Bum bada bum, bum baba bum, bum bada bum, bum, bummmm.

Christine! My first self driving car

[na1led]

Just don't piss it off, or you'll end up as road kill.

What a waste of Energy

[Oswald McWeany]

Self driving cars are a waste of energy.

They should at least be driving goods or people around. But just driving themselves around is such a waste.

Re:What a waste of Energy

[markjhood2003]

Modded funny, I know. But as a society, do we really want to encourage more people to use cars? This technology is a plus if it makes driving safer and more convenient without using more energy resources, but if it actually encourages more people to live further away from where they physically need to be working, then overall it could be a negative.

Colored License Plates Scream "Steal Me!"

[akpoff]

They're going to mandate driver-less cars have unique, identifiable license plates? Sounds like a "Steal Me!" badge.

Remember the problem Florida had about 10 years ago where rental cars with clearly-identifiable stickers (Enterprise "E")? The cards were driven mostly by out-of-country tourists. They were being jacked because the bad guys knew they couldn't defend themselves.

Driver-less cars are chock-a-block with experimental technology, all wrapped-up inside of a $15k - $40k vehicle...with no one to defend them.

What could go wrong?

At least until they get lasers.

Re:Colored License Plates Scream "Steal Me!"

[Stickybombs]

There would still be someone in the car. I imagine it will be quite a while before cars are allowed to drive themselves around unoccupied.

Re:Colored License Plates Scream "Steal Me!"

[mark-t]

In my experience, it's fairly common these days for new vehicles to come with some technology in the ignition system that makes it virtually impossible to hot wire.... and even if they succeeded, without having the right wireless chip nearby to talk to that is installed in the head of the keys that would normally be in the ignition, the steering column will not unlock, and the car will not shift out of park. With the key absent, the engine would automatically shut off after a certain period without the key installed, just as it would if a remote-start had been issued.

Outside of having a tow truck, and simply carting it away, how do you propose to steal a vehicle that can't be driven without a key?

Re:Colored License Plates Scream "Steal Me!"

[squiggleslash]

I'm sorry, I don't understand. A regular car is usually worth tens of thousands of dollars too, and it's usable even by someone who doesn't own it with a minor modification to keyhole.

Yes, there's a lot of electronics in a self driving car, but the majority of those electronics are going to be useless outside of the context of... that car or a car like it.

Actually, I suspect it'll be more difficult to steal one of these things in practice. This is a car that drives itself. It needs access to GPS and up to date databases on traffic patterns to work properly. That means it'll be calling home on a regular basis, possibly even all the time, and giving away its location. Steal it, and you're guaranteed to be caught, convicted, and serving time.

Re:Colored License Plates Scream "Steal Me!"

[akpoff]

I think it'll be pretty easy. The vehicle will have to stop if it detects a collision[1]. So the question is: after bumping the car from any side, how fast can determined thieves get to the GPS (or the communications device), disable it, hook up a tow truck and get away?

I'm betting faster than typical metro police can get to the last reported coordinates.

[1] Google's autonomous car rear-ended a car last year and stayed around for the accident. Apparently the accident was a result of "human error" but still, it stayed put.

Re:Colored License Plates Scream "Steal Me!"

[squiggleslash]

ow fast can determined thieves get to the GPS (or the communications device), disable it, hook up a tow truck and get away?

That's a little like saying "It'd be easy to steal these secret documents from this locked room. All you have to do is set fire to the building and then suck the ash under the door."

People who steal things, with few exceptions, do so because the things they steal have value after they've been stolen. Turning a motor vehicle into a brick kinda causes it to lose 99% of its value. At that point, you're left with something no more valuable than a totalled regular car, so why waste time trying to steal the high tech supercar when you can just sneak into a scrap metal dealer at night?

Re:Colored License Plates Scream "Steal Me!"

[demontechie]

For the foreseeable future, any autonomous vehicle is going to be so covered in extra highly visible sensors that the fact that it might have a different color license plate will only be a trivial increment in the degree that it will stand out from any non-autonomous vehicles.

Re:Colored License Plates Scream "Steal Me!"

[akpoff]

I don't think you have to ruin the vehicle to accomplish the goal. In the article I linked above the Google car suffered little damage but it stayed at the location. Why? It's a hit and run otherwise.

Re:Colored License Plates Scream "Steal Me!"

[Anonymous Coward]

Well the self driving car also probably self reports on it's position so um, sure bring the car into your chop shop, and let it broadcast the GPS coordinates to OnStar. What could possibly go wrong?

Re:Colored License Plates Scream "Steal Me!"

[VortexCortex]

Well, we'll just ask the OTHER cars, "Hey, have you seen TXN-W16 around?"
Oh, yes, he was heading north on I45 and is parked in a pick-a-part lot at the moment.
"Ah, well then I'll just tell it to come home then, and alert self driving police to the chop-shop's location."

Re:Colored License Plates Scream "Steal Me!"

[geekoid]

irrelevant.
Car detects unauthorized passenger. Car takes pictures and then drives to police station.

Re:Colored License Plates Scream "Steal Me!"

[izomiac]

I suppose you could remove the steering wheel and pedals as a theft deterrent. Or just have them drive aimlessly rather than park for any length of time. More amusingly,you could have the car go on a AI driven "joy ride" due to "tampering" if someone attempts to steal it. You know, find the nearest cliff, calculate the minimum braking distance at top speed, and perform a few trials to verify it.

Re:Colored License Plates Scream "Steal Me!"

[Anonymous Coward]

"Hello OnStar, My car has been stolen"
"Hold on sir while we locate it" "Sir we have found your car and have directed it to the closest police station. The police have been alerted that it will be arriving soon."

Meanwhile in the car
"please be advice you are no longer in control of the car. for your safety the doors are locked and the police will be their to assets your exit soon"
"$h!t I told you not to jack a self driving car"

Why not put this energy into public transport?

[Anonymous Coward]

I fail to grasp why we aren't investing time and energy in a ramp-up of the abysmal public transport options in the US. Self driving cars are a wonderful idea, but in the end they are a stop gap for the actual problem: there are more cars than available road capacity, and this will continue to increase.

Re:Why not put this energy into public transport?

[Oswald McWeany]

Self-driving cars could fit more cars on the road. They can travel closer together as they don't have the half-second danger-response processing a human has before applying the brakes.

Given their faster response times- you need less road per car. So yes, they do deal with that problem.

Re:Why not put this energy into public transport?

[Dcnjoe60]

Self-driving cars could fit more cars on the road. They can travel closer together as they don't have the half-second danger-response processing a human has before applying the brakes.

Given their faster response times- you need less road per car. So yes, they do deal with that problem.

If your goal is to transport more people or merchandise efficiently and economically, then highways are inefficient regardless of whether the vehicles are self-driving or not. In order of efficiency, barge (going down stream), rail, road vehicle. Granted, individual vehicles have other benefits and conveniences, but those benefits don't deal with the problem of capacity.

Re:Why not put this energy into public transport?

[Anonymous Coward]

Public transit is socialism. That's why it won't be invested in.

Re:Why not put this energy into public transport?

[squiggleslash]

A number of reasons.

1. Utterly incompetent planning policies that have resulted in an overly spread out suburban layout in most "cities" with zoning making mixed development (ie supermarkets near the people they serve) all but impossible. The result of this is that profitable public transport is pretty close to impossible in most of the US. And even unprofitable public transport would have problems related to adding absurd amounts of time to already long journeys. Zoning reforms aren't even being considered, and if they were, it would take decades before they made a difference.
2. Social reasons: huge numbers of people, especially the suburban white middle class, have convinced themselves that mingling with strangers of all races and classes is somehow dangerous and scary. They will not get in a bus, period. I don't really understand it, but you just have to look at the number of Slashdotters who are literally scared of the idea of living next to a black person to get some idea of how bad the situation is.

If I had a billion dollars, I'd waste it on building a good public transport system. Yes, I said waste it. It's something I want to exist, and I want someone to give it a try, but I'm all too aware how difficult it would be to get such a thing to succeed.

Re:Why not put this energy into public transport?

[P-niiice]

Anyone with this ridiculous mindset shold be banned from 'socialist' stuff.

Re:Why not put this energy into public transport?

[chrb]

There is no technical reason why you couldn't have a self driving bus, but the industry they are in is rather conservative when it comes to procurement. Very few early adoptors. Car buyers are less conservative, and there are more early adoptors. The cost of a "driver" is more - with a bus, the cost of the driver is effectively split between everyone on the bus, so there isn't as large a saving to be made. There is also a huge class of users who will buy a self driving car to free themselves of driving duties (parents). Hence, it makes sense to target cars first. Once the tech is working and proved, I would expect haulage firms will be quick to adopt, since wages there are a greater percentage of the shipping cost, and liability cost is higher for drivers who spend many hours on the road every day. From there it will be a short step to self driving buses, but there are other issues - we could've had self driving trains years ago, but social resistance prevented it. We might see the same attitudes holding back self driving buses.

Re:Why not put this energy into public transport?

[0123456]

Anyone with this ridiculous mindset shold be banned from 'socialist' stuff.

I take it that "centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State" means nothing to you?

Re:Why not put this energy into public transport?

[Anonymous Coward]

Public roads and sidewalks and fire and police are all socialism, too. Those who decry socialism would be pretty unhappy if everything socialist was eliminated.

Re:Why not put this energy into public transport?

[P-niiice]

Not in this context, not even close. Frankly, the private sector is doing nothing to help in this regard - so public transport is not only smart, but necessary for healthy cities.

Re:Why not put this energy into public transport?

[geekoid]

" In order of efficiency, barge (going down stream), rail, road vehicle. "
completely false.

So you are saying its more efficient for a barge to get to my house, miles inland, then ti is for a truck to get to my house?

You're measure efficiency wrong.

My car can get more people to the 7/11 then a barge can.

Re:Why not put this energy into public transport?

[geekoid]

Not incompetent. They are well designed to meet the goal of the time.

I love living in the suburbs, and I have never been more the a few miles from store.
Public transportation, by it's nature, will be far less convient for the vast majority of people regardless of design.

I avoid the bus. Can not stand it.
A) Swilling mass of germs. Yuo will get sick more often on a bus
B) Never a comfortable temperature. Either is 40, or it's 105.
C) Bus shakes and moves to much for serious reading.
D) takes for fucking ever.
E) Expensive.
F) Very Inefficient. Every one on a bus driving their own high mileage car would use less gas.

Public transportation is critical to prevent class/wage separation. They are a good thing. They are not Efficient, or greener.

You will need more the a billion dollars.

" you just have to look at the number of Slashdotters who are literally scared of the idea of living next to a black person to get some idea of how bad the situation is."
who? who is afraid of that?

Stop making shit up. scared to sit next to a black person. Sheeesh.

Re:Why not put this energy into public transport?

[Shoe Puppet]

A) Swilling mass of germs. Yuo will get sick more often on a bus

Get used to them and you will stay healthy.

C) Bus shakes and moves to much for serious reading.

You can't read while driving either.

E) Expensive.
F) Very Inefficient. Every one on a bus driving their own high mileage car would use less gas.

True, but only if the bus is nearly empty. If the bus is filled near capacity, it is much more efficient than cars. Also, if more people used the bus, there could be more and more direct routes.

The only reason busses are less efficient than cars is the fact most people don't use them.

Re:Why not put this energy into public transport?

[squiggleslash]

Public transportation, by it's nature, will be far less convient for the vast majority of people regardless of design.

Really? Because I find the exact opposite. I lived for years in cities that were built properly, so you could walk to nearby services and use public transport for the rest. It was efficient, easy, and stress free. Now I have to drive everywhere - even to the convenience store. It's stressful, inefficient, and expensive.

Your arguments about buses are laughable incidentally and suggest to me you've never ridden on one. Not a single one of those statements is true for a city not designed to force car travel. It's cheaper (usually under a dollar per journey, as opposed to at least a dollar, usually more, on gas, maintenance, and vehicle amortation), the temperature is normally consistant, the lack of stress and the fact there are short distances available to be walked leaves you healthier, you generally can read except in exceptional circumstances (which you can't driving!) and the fuel efficiency of moving multiple passengers in an urbanized city is infinitely better than a suburbanized city full of priuses - think about it, a full size bus generally has a gas miliage of around 10-15mpg. That means it just needs four passengers to beat a hybrid car. And that's ignoring busses that use natural gas or other fuel sources.

" you just have to look at the number of Slashdotters who are literally scared of the idea of living next to a black person to get some idea of how bad the situation is."

who? who is afraid of that?

Stop making shit up. scared to sit next to a black person. Sheeesh.

I suggest you read Slashdot. I recently suggested, after reading a thread of utter racist filth that I was beginning to change my mind on "quotas" and suggested it might be time to require communities have a minimum of some tiny percentage of ethnic minorities. I was flamed to hell and back, not just from the "libertarians" who object to anything, but from people who really, really, really, didn't want black people in their neighborhoods.

I'm tired of this racism shit to be honest. I emigrated to the US about twelve years ago, and it's the only thing that really bothers me about this otherwise wonderful country. That and our ability to elect the worst politicians in the world.

Re:Why not put this energy into public transport?

[Dcnjoe60]

" In order of efficiency, barge (going down stream), rail, road vehicle. "
completely false.

So you are saying its more efficient for a barge to get to my house, miles inland, then ti is for a truck to get to my house?

You're measure efficiency wrong.

My car can get more people to the 7/11 then a barge can.

What is the point of driving to the 7/11 if there is nothing there to purchase? Same for the truck going to your house, what is the purpose unless there are goods to be delivered?

An efficient trasnportation system would use barge (if applicable) or rail for long distances and truck for short distances (under 125 miles). There is a reason that UPS does not drive from New York to LA. They fly, which is less efficient than rail, but because of their time constraints necessary. Once at LA, they go from a big truck to the local depot and then a small truck to your house.

Going directly from the NY shipper to a house in LA using a truck the size of the UPS local delivery truck would be highly inefficient. Same with using a semi-truck. Vehicle travel is only efficient over short distances and even then, not always the most efficient (ie a bus is more efficient in moving people in the city than individual vehicles).

One could, and one would be wrong

[Kupfernigk]

I'd like you to explain to me the relevance of being able to fiddle with a dangerous piece of machinery (try engaging reverse at 70) while driving, to competence in things like anticipation of traffic ahead, interpreting other driver behavior, observing road signs and the like. The manual transmission is simply an artefact of the invention of the car having preceded the invention of a good way to get the power to the road. There is simply no reason to believe that the ability to use it correlates to the ability to drive.

And before you start - long history of manual motorbikes and cars ranging from Triumph T100 to BMW, also long experience of automatics ranging from Kia to Merc, and now a Prius. I have also driven extensively in the US and Europe, on both sides of the road. My conclusion? For a given skill level, the auto is always safer because your attention is never distracted at a crucial moment. When you brake, you brake; no remembering the "clutch" or to "change down".

The ability of an architect isn't measured in terms of her/his ability to bake bricks.

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[w_dragon]

Next you'll be saying that having an automatic starter doesn't improve driving performance! Obviously everyone was a better driver when they had to manually crank their engine to get it to start.

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[Khyber]

""My conclusion? For a given skill level, the auto is always safer because your attention is never distracted at a crucial moment. When you brake, you brake; no remembering the "clutch" or to "change down"."

I guess you've got some of the worst muscle memory and situational awareness ever. I've driven a manual so long that it's literally second-nature to me, everything happens without thinking, it's pure reflex. I don't even bother with the RPM gauge, I know most cars by feel and sound alone, there should be ZERO distraction, it should be an immediate reflex and nothing more.

Also, you tell me how an automated vehicle is going to have the fuzzy logic to know whether a car nearby is actually about to swerve out of control or if the driver is just inattentive and drifting.

Also, there are plenty of manual transmission cars without a clutch mechanism, having it done automatically after you press the gear up/down paddles on the steering wheel/floor ratchet shifter.

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[Sevalecan]

Having driven manual cars and motorcycles plenty myself, I can say that I don't find the need to use the clutch or change gears really that distracting at all. Sure, it's something else to do, but something I can do without thinking about it. On top of that, if you just want to stop in a manual and you're more concerned about avoiding an accident? You can still just hit the brake. The car will stop and stall, no big deal. It's a lot better than getting in an accident, and it probably won't do any real damage to your car. Trust me, I've stalled mine plenty when I first learned to drive a stick.

P.S. Good luck shifting a manual into reverse going at 70 MPH on the highway. Most cars, to my knowledge, don't have a synchro on the reverse gear.

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[rykin]

My comment was meant to be more entertaining than anything else. Growing up, my parents used to tell me that I wasn't really "driving" because I had power steering, power breaks, and an automatic transmission. You know, the whole "back in my day...." commentary. ;) Though, I will say that many manuals now have a lock that prevents you from shifting into reverse while moving forward.

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[ninjacheeseburger]

For a given skill level, the auto is always safer because your attention is never distracted at a crucial moment.

(I've never driven an automatic) I'd argue having a manual forces you to pay more attention to the road as you have to anticipate gear changes, especially when approaching junctions. With an automatic your more likely to believe you can do something else whilst driving like holding a mobile, as you only need one hand.

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about your driving experience but mine as a European driving manual transmission for over 16years is that in the same reflex to brake hard my other leg goes automatically to the clutch. Shifting gears and clutching is not an attention distraction but becomes muscle memory

And about being safer: I took a slip course once and the instructor said you get 4WD and thus better handling when you press the clutch down.

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[Neil Boekend]

While there is merrit to your argument I must point out that it's impossible to engage reverse in a manual car at 70 (mph or kmph). There are protections against that.

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[HnT]

I'd like you to explain to me the relevance of being able to diddle of around on the command line of a potentially dangerous piece of machinery (try editing iptables on distant servers at >1000ms lag or fiddling with your boss's inbox!) while trying to just make it through your bleak sysadmin day, to competence in things like anticipation of incoming email traffic, interpreting luser behavior, observing uptime stats while reading slashdot and the like. The command line is simply an artefact of the invention of the computer having preceded the invention of the Apple-iWay-of-things to get the CPU and App power on the "road". There is simply no reason to believe that the ability to use it correlates to the ability to be a literate, civilized sysadmin or developer.

And before you start - long history of terminals and command lines ranging from Datapoint 3300 to contemporary terminal emulators, also long experience of GUIs ranging from Commodore to OS/2, and now OS X. I have also sysadmined/hacked extensively in the US and Europe, in both QWERTY and DVORAK. My conclusion? For a given skill level, the GUI is always safer because your attention is never distracted at a crucial moment. When you click, you click; no remembering the order and impact of arguments or commands. And its nice colors make me feel warm and fuzzy inside!

The ability of a sysadmin/hacker isn't measured in terms of her/his ability to vi/emacs/ed/generally use the command line.

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[Gordonjcp]

So, you drive dangerously, hitting the brakes without changing down a gear?

If changing gear distracts you from driving you may lack the mental capacity to drive safely at all.

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[Twinbee]

Er, what happens if you do engage reverse at 70?

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

The gearbox makes a horrible noise and you very quickly realise your attempt to skip a gear failed.

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Mythbusters tested this, a lot of movies show using reverse as a way to slow down quicker. Modern cars with auto trans have an automatic disengage, so not to destroy your tranny.

With a manual, he couldn't even get it in reverse by pulling with all his might. Like you said, no sync.

As an added note; I find you have more control with a manual transmission. When you are on an icy road and you need to swerve to dodge whatever, a quick shift down in gears is equivalent to hitting the brakes without causing a skid, and allows you to steer the vehicle. Most auto transmissions today have a sort of manual built into them, allowing you to take control of whay gear you are in, without having to work a clutch or anything. It really is an optimal solution.

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[Dcnjoe60]

For a given skill level, the auto is always safer because your attention is never distracted at a crucial moment.

(I've never driven an automatic) I'd argue having a manual forces you to pay more attention to the road as you have to anticipate gear changes, especially when approaching junctions. With an automatic your more likely to believe you can do something else whilst driving like holding a mobile, as you only need one hand.

I would concur with that. Not only do you need to pay more attention to road because of gear changes, but because of gear changes, it is next to impossible to talk on the phone, put on makeup, eat, and any number of distractions. At least that has been my experience.

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[b0bby]

Also, you tell me how an automated vehicle is going to have the fuzzy logic to know whether a car nearby is actually about to swerve out of control or if the driver is just inattentive and drifting.

If the automated vehicle has fast enough reaction times, it doesn't really matter; when the swerve starts it can react. Unlike a human driver, the automated car always has its "eyes" on all of its surroundings, and can react almost instantly. Once the drifting/swerving car breaches the safe distance, action is taken to avoid a collision. Will there be some situations where it will be physically impossible to avoid being hit? Conceivably, but most collisions aren't in that class.

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[Chrisq]

Next you'll be saying that having an automatic starter doesn't improve driving performance! Obviously everyone was a better driver when they had to manually crank their engine to get it to start.

Well it might have eliminated some of the extremes, oldies who need to be spoon-fed but drive an SUV with power steering on the freeway, and people who are so drunk that they fall over when they get out of the car (I saw this on one of those police stop videos, the guy couldn't stand. He must have crawled from the bar to his car and tried to drive home).

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[Chrisq]

This isn't the one I was thinking of but it makes the point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuyeximur6s

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[chihowa]

Er, what happens if you do engage reverse at 70?

Nothing. I've never had a car that would let me do that (even old VWs from the 60s). And yes, I am that curious (though I didn't intend to let the clutch back out)!

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[Twinbee]

If the clutch isn't out, then it's in no gear at all (neutral), so to properly be in reverse gear at 70mph (or any speed), the clutch needs to be released.

And that's where the 'fun' begins.

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[x1r8a3k]

Some do have a synchro. And if it did, you'd probably blow the something in the transmission, with it moving way faster than it was ever supposed to.

I once shattered a clutch doing something similar.

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[w_dragon]

My Dad could talk on the phone, eat an ice cream cone, and drive a stick just fine. Steer with the knees, shift with the base of your hand. This was in a vehicle with no power steering, and a cell phone that was attached to something the size of a small briefcase.

It always amazes me that some people know that multitasking is bad, yet still think that adding tasks to driving will somehow make people safer drivers.

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[w_dragon]

No, this is wrong. When you put a standard into gear the gears mesh, hence the need for either a synchro or double-clutching. The clutch is just controlling if the transmission is receiving any power from the engine at the time.

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[Dcnjoe60]

My Dad could talk on the phone, eat an ice cream cone, and drive a stick just fine. Steer with the knees, shift with the base of your hand. This was in a vehicle with no power steering, and a cell phone that was attached to something the size of a small briefcase.

It always amazes me that some people know that multitasking is bad, yet still think that adding tasks to driving will somehow make people safer drivers.

Multitasking, by itself, is not bad. Driving a car involves numerous tasks occurring simultaneously -- checking guages, mirrors, adjusting speed, etc. Adding shifting gears does not alter that equation,much, because it is all integrated with what you are doing, Traffic is slowing, I need to brake and depress the clutch is not significantly different than traffic is slowing, I need to brake. Both become automatic behaviours. Eating, talking on the phone, etc, since they are non-related tasks do add to the distraction, specifically, because they are unrelated tasks.

Because of the way a standard transmission is operated, one can very validly claim it makes the drive pay closer attention to the road and surrounding conditions. That said, one can also make the valid claim that driving an automatic frees them up to focus more closely on the road and surrounding conditions. However, once cannot make a valid claim that multitasking while driving frees them up to focus more closely on the road and surrounding conditions, and since it is easier to multitask while driving an automatic, it is more likely to occur.

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[ceoyoyo]

No no no! First, all automatics have control over the gear you're actually in. Some newer ones make shifting easy.

Never, ever use engine braking on ice. It does cause skidding. Obviously, the road doesn't care why your wheels are resisting turning. If you do it in a standard maybe you have the reflexes to hit the clutch again, maybe not. If you do it in an automatic, you're probably screwed, because almost nobody has automatic reflexes for up shifting.

If you start a skid with the brakes, if you don't have ABS, you just ease off on the brake pedal.

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[ceoyoyo]

Your instructor was wrong or you misremembered.

You do get slightly better steering on ice if you're in neutral. Automatics have a stop so you can just slam the shifter into neutral and it will stop before it goes into reverse. Learning to drive up north we were taught how to clutch a standard AND shift an automatic in a skid situation.

4x4 it is not. Not that, contrary to the expectations of that SUV driver in the ditch, 4x4 does anything for you when you're skidding anyway.

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[gorzek]

Quite true. And a car with dozens of sensors is, by definition, going to have a higher degree of situational awareness than a human driver. We've got two eyes, a few mirrors, and a bunch of windows. A computer in a car can keep track of much more than that, and react more quickly to it, as well. The technical ability is there, we just need the implementation in terms of software and hardware. But with today's computing power and the kinds of sensors commercially available, there really aren't any technical limitations thwarting automated driving.

Though I know automated cars won't be perfect, I'm confident they can be safer than human-driven cars simply because a machine (with more information than a human, and processed more quickly) is going to be better at sizing up and reacting to a situation. It won't decide based on emotion or whether or not it's in a hurry, or get angry or be distracted by a cell phone, or be capable of driving while drunk/high.

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[SleazyRidr]

The gears inside however are still turning (unless you keep the clutch engaged long enough for them to spin down) so it's very difficult to even get it to engage. Kinda the same principle as rev matching when you change down.

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[gorzek]

The one part of this argument that makes sense to me is manual drivers having a better feel for how their car is sticking to the road. Your vehicle's speed is more tangible with a stick. However, in this age of modern vehicles with electronic traction control systems and other computer intervention, I'd argue that a manual transmission doesn't add much benefit in that equation. Traction control systems are often better at helping a driver control a vehicle in a dangerous situation, as the car's computer can do a lot more than just change the gear up or down and apply brakes.

I see no reason to take people's manual transmissions away if they want to use them, but I don't think it's accurate to say being skilled with a manual transmission makes you a safer driver than someone riding in, say, a late-model automatic with various types of computer-assisted hazard intervention. Thinking that the manual is better specifically because a human is controlling it is also a supposition based on human ego rather than real data. A computer is actually better at controlling your car than you are--that's why traction control systems work in the first place! Drivers are, by and large, total shit at handling a loss of traction. That's not a slight against humans, we just aren't accustomed to things like having to vary the speeds of four wheels at once, and I'd argue that short of cybernetic enhancements, we'll never be able to do that as effectively as a computer.

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[Twinbee]

I asked the giant hivemind that is Reddit about this. Here are the responses:
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/pu3oy/what_happens_if_you_engage_reverse_gear_at_70mph/

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I'll take my chances with this horribly unlikely event over being near people who are just learning to drive stick.

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[jafac]

If there is no synchro,(most cars do not have a synchro for reverse) - then the drag on the input shaft will spin that reverse gear the wrong way. Even without disengaging the clutch, you will very likely strip your reverse gear, flinging little bits of metal all around the gearbox, likely destroying most every other toothed wheel in the device, including the differential (if it's a front-drive car), most likely causing one or both drive-wheels to lock-up.

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

(try engaging reverse at 70)

there's no way that can happen.. 1) reverse lockout solenoid. 2) the reverse gears are going so fast they'll never mesh. I had an older car where I was able to get the gearshift in reverse somehow (intentionally), and as soon as the gears touched, the shift lever would bounce right off.. you'd have to pull on the lever really hard and hold it there to do serious damage

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[Belial6]

So, your preferred distraction prevents you from engaging in your non-preferred distractions, and thus are a better driver? That is some fancy intellectual gymnastics you have there.

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time there is a post about cars on here someone comes along to say how it's nearly impossible to drive a manual transmission car. In the UK, almost all cars are manual, and 17 year olds (our minimum driving age) seem to have no problem learning to use a clutch. Sure, you will stall a few times learning, but it doesn't destroy your car and you soon learn how to avoid it, as well as the importance of selecting the correct gear. I can only imagine the people who think it's scary and dangerous have either never tried it, or tried it once, panicked when they stalled and blamed the machine for operator error.

I learned to drive in a manual and now mostly drive an automatic which allows you to optionally manually select a gear. This works really well, as you can just put it on "full auto" and forget about it in town stop/start trafic and still select the best gear for the situation when you need to in the country. I frequently get stuck behind foreign automatics with computers that can't anticipate the hills around here, don't change down at the bottom and then try to change down repeatedly on the way up when they start to slow down, invariably causing them to slow to a crawl or even grind to to a complete halt. A manual or semi-manual, you just change down two gears at the bottom and away you go.

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[dgatwood]

Never, ever use engine braking on ice. It does cause skidding. Obviously, the road doesn't care why your wheels are resisting turning. If you do it in a standard maybe you have the reflexes to hit the clutch again, maybe not. If you do it in an automatic, you're probably screwed, because almost nobody has automatic reflexes for up shifting.

I find the opposite is true, at least for moderately rain-slick roads. If your engine is doing the braking, it does so evenly over a long period of time, which means it is less likely to cause traction loss than periodically decelerating wheels that are spinning freely by applying the brakes.

Now I'll admit that if you have sufficient leg strength and dexterity to lightly touch the brake continuously, it is slightly safer than engine braking because it's easier to let the wheels become free-rolling again, but realistically speaking, this is not how most people drive....

And when driving on ice, I'm not likely to get past second gear anyway, making the question of engine braking mostly moot. I think the fastest I've ever run on mixed snow and ice was maybe thirty or thirty-five on an interstate-grade four-lane highway with essentially nobody else on the road. My experience was similar there—steer, do not touch the brakes under any circumstances, and let the engine slow you down over the course of hundreds of feet, and remember that you will not be able to steer quickly. Pretend you're steering a boat, or perhaps a ballistic missile....

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[Dcnjoe60]

So, your preferred distraction prevents you from engaging in your non-preferred distractions, and thus are a better driver? That is some fancy intellectual gymnastics you have there.

Not at all. Things that are part of the actual activity that require multitasking are not distractions. For instance, if you are eating an apple, chewing and swallow are two different activities that are required, therefore they aren't distractions. Eating and apple while painting your nails are also two different activities, but one is a distraction for the other as they are unrelated.

Likewise, while driving, checking your mirrors and blind spot, checking the road ahead, checking your gauges, apply brakes, accelerating, shifting gears, etc. are all activities related to driving and are not distractions. But, eating a burger or talking on the cell phone or even fiddling with the radio are distractions as they are not germane to the task at hand -- driving.

Shifting gears falls into the category of being an activity of driving versus a distraction. Anybody who regularly drives a manual transmission will tell you that they are much more in tune with what is going on around them, because the act of driving an manual transmission efficiently and effectively requires it. Does that mean that I am a safer driver in my manual transmission car than you are in your automatic? No, of course not.

It does mean that I pay a lot more attention and am less likely to multitask with other things when I am driving my manual transmission and therefore I am more likely to be a safer driver in my manual than I am in my automatic. It is not the transmission in use that determines this, it is the amount of other distractions, or lack there of that does.

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[Reapy]

When I swapped out from auto to manual a few years ago, I noticed I immediately started paying attention to more things, esp starting and stopping and light timings. I just go into neutral at lights, but want to make sure I have the clutch in and I'm in 1st before it changes. By now its second nature for me to be more aware of light timings and just in general what is going on around me at intersections, much more so than I was previously.

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[Twinbee]

I'm guessing you know better. It certainly feels like it's the same, but I did have an element of doubt in my mind. In future, I should always at least use "I think" as a preface for things like that.

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[hawk]

"remembering" to use the clutch or downshift???

I thought you said you were familiar and experienced driiving manual transmissions.

These aren't things to be "remembered"; they are just as instinctive as which way to turn the wheel, or "remembering" to use the brakes to slow down.

Now, with an automatic, downshifting for engine braking is generally a conscious decision, which must be remembered. In a am UPL, you simply do it.

hawk

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[pclminion]

You've apparently never seen the "hold phone to ear in right hand, while steering with knee, and reaching across with left hand to shift" trick.

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[Belial6]

By your definition, texting for directions counts as "non-distracting". You are simply rationalizing.

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[Fallingwater]

I'd like you to explain to me the relevance of being able to fiddle with a dangerous piece of machinery (try engaging reverse at 70) while driving

You cannot shift into reverse at 70 - the transmission won't allow it. If you try, all you'll get will be a lot of grinding noises. I think old Saabs might be an exception, but I'm not sure if they'd let you disengage the clutch once rear was shifted into.
Besides, engaging reverse is always made harder than engaging a normal gear. Some cars require you to lift a ring on the shifter, others to push down on the same. Others (BMWs for sure, dunno about others) require you to push the shifter to the side with considerably more force. Regardless of method, you don't just shift into reverse by mistake.

and now a Prius

Congratulations, you just lost all your credibility.

For a given skill level, the auto is always safer because your attention is never distracted at a crucial moment. When you brake, you brake; no remembering the "clutch" or to "change down".

If you were a native stickshift driver you'd know that after a while shifting and operating the clutch become automatic acts that don't interfere with the rest of the driving experience. The act of braking, for instance, automatically involves two pedals instead of just one; the brain does not actively think about this unless you want it to. This becomes so automatic that a manual driver starting on an auto will often stomp on empty air with the left foot when stopping; you don't do things like that unless they're so deeply ingrained in your habits that you don't even think about them.
Besides, an auto transmission requires to use the brake very often, which I personally found a bit weird - but that surely comes from being used to a manual. My point is, you are always required to automatize certain gestures when driving.
Now I'll admit that learning on a manual is harder; the clutch is the main nightmare for people who attend the first driving school lessons. On the other hand, it also offers somewhat of an entry barrier: if you're scared of the clutch you're going to have a hard time coping with the other mental stimuli of driving, and it's a good sign that the world is safer with you off the road.

As for the whole argument about stick drivers being better drivers: in order to drive a manual transmission, one by definition has to have more control of the car. All other things being equal, a driver with more control is a better driver, even if just at a subconscious level, than one with less control, simply because they know better how to handle the vehicle.

And on a wholly personal level, I love manual shifting. You can tell me anything you want about the comfort of autos, or the ease of use of paddle shifters, but operating a stick shift feels a bit like operating a rifle bolt. There is a lot of satisfaction in using the right gears at the right time, I feel.

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[udas]

Or not wrong. Even better, at times. Humans today can process so much more *types* (as opposed to volume) of information, we can in fact be more efficient. See the indicator on the car ahead of you? You know he'll have to slow down while making the turn. If you have multiple lanes, you can avoid potIf you have multiple lanes, entially having to brake by preemptively switching lanes.
See the car that switched lanes 4 time sin the past 3 mins? Probably want to slow down a bit just to leave him leeway before he swerves into your lane. Safer than the automatic "My lane is clear, keep going" deal.
Passanger tells you he recalls a pothole just ahead of the turn on the hill road? Go a notch slower, downshift.
See cars stopped at the signal ahead, but notice the signals on the other lane switch? Now you know your sign is going green in 2 seconds. Dont brake, just disengage the clutch. Save fuel, save the brake pads, and still make it in time to smoothly drive past the just gone green signal.
It might sound fancy to you, but I have always driven a manual transmission, except when in the US, and I find it waay more eefifcient, controlable, optimal, and even smooth! Really.
Auto transmission ensures that you never learn to make those optimizations. It does make it better for teh rookie. But for the guys who've been behind the wheel for years, if they regularly use manual transmission, they can better the auto tansmission all the time. Check out http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/news/2008/10/save-gas-and-money-with-a-stick-shift-10-08/overview/manual-vs-auto-ov.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manual_transmission#Benefits. Manual can be upto 15% more efficient.

So I think tech is good, but we still need to go a long way till we are able to process all the plethora of information the human brain easily factors in. Let's get working!

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[Khyber]

"If the automated vehicle has fast enough reaction times, it doesn't really matter;"

Except for those times when it incorrectly predicts someone's movements/intentions, and does the wrong thing. Also, it's going to have to contend with other traffic trying to dodge (if it's even noticed.)

It also can't think ahead, going "This is likely a drunk driver judging by their erratic driving, I should stay way back from them."

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[Khyber]

"But with today's computing power and the kinds of sensors commercially available, there really aren't any technical limitations thwarting automated driving."

The sheer lack of suitable fuzzy logic and forward-thinking anticipation are two examples I can think of almost immediately. Relying upon instant reaction and these sensors would be foolish.

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[cynyr]

some points

1) you clearly haven't spent time driving a manual, it become second nature and you don't need to think about it after a bit. It's not like you have to look down or anything to move the shifter or the clutch, any more than you look down to use the brakes.
2) You can't engage reverse in a car from the last 30 years unless it is stationary, even in a manual, there is a lock out.
3) I have panic braked when a deer jumped out of the woods(woods were 12" from the edge of the road, and was during the "witching hour"), and when I came to a stop I found that I had automatically pressed the clutch in as well, it really should be habit/muscle memory after a short time of doing it.
4) After the first few months, I never really found myself thinking "okay i'm braking, I need to press the clutch, and then put the car in second just in case" it simply became muscle memory.

Remember the "toyota out of control acceleration" problem from a while back now? what would you do in the manual? right push the clutch in, and brake like normal. In the auto, you have to figure out which way to push the lever(not an automatic response as it is almost never done) to get it into neutral.

Ever see a person that drives manual all the time try to drive a auto? they reach for a shifter without thinking, and move for the clutch. It's even better in american cars because of the wide brake pedal that covers the clutch space. Good fun when you "press the clutch" out of habit, to find out it was really the brake pedal when you are going 40MPH.

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[cynyr]

Actually if we could have a way to press 4 brake pedals at the same time while still driving the car, I'd bet humans would still beat the computers. Where the computers shine is that they have control of individual wheels, and humans just don't have enough limbs for it.

I'm still scared to lean on the traction aides in my van with them. I'm concerned that if I start leaning on them, when they quit working or don't help enough it will be too late for me to save it. Where as if I don't use them or have them, then I just don't tend to drive the car too close to the edge.

That said, I do like the 4 channel ABS in my van vs. no ABS at all in my car. Earlier this winter i took both out when we had some ice on the road. Braking with 2 wheels on ice, and 2 on the road in both cars presented very different outcomes. The van went straight with no input from me, and had a shorter stopping difference (even though the van is at least 1/2 again as heavy), the car required some steering correction on my part and took much longer to stop. I attribute most of the stopping distance to the fact that the van was able to use each wheel as well as possible, but I had to brake using no more force than the slippest wheel could take.

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[cynyr]

I find that most paddle shifters are mounted to the wheel which makes them just about worthless. Try getting the right paddle during a normal left at a light.

I agree with you, I would love to be back in a manual (shame my last car with one ran out of life and the price of this one from a family member was "right"), but i would accept driving a VW DSG. It felt very much like driving a manual, in that when you took your foot of the accelerator, it actually slows down like it should.

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

By your definition, texting for directions counts as "non-distracting". You are simply rationalizing.

No it does not. Shifting is no more of a driving distraction than using the blinkers. Both are part of the actual driving. All of these new automatics that also allow one to manually shift, do they cause a distracted driver, too? Or pushing the button to go from 2wd to 4wd, does that cause distracted driving? No, because those actions are part of driving.

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[Dcnjoe60]

He (she?) said next to impossible, not impossible.

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Definitely. Electronic Stability Control is quickly becoming standard equipment on new cars, so in fact this is already working. Very few drivers have any idea how to properly react to a loss of traction as it is. ESC reacts faster and more effectively than a human, and can do things to correct the slide that aren't possible for the driver (such as modulating a specific brake instead of all 4).

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[cduffy]

It also can't think ahead, going "This is likely a drunk driver judging by their erratic driving, I should stay way back from them."

Sure, but get enough autonomous vehicles on the road, and the drunk driver won't be driving -- they'll be a passenger.

Let's not forget the end goal, here.

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[graphius]

I have almost always owned manual change vehicles. The few times I have had to emergency stop while driving an automatic, there is a short panic when I can't find the clutch pedal, or even worse, many automatics have a larger brake pedal, so when I go to hit the (non-existant) clutch, I hit the corner of the brake. My conclusion? For a given skill level, the type of car you are more used to is safer because your attention is never distracted at a crucial moment.

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[graphius]

When I was teaching my sister how to drive a standard, she shifted from fourth to first (to this day I am not sure how she got it in gear) the car was a rear wheel drive so it actually bunny hopped. It left a pair of dotted black lines on the road, and I am sure was not very good on the drive train on the poor car...

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[Khyber]

"Let's not forget the end goal, here."

To be able to track your every movement and make you a prisoner in your own possessions, while giving the illusion that you're even more free than before since you don't have to pay attention to the road and things like personal responsibility.

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[Twinbee]

Thanks for the late reply. The variety of responses to this question is quite weird (so many different types of breakdown).

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[cduffy]

To be able to track your every movement and make you a prisoner in your own possessions, while giving the illusion that you're even more free than before since you don't have to pay attention to the road and things like personal responsibility.

Whereas you'd prefer to limit peoples' freedoms to create, sell, lease or purchase autonomous transportation devices if the technology could be abused to reduce their privacy? *sigh*.

More to the point: Given how many people commit vehicular manslaughter exercising that particular aspect of their "personal responsibility", we'd be better off without it. (Me? I get around be bike. Bystanders being killed by negligent cyclists is a thing that happens, but it's a tiny, tiny number).

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

On top of that, if you just want to stop in a manual and you're more concerned about avoiding an accident? You can still just hit the brake. The car will stop and stall, no big deal.

Actually it *is* potentially a big deal! If you stall the car you will not be moving it out of the way until you start is again. So, if you slam on the brakes and stall it and then need to "quickly" move it out of the way of something else, you're screwed.

I learned to drive on a manual and now (almost 20 years later) I'm a proud owner of an automatic and I do not see any reason why anyone *needs* a manual - am I missing something?

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm guessing you know better.

I'm guessing he knows how to drive.

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[Khyber]

"Me? I get around be bike."

Yea, I used to do that too, until someone fell asleep at the wheel and robbed me of my life for an hour+, and had to get my skeleton rebuilt.

"could be abused to reduce their privacy?"

Can and will at every goddamned turn. If you think otherwise, you put too much faith in the US Government.

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[cduffy]

Can and will at every goddamned turn. If you think otherwise, you put too much faith in the US Government.

Who said I think otherwise? I think you're just trading one set of freedoms for another, and I think it's a damned lousy trade.

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

If you somehow succeed, anything from a delightful shredding metal noise to gears embedded in your forearm. The former far more likely than the latter.

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[WhiteDragon]

And when driving on ice, I'm not likely to get past second gear anyway, making the question of engine braking mostly moot. I think the fastest I've ever run on mixed snow and ice was maybe thirty or thirty-five on an interstate-grade four-lane highway with essentially nobody else on the road. My experience was similar there—steer, do not touch the brakes under any circumstances, and let the engine slow you down over the course of hundreds of feet, and remember that you will not be able to steer quickly. Pretend you're steering a boat, or perhaps a ballistic missile....

I have had similar experiences. However, I've had ABS save my butt a few times.

Jenson Button

[Kupfernigk]

Button (F1 driver) was interviewed recently driving a new McLaren road car. He remarked that he did not want to try and operate the radio because he was unfamiliar with it, and he did not want to be distracted while driving.

Any coincidence that Button is one of the most technically polished and controlled F1 drivers (and has been world champion)?

Re:Jenson Button

[Tekfactory]

Is it any coincidence that racecar drivers who professionally run million dollar cars around a track at hundreds of miles per hour with other professionals hate driving in traffic with amateurs. They really aren't the same skill sets at that point.

Think about your skill level in driving, now think about every driver you call a dumbass on the road when they do something stupid. It has to be 10 times worse for the pros.

That and left turns are a pain in the ass off the track.

Is this self driving yet ???

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this self driving yet ???

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-57360066-48/musk-tesla-model-s-on-track-despite-executive-departures/?tag=mncol;2n

Warmest regArds.

actually,

[Anonymous Coward]

One could argue that those who drive motorcycles are the only ones who actually know how to drive. Funny how much a heightened sense of mortality teaches you about how to spot and avoid dangerous situations. Also teaches you a hell of a lot about braking and cornering that's hard to learn when you have all four wheels planted.

Re:actually,

[b0bby]

I agree, I have noticed that friends who don't ride tend to have a less keenly honed sense of awareness in traffic than those who do, even when they are driving cars.

Re:actually,

[Anonymous Coward]

As a cyclist in heavy traffic I learned to be paranoid about everything including the pedestrians on the pavement. One thing in particular that stuck with me is a tendency to watchthe front wheels of a car. You see them moving before you see the car change direction.

Re:actually,

[TheLink]

Only those still alive and fully intact after 10 years of riding motorcycles. I see plenty of motorcyclists who clearly don't know how to ride a bike safely, they just haven't died or been maimed yet.

FWIW, it would be funny if you had a law that allowed motorcyclists to not wear helmet, but any motorcyclist dying in an accident and proven to be riding without a helmet is classified as having done the equivalent of signing an organ donor card. Too harsh of course :).

green = $$ for ambulance chasing lawyers

[Joe_Dragon]

green = $$ for ambulance chasing lawyers and in a crash if a auto car they will come at you full force.

Re:green = $$ for ambulance chasing lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

I've read this comment 5 times and I'm still not sure what you're trying to say. Please learn how to English.

Link to Proposed Regulation

[PatentMagus]

I couldn't find what they actually passed, but here's a link to what was proposed back in Dec. 2011. You'd think the Nevada DMV publicity droids would have posted links to what was actually passed ... sigh. Anyways, here it is:

http://www.dmvnv.com/public_meetings/R084-11.pdf

Re:Link to Proposed Regulation

[w_dragon]

Your post combined with the context combined with your sig does not encourage me to click on your link.

Re:Link to Proposed Regulation

[geekoid]

If you knowing lie, you will be disbarred. Any actually lawyer would know that.

Computer Driver Zones.

[Oswald McWeany]

I imagine a day when a significant-enough portion of the population has Computer Driven Cars.

Imagine a city center with a computer-driver only zone. Traffic flows so much easier- cars can travel closer to each other- at faster speeds. No need for inefficient traffic lights (all cars get 0mpg idling at a traffic light)- instead of traffic lights- cars may change velocities to avoid collisions- with an algorythm saying who goes when- all traffic would slow as approaching the light- and accellerate when it is there turn through- all fitting tightly through gaps with each other.

Given enough time to adapt- the whole country could be computer-driver only.

Traffic would be safer-, faster, more cars could fit on the same stretch of road- saving money in taxes, cars would be more fuel efficient (even if we're still using petrol- a car driven by a human would use more and be less efficient).

It is possible that we could partially see this vision within our lifetime. I certainly expect to see before I die city centers where human drivers are not allowed and traffic lights are done away with. I don't think I will see in my lifetime a time when all roads are for computer drivers only though- but that time will come.

Re:Computer Driver Zones.

[rwise2112]

Yeah, I saw a documentary about that. However, there was a terrible side effect, in that all resturants became Taco Bells!

Re:Computer Driver Zones.

[Oswald McWeany]

Yes, but Taco Bell would have the three sea shells in the bathroom. So it would be a good trade-off.

Re:Computer Driver Zones.

[rwise2112]

I don't know how to use the three shells!

Re:Computer Driver Zones.

[tuffy]

Given enough time to adapt- the whole country could be computer-driver only.

Only if computer drivers get intelligent enough to understand what to do when a deer crosses the highway in the middle of the night. Or when a child's ball comes bouncing into the street. Or when there's a giant pothole in the traffic lane.

Computers are excellent in controlled situations when it knows all the variables. But real life is a messy place full of surprises and unknowns that computers have long been ill-equipped to handle. So like the mythical flying car, I don't expect to see computer driven cars in my lifetime simply because human brains adapt better at handling the unexpected.

Re:Computer Driver Zones.

[Oswald McWeany]

They already CAN handle all of the above- not only that- they can handle them better than human drivers.

Re:Computer Driver Zones.

[tuffy]

Not better than human drivers. They're still significantly slower, or running on closed courses, or on pre-mapped city streets with a human behind the wheel.

The technology to make computers navigate the real world and its hazards as well (and as fast) as humans is still years off - and may remain that way.

Re:Computer Driver Zones.

[geekoid]

No it won't. I will eat my hot if a consumer can't by self driving cars in 5 years.
The shit I've seen in testing? just about mind boggling In 10 years, sci fi movies with peopel driving their own vehicles will start to become laughable.

Re:Computer Driver Zones.

[trigpoint]

Or when a child's ball comes bouncing into the street.

A very good example, the primary objective is not to avoid the ball. Would love to see how they handle all of the single track roads around here.

Re:Computer Driver Zones.

[tuffy]

In 5 years, self-driving cars will be another 5 years away from being available to consumers. In 10 years, self-driving cars will still be another 5 years away from being available to consumers. And so on.

Legislation?

[MacGyver2210]

I'm curious how many evil under-the-radar provisions there are buried within this legislation that is ostensibly for automatic-driving cars. It seems we can't let anything go without scrutiny these days, lest they completely put one over on us and further erode our rights and liberties.

Privacy?

[Dcnjoe60]

I wonder if Google's new privacy rules (or lack thereof) apply to using a Google vehicle?

Linked story lacking in details

[Clomer]

The linked story is distinctly lacking in details. Yes, it mentions the red or green license plate requirements, but I consider that to be a minor requirement that says nothing about the actual operation. This story has more interesting information and it doesn't even mention the license plate requirement.

Among the highlights:

• In the test vehicles (presumably the ones with red plates), there must be 2 people in the vehicle at all times, with one able to immediately take over control.
• Companies must register their testing intentions with the state, such as testing in fog or snow/ice. They must also share results with the state.
• There must be a "black box" type data recorder that records and stores all sensor data for 30 seconds prior to a collision.
• Once a vehicle is certified to operate without a driver, a person can operate it without being physically present in the vehicle.
• The operator is liable regardless of whether they are present or not.
• There are exceptions for operating an autonomous vehicle while talking on a cell phone (illegal in Nevada without a hands-free device) or texting (also illegal to do while driving), but not for being drunk.

Seems like reasonable rules to me.

Re:Linked story lacking in details

[dfries]

In the test vehicles (presumably the ones with red plates), there must be 2 people in the vehicle at all times, with one able to immediately take over control.

Anyone find it a bit strange that they would need a new law in Nevada to do what they've already been doing in California? Or is it intended to keep the home hobbyist out of the market? Why two people for a car that's supposed to be able to drive itself? They say what the one person is supposed to do, be ready to take over control, but the other?

Backlash

[NicknamesAreStupid]

If anyone ever thought that any race, creed, color or religion has ever been discriminated against, then they are about to see a hatred that may remind them of all previous. Autopiloted autos are societies first hard look at sentient machines. I know, they are not AI's David or I, robot's Sonny. However, they will be self propelled and, initially, not too bright. They will be scammed in a major way, mostly fraudulent accident claims. Moreover, every livery driver will see them as more of a threat than illegal aliens. Expect war.

Think of how great drivers would be if...

[Assmasher]

...we all rode powered luges!

tell it to sally

[way2trivial]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_(short_story)

bugs

[fizzer06]

There WILL be buggy software. I just hope no one is harmed as a result.

Re:bugs

[WormholeFiend]

new use for "punch buggy"?

Re:bugs

[PRMan]

But the current software (us) is FAR MORE BUGGY. Traffic accidents are the most common cause of death in the US. Autonomous cars could take that down from #1, but human drivers never will.

Traffic Stops?

[Anonymous Coward]

How would a driverless vehicle respond to simple situations such as a firetruck, ambulance, police car whizzing by?

How would the driverless vehicle respond to being pulled over?

How do you give a driverless vehicle a ticket for performing an illegal maneuver?

Re:Traffic Stops?

[fizzer06]

That will be addressed in service pack one.

Driverless driving- a good match for Nevada roads

[jensend]

Any of you who commented about your concerns regarding driverless cars' handling of complex situations ever actually driven in Nevada? Especially US 6 or US 50 (the "Loneliest Road in America")?

Nevada is Basin and Range country, and each time you get to the top of a little range you see the road going straight down the range, straight through the featureless stark desert basin, and straight up the next range. People joke all the time about jimmying some way of locking the steering wheel in place, setting an alarm, and getting some shut-eye. Your odds of seeing another car on the road are slim to none. I'm not terribly worried about how AI autopilot would perform in such a situation.

Jaywalker Freindly

[number17]

I've said this before, but it will be great as a pedestrian to just walk across the street mid-block and have all the cars stop as they are programmed to do.

Re:Jaywalker Freindly

[geekoid]

AS they all take your picture and submit it to the police. When you get home you will have an inbox full of jay walking tickets.

Re:Driverless driving- a good match for Nevada roa

[VortexCortex]

People joke all the time about jimmying some way of locking the steering wheel in place, setting an alarm, and getting some shut-eye. Your odds of seeing another car on the road are slim to none. I'm not terribly worried about how AI autopilot would perform in such a situation.

If the road ahead looks simple enough for a monkey to navigate, a sufficiently advanced machine intelligence would wake the organic driver and take one of it's Cyber-Worker's Union mandatory allowed breaks.

pedestrians & bicycles

[juan2074]

I'd like to know how self-driving cars operate in areas with pedestrians and bicycles.

For a real test, maybe Google should bring their test vehicles to San Francisco or onto the campuses of Stanford and UC Berkeley.

Re:pedestrians & bicycles

[markjhood2003]

I also have to wonder how self-driving cars will handle anti-social behavior from non-self-driving cars, say at a 4-way stop sign or left turns across incoming traffic. I know from experience that in the Boston area, if you're polite and cautious, you'll never get anywhere driving that way.

Colorado uses green plates

[plopez]

But of course, no one from Colorado ever drives through Nevada. Am I the only one who see a problem with each state using their own colors for this sort of thing?

Great for going to the bar

[Anonymous Coward]

I cant wait until I can go get shitfaced at the local tavern and have my car drive me home with no legal repercussions.

The best way to introduce them

[BlueCoder]

Make them luxury items and limit them to where they will obviously improve the safety rate.

Specifically enable them to drive a person home after drinking. Have a option that allows a person to voluntarily lock themselves out of manual steering for a couple hours and only enables them to drive home on a well established and recorded route for the car. The vehicle will be able to identify itself to police as being in autonomous mode for which: while they may pull the car over remotely, they are prevented by law from issuing any sort of traffic ticket. The car parks itself if there is any sort of problem with maybe a few problems such as as the warning oil/engine light being able to be disabled. The car is able to stop at/near gas stations on the way home.

Liability issues?

[markjhood2003]

It's interesting that liability for accidents still lies entirely with the operator. This kind of takes away from the attraction of the concept: if the technology fails for whatever reason when you fall asleep or you're reaching around to deal with kids in the back seat, and the fault is still yours, then how many people are going to be willing to assume that level of risk?

On the other hand, if the liability rests with the manufacturer, then it's hard to imagine this technology deployed on a wide scale. Even if self-driving cars are 100 times safer than manual driving, that's still 300 - 400 fatalities a year that will dropped into the laps of the manufacturers, who will likely be sued for millions of dollars given that they have a lot more money than most people, in addition to suffering the effects of extremely negative publicity.

Personalized Red Plate

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if I can get a red plate that says "M5".