Slashdot Mirror
Will Speed Limits Inhibit Autonomous Car Adoption?
Maximum Prophet writes "Here's a thought: at the start, only rich people will be able to pay for a completely autonomous car. Auto-autos will only go the speed limit. Rich people don't like to go slow. Ergo, there won't be any market for automatic cars. Wait, I hear you say. The rich guy will just modify his car to go faster. But, if you go over the limit it's a fine, but to mess with the safety systems of even your own vehicle is probably a felony. Much more likely: the rich will get new laws passed to make it legal for automatic cars to go much, much faster than human-driven vehicles."
I'm pretty sure that if self-driving cars ever do become prevalent (and I'm skeptical, to say the least), they will all allow human manual override at any time. In other words, control freaks who can't stand traveling at the speed limit will be able to assume manual control at any time and gun it to whatever speed they like (and get tickets if they pass a cop). The self-driving feature will indeed appeal to the rich on their high-end cars at first, but not so much for what it can actually do as for the status symbol of having it. At least at first, most drivers will probably only actually *use it* for times when they're really tired or have other stuff to get done.
Never underestimate the power of a status symbol. I mean, how many well-to-do drivers actually regularly *use* even half the exclusive features on their high-end Mercedes? But they're still happy to pay extra for the top-tier package, just to say they've got the top-tier package. And I say that as someone who still pays for an OnStar and navigation package that I used to brag on to everyone, but that I've only ever used a few times.
Oh, and you'll still be able to honk at the slow-poke in front of you too. Because you know he can still manually take over and doesn't HAVE to be holding up traffic in auto-drive.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
And besides, do you need the absolute fastest ride if you can actually focus on other work while riding? Do rich people in limos insist on going 85?
It would seem the summary author hasn't been driving on the freeway anywhere in the US for the last 30 years. The normal speed of traffic is 10% over the limit. It is far from limited to the rich.
It seems far more likely that these cars obey the speed limit today simply as a condition of being used on the public roads. That restriction is unlikely to prevail in production, as a lot of people enjoy driving, and wouldn't buy them if they came with a huge number of restrictions. The rich seem to me to be the last group who will buy such cars.
Further there is no felony modification laws that I am aware of. As long as the vehicle is street legal just about anything goes. And if its not street legal its merely an infraction and a fix-it-ticket.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
I am poor as fuck and I have a sick fetish for speed!
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
"Rich people don't like to go slow."
Um, is there any evidence at all to support this statement?
Damn those rich people screwing us over again. Do you actually sit around all days trying to come up with new ways to be outraged at rich people or what?
Yep. People drive fast because its fun and because it allows them to get somewhere where they can do what they want to do. If you can read a book or play games while driving, nobody is going to give a shit if it takes 10% longer to get somewhere. I don't think I've ever been on a bus where the passengers complained to the driver that he or she wasn't driving fast enough.
"...honking does no good, because robots do not care if you honk at them."
Not if the auto-pilot is an 800 series terminator.
Hmm. I thought they did that for liability purposes.
Rich person accidentally hits someone, press goes nuts. Chauffeur hits someone, press is silent.
I am John Hurt.
no does the speed limit today on most roads.
Hell trying to go 55 on any of the Chicago area interstates is not that safe then the roads are wide open.
even the trucks go 65-70.
Self driving cars will be the vehicle of choice for non-rich people. The cars will be programmed to do ride sharing to reduce costs. People who primarily use autonomous vehicles won't need to own a car. Basically they will be like mini-busses that don't follow set routes or schedules. They will be used by people who are taking the bus today.
Rich people will own their own cars and pay the increased insurance rates to keep the option to drive manually.
were I rich, I would be all over autonomous vehicle for a few reasons: 1) you can probably drive it yourself if you want to speed 2) I could hit the pub and get wrecked and have the car drive me home without worrying about getting arrested for DUI
If you've ever ridden public transportation, you realize that by not being behind the wheel the need for speed as a passenger is greatly reduced. Similar situation for being a limousine passenger. Pont de l'Alma aside, celebrities for the most part relax while their chauffeurs work to preserve their licenses and future income.
Now, the rich are always seeking competitive advantage; otherwise, they wouldn't be rich, right? I see the rich buying larger less fuel-efficient vehicles that have a full office inside -- or at least what appears to be a full office -- in order to conduct teleconferences during their trips.
Mr. Prophet, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
utter supposition and conjecture. "Rich people don't like to go slow"? "...is probably a felony"? "the rich will just get new laws passed"?
Pull yourself away from your Starbucks latte and at least put some effort into it.
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
This is just another law that will need to be adjusted. Self-driven cars will need to be able to drive with the flow of traffic to be safe, which may be above the posted speed limit. So the law should allow self-driven cars to exceed speed limits by a given amount if they detect traffic conditions that necessitate it. If an officer disagrees, the car will provide all the data necessary to validate or dispute the claim.
Of course, once we all have self-driven cars, and speeding tickets cease to be a source of revenue, they'll have to reset all the speed limits to be what is really a safe speed to drive--or just eliminate the concept for self-driven cars once they prove to be able to self-determine a safe speed. That will happen at about the same time human-driven cars are banned from major highways.
Truly rich people -- meaning financially independent -- have all the time in the world. So if being rich has any correlation with driving speed, I'd put my money (pun intended) on them going slower than the average peon.
(No, I'm not rich myself.)
even not thinking about costs a change over time frame to auto-cars is a long time and there are still likely to be area that will need to be manual drive. As haveing mixed auto drive / manual drive car can lead to some issues.
Also stuff like Bucket Trucks and other stuff like them on the road will likely also need to be manual drive and at times need to be on auto drive only roads.
Your post is built on assumptions on top of assumptions. Only people who are religious nut jobs, or politicians do this. Nobody likes either.
Ergo, you have no friends..
The only reasonable conclusion I can come to about the submitter..
What are we going to do tonight Brain?
Class envy much?
Deliberately divisive much?
If autonomous driving means access to a special lane that moves faster during commute time then the rich will gladly pay up. Hybrids are expensive too and a lot of people bought them so they could drive solo in the carpool lane.
During heavy commute times, speed limits are largely irrelevant.
safer to go with the flow then have cars at mixed speed (big gap) on the same road.
Let's see auto cars at 80 and others at 55 is not going to work that well and at best the non auto cars will also drive 65-80
... who just isn't in a rush when I'm driving. I just leave on time to get where I'm going.
I've always imagined self driving cars as just cruise control with steering. You set the speed turn it on and then read a book, any touch of the steering wheel or brake pedal would disengage the whole system and return it back to manual control.
I came to the datacenter drunk with a fake ID, don't you want to be just like me?
Most people get the market case for automatic driving wrong. It's not for driving on freeways. It's for driving your car without you, to and from parking. You drive to where you want to go, and then your car goes off and parks somewhere. When you want your car back, you call it, and it comes to you. Malls, airports, and downtowns equipped for this will be very popular.
Parking gets cheaper, because it can be further away, stacked higher, and not on high-value land. Automatic cars aren't bothered by having to drive to level 14 of the parking structure.
I'm not even gonna buy a new car until the auto-autos hit the market. Saving money for it now and hope there will be a few models within 5-10 years.
...with a good car analogy?
if you're allowing the car to self-drive, then chances are you are distracted by some other activity like watching tv/movie, surfing the internet, following up on a litany of work email messages. If you do the math, going 15mph over the speed limit only saves, on average, about 6 - 8 min to destination except for longer trips. Ive wasted more than 6 - 8 min just scanning slashdot this hour. I don't think there would be much notice about not going 'fast'
for those 1hr commutes just take a nap till you reach destination.
for those late night bar activities - tell the car to take you home, meanwhile you're crashed in the back seat
The real question is, how will the autonomous vehicles deal with vehicle malfunction or scenarios that immediately affect road safety? What happens when the vehicle has a blow-out or hits a patch of ice? How will they account for all of these eventualities? I don't think it's even possible to program reactionary responses to all of those situations. Also, will the vehicles have to communicate with one another so they can accomodate a quick-braking situation from a vehicle in front or will it rely on reactionary detection like radar to gauge distance and braking? If it does it will drastically affect the density of cars that can travel safely due to the distance between them that will be required. Anyway, what I'm saying is I think the issue of how fast the vehicles can travel is by no means the "long pole in the tent" when it comes to making this happen.
There is no speed limit on the Autobahn, due in part to the fact that it's illegal to pass on the right. You can drive at any speed you like, and it's perfectly safe, as long as you're in one of the left lanes. So this is the first law we need to pass.
What's to stop slow moving vehicles from driving in the left lanes and blocking fast moving vehicles? There's already a law against obstructing traffic, but it doesn't get enforced because traffic can pass on the right, and therefore slow moving vehicles in the left lanes aren't obstructing other vehicles. Making it illegal to pass on the right would change that.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Who says rich people don't like to drive slowly? They enjoy driving that way because they can. No appointments. No worry. Just tool along enjoying the drive. They chuckle to think of all of you aspirants rushing to get to the investor's meeting, get to the office, rush home since you don't have a nanny or house manager or work assistant.
He is going on the Assumption that the Rich People like to drive fast.
Rich people tend to buy Mercedes, BMW, Cadillac, Lexus, Audi... These cars can Go Fast, But they don't always speed in them. They often buy them for other reasons too, as these are Luxury Cars not sport cars.
I think a lot of Rich CEO types would love a automatic car where they can sit back talk on their phone and send emails and in general do work while in transit. If there is a reason why they are rushing, it is because this driving time, is time they are not working on making money.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I don't know about the premise that rich people (or anyone else for that matter) won't want to drive the speed limit. Once your car is autonomous, you are freed up to do things you cannot do while you are driving. This more than compensates for the need for speed.
Proverbs 21:19
Most of the time i drive fast because i like driving fast. Honestly the amount of time saved by going 85 or 90 instead of 70 is pretty trivial. But here's the thing about driving fast, at least for me. It's really not the same thing if someone _else_ is driving fast while i'm in the car. At best it makes no impression at all, at worst it's terrifying. You don't get the same sense of zooming down the freeway when you're not at the wheel.
So i think if you _really_ want to drive fast, you're not going to be interested in an autonomous vehicle. If you're interested in an autonomous vehicle it's because you don't want to deal with the hassle of driving yourself. And if you're kicking back reading or cruising the internet or whatever while the car drives itself, do you really care if a 15 mile commute takes 11 minutes at 85 mph or 13 minutes at 70 mph?
I'm sure the speed limits will be raised for autonomous vehicles once there are enough of them to make a difference, but it will be purely for logistic reasons, not because rich speed demons are demanding to be driven by a CPU at a higher velocity.
(And for that matter, the people rich enough to influence laws to that degree already have autonomous vehicles. They come with a special module called a "chauffeur" which can be directed to drive at whatever speed they want, traffic permitting.)
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
It is called a proffesional driver. Rich people don't need an expensive robot to drive for them when a cheap employee will do.
I think I recall seeing something a while back about an auto-drive feature that only works when you're in a traffic jam, and you set it to follow the car in front of you so that you don't have to be pissed off the whole time, and if enough people have it then it makes resolving the jam more efficient because all the cars move together. I think you're going to see a lot of stuff like this before you see truly autonomous cars on the road, and these features will be sold on mid range cars.
Yes, everyone wants to drive fast. But, what's the trade-off for going a little slower? Oh, that's right... HANDING OVER COMPLETE CONTROL.
If you commute in rush hour traffic, you don't care about the speed limit, because you're not going to get the chance to hit it, anyway.
What this technology will do, in fact, is encourage longer commutes. People will be able to work, nap, play games, watch TV. The interior of the car will be redesigned to accommodate the driver engaging in a range of activities while commuting.
I say that automated cars will sell very well.
This one definitely belongs.
love is just extroverted narcissism
What does economic class have to do with how fast or slow someone drives? I get passed by jalopies on the road all the time, and I usually drive about 5 over the speed limit, sometimes 10. True, there is definitely a financial incentive for poor people to obey the speed limit (they can't afford the ticket & increased insurance rates), but sometimes the reason people are poor is because they make poor decisions.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
I don't see the point of the economic argument at all. With growing traffic and very slow speed in some urban area. We want to make the cars go faster. But on a grander scale. How can one improve the traffic efficiency in a country, as opposed to one person gaining 5 minutes by over speeding on an unencumbered highway. If autonomous car, networked to each other and with the city grid. One can find automatically the most efficient path for all stakeholders. Safe speed limit would be far different for cars that drives automatically.
Except for the rare drive for fun, driving is mostly just wasted time. So I expect self-driving cars to mostly be attractive to people rich enough to buy luxury cars who would rather be reading, checking email, etc. while driving.
Too bad you phrase this as a class struggle. It is not. Poor people and middle class people like to go fast. Speeding has nothing to do with class. It's simply dangerous. It's a real pain in the butt as well as being dangerous. People need to slow down.
My experience is only a single data point of course, but I think I speed because I'm focused on the driving and usually want to get it done - I want to get out of traffic, stop dealing with all the stoplights and other motorists, and move onto something that either requires more of my focus or less. Driving is one of those tasks that takes enough of your attention that you can't focus on something else, but not so much that you feel engaged usually (which is probably another reason why I speed - it's riskier and therefore more engaging).
Further, a good driver often checks the gauges, dials, etc., so they are constantly looking at the speedometer, and fixating on it IMO contributes to the desire to speed - limit is 65 so I nudge up to 68 or 69, then over 70. Oops there's a cop, slow down. Ok, ease up again, get to 75, another cop slow down, etc. It almost becomes a lame game to deal with the boredom.
OTOH if I am in a self-driving car I can pretty much ignore the road and focus on a book or a laptop or the scenery or a conversation. While I'll always want to "get there" faster, whether I'm going at 65 or 68 or 72 becomes much less of an issue - I'd make that trade any day as it's similar to mass transportation but without all the stops along the way. And if self-driving cars get their own HOV-ish lanes to encourage adoption/throughput or if enough people switch to those cars, then overall we should have fewer traffic jams and accidents anyway, so the average speed can really be close to the speed limit (as opposed to right now where it's often bursts of speeding, then congestion, then speeding).
>Rich people don't like to go slow.
1/ People who value their time and the time of other motorists don't like to go slow
2/ But they will have to, because you only can drive as fast as the car in front of you
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
I can't decide who is dumber: the submitter, or the Slashdrone who accepted this story.
"Rich people don't like to go slow."
What? Says who? Since when? And others do? Data to support this claim?
No, instead, the submitter prefers to a) make a faulty and ludicrous assumption; b) pose a question that follows from the faulty premise, backed by flawed logic; c) proceeds to answer own question with wild assumptions. Fuck the submitter, fuck "Soulskill", and fuck Slate.
I expect DUI laws to play as much or more of a role in auto-car adoption.
How about mandated breathalyzers forcing cut over to auto-driving?
What happens to MADD and DUI task forces when no one can drive intoxicated any more?
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
Human nature is the cause of most speeding. The "I wanna get there as fast as I can," the "This is fun zipping through traffic" or the "Why won't this guy move over and let me pass" thought processes as well as tendencies to try to keep up with or ahead of other drivers is what leads most people to speed either intentionally or by unintentionally going just a little bit faster and faster until they notice they are flying 85 mph in a 65 zone.
But with Autonomous cars you take the human nature out of it. Only if I left late will I really want the car to go faster and faster. If I can truly just let the car drive, I don't care how fast it's going, I'm too busy reading my book or surfing the web or engaging in a phone call or text conversation. If I can trust the car to get me there safely, with it able to read and even communicate with the other cars on the road to deal with traffic, road hazards, and other obstacle, I won't be paying attention to what the other cars will be doing.
Plus once we get the majority of cars on the road so equipped, and they do prove to be safe (substantially reducing the frequency and severity of accidents) I can easily see the speed limits being boosted to match what the cars are capable of.
Speed itself is rarely the cause of accidents, it's people who are speeding trying to weave through slower traffic, taking curves and corners too fast and encountering unexpected weather conditions (wet or icy roads) while speeding. Autonomous cars, talking to the traffic system and to other cars should be able to more quickly and safely maneuver through traffic, allow for differing speed limits for different lanes of traffic, merge onto and off of freeways more smoothly and safely due to planning and communication with other vehicles to allow merging, no more jumping 5 lanes at the last second because the driver wasn't paying attention and nearly missed his exit.
Truly autonomous cars should actually be able to travel much faster, far more safely than today. But even if they don't, if the car is driving, not the emotional meatbag behind the wheel, the NEED TO SPEED will greatly drop.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
Try driving on 141 here in gerogia, there are numerous fucks who get their rocks off going 7 below; and sticking right next to another fuck who is also going 7 below. Yes I want fucking auto-drive. it should have maybe 3 optimization setting: fast, fuel economy, and balanced.
And no I don't want it to be an option, I want the slow fucks to just stay out of the fucking way.
What is a speed limit ? Sorry, the are countries in the world without a speed limit.
Well, not really, even here in Germany we have limits. But self driving cars dont need to go fast !
My Audi speed up and brakes by itself, it has radar. I simply have to hold the steering wheel, very relaxing. It "sees" other cars, When using the radar (Adaptive Cruise Control) I dont care about going fast. Even doing 55mph behind a lorry/truck is OK, but mostly 70-90mph with the others. When I drive by myself my foot always speed up beyond 120mph.
ACC doesnt cost much, it would be available for a $500 extra, sadly car makers sell it only in high end cars for more $$$. The hardware is simple, just 1 sensor
Give me a FLYING autonomous car! I'm rich biatch!
What difference does speed make when your trapped inside some beige box? Airplanes cruise at 600mph but people are bored on flights because there's no interaction between the machine and the person. Regardless of how fast automated cars go they will always feel slow becasue of the lack of connection that the rider has with the machine. This is the reason that most people that love going fast will avoid them.
Betteridge's Law of Headlines says that the answer to this question is 'no'. Discuss amongst yourselves.
The only time I see people doing that speed on any of the highways in the city is very late at night. Otherwise, traffic moves mostly at 40-50mph.
Most people stick to 10 mph over anyway. I would much prefer to sit back and read, goof off on my phone, watch TV, or something else at 65 mph than have to drive myself at 73 mph.
Everyone above me I envy, everyone below me I abhor. The more money I make, the fewer I envy and the more I abhor.
lot of old people have Cadillacs and drive real slow
The bus? I know I'm stereotyping here, but except to and from NYC the bus in the US seems principally filled with the working poor and recently released prisoners.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Where I'm from rich people love to drive slow. they aren't in a rush to be anywhere, they own the business and can leave whenever they want. they also don't want to get caught and pay a fine (there is a reason why they are rich, they are disciplined). Also, most rich people are old.
"Autonomous vehicle - go find a parking spot. It better be a free one too. If you can't find one nearby just drive up and down main street until I text you to come get me."
That won't hurt traffic congestion, global warming, or the parking lot industry, right?
I don't think I've ever been on a bus where the passengers complained to the driver that he or she wasn't driving fast enough.
You haven't ridden the bus enough.
"Rich people don't like to go slow."
I think most people like to go fast regardless of income level.
Rich people like to go fast, but employing a person to drive your car for your is a status symbol that very few of them can resist. That will probably have more of an effect on adoption than speed will.
But however you turn it the first years will likely have a mix of human and automatic vehicles on the road, possibly of even likely with dedicated lanes for each category.
Present traffic rules including speed limits are set because of a variety of reasons, the quality of the road and human fallibility are among the important. When the human factor is taken out speed limits can and will change.
In many parts of Europe speed limits are also set because of the environment, like noise in nature reserves and / or Nitric Oxide or fines levels in build up areas, the last will not change because the car is driver less.
After the transitional years it will become quite pointless to own a car as we know it, you pay for transport the way you are now paying for your internet access.
And by that time personal transport will have evolved to a new very personal public transport with totally different rules.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Really? Rich people will be the ones that first buy expensive new cars? How shocking. Next you'll tell me that they were the first to purchase the Tesla S and the Chevy Volt.
Speed limiters will be standard in all new cars in just a few years. At most 5.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
So I should be furious because some unidentified "rich" people might, maybe, sometime in the future get some speed limits laws changed for autonomous automobiles, which aren't available commercially yet and aren't legal on the roads yet anyway*?
And this is on /. because some random blogger wants some page hits?
*Disclaimer: I vaguely remember reading that Nevada and California have or are going to pass laws legalizing autonomous automobiles under certain limited circumstances. This is not intended to be an comprehensive summary of the latest legal status of autonomous automobiles.
The CTA buses in Chicago seem to be used by a pretty normal cross section of the city's demographics.
LegendMUD
Antilock brakes use to be only on cars for "the rich". Now look... Just about all cars come with,
Or have an option for them. Flat screen television use to be only for "the rich", now they are
So inexpensive, everyone has one.
THAT is how it works, unless we (USA) keep going down this socialist utopian paradise that some have
Planned for us the last 40-50 years.
"the rich" are early adopters, which makes it more affordable down the road for products to become less expensive.
All cars should be automatically restricted to the speed limit. At the very least, some sound or visual warning should come up if the speed limit is exceeded. This should have been implemented years ago.
Since all a regulator can do to show that he is doing anything at all is pass and enforce regulations then it is sort of obvious that traffic law and speed compliance will become common in all vehicles. Just as a traffic light cam can turn you in and offer strong proof of guilt we are only a half inch distant from a time in which your car can refuse to comply or report the driver. There are already devices in some cars that will not allow a drunk to start the engine. How easy would it be to build a car that shuts down and dials 911 to report you speeding and gives the gps coordinates.
Fuck that shit! Market them to the drunks! Make them mandatory for certain types of drivers. Like ALL of Louisiana drivers...that way their drive through liquor stores will help pick up the economy and run court surplus since they'd no longer have so many cases to process & hide under the table.
I'd gladly go the speed limit if it means I can do something else while I "get there". Who cares if it takes 1.25 hrs rather than 1hr if you can actually read/program/whatever for those extra 15min? I think the bragging factor might become who has the best mobile office in their car, complete with Aeron chairs, dual mon etc. After all if the car is completely automatic you probably don't have to worry about keeping visibility in the windows any more. Any cameras used to drive can be displayed on a HUD for the times when the passenger decides they want to drive.
The wealthy have plenty of time to do anything they want. They don't have to be anywhere at any particular time - the world waits for them.
Autonomous vehicles will simply provide more of that time to do things other than drive.
Only those who must be at work on schedule are subject to the stress that results in speeding.
On the other hand, those who wish to drive fast and break speed limits will certainly have that option, simply by not paying for an autonomous vehicle.
With 13,237 taxi medallions in New York City at an average value of $700k cost will not be the issue in adoption. What may well happen is taxi owners will realize they no longer need to drive and can have as many cars as they can afford working 24/7/365 and no employees needed for the driving. This is a market where autonomous cars will thrive.
Next long haul transport, trucks rolling 24 hours a day, no driver fatigue again reduced overhead.
All it takes is for the additional cost of an autonomous vehicle to be less than the cost to employ a driver for the duration of the vehicle and you will see the shift happen seemingly overnight.
I still can't believe people want to move ahead with autonomous cars.
I don't care how good the "robotics" and "sensors" are on the car, there is no computer on the planet that can account for general human stupidity.
All it will take is for some yahoo on the highway to try and make a Hail Mary exit crossing 6 lanes of busy traffic to throw the automated cars into a massive pile up before governments realize just how stupid mixing autonomous and human drivers together on the same roads.
Also cars break down and no computer is going to know what to do when a wheel files off its axle or the brakes fail unexpectedly. Computer's are no replacement of human experience, reaction time, and just plain intuition when put into emergency situations. Never underestimate how effective a sudden jolt of adrenaline can do to have someone escape a deadly situation. What's a computer going to do when cars start coming at it from all directions?
Finally lets not forget that there is just simply more opportunity for fatal error with an automatically driven car. There is going to be software glitches causing cars to veer off a cliff. Sensors are going to fail causing the computer to make the wrong calculations for position. I mean what happens if a passing car kicks up a splash of water or slush that suddenly blocks a visual sensor, the car is going to think its about to hit another vehicle and slam on the brakes or veer away suddenly.
I can't believe how stupid the proponents of automatic car are, this is about the dumbest idea ever pushed forward. A few tests in very controlled situations and suddenly its ready for prime time?
Automated cars is a fiction best left in books and in movies.
The first company offering an automated car for general public use will be sued out of existence, period. I am sorry for the people that will have to die and families ruined before this happens.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
I feel like I might as well be reading Yahoo! news. Obviously, when your car drives itself, you can get work done on your commute, or whatever else you choose to focus on that doesn't involve driving. Being productive during a time which is normally wasted time is something rich people would love. It's like your own personal chauffeur without the chauffeur. I am surprised this is even a discussion.
Actually, I'd imagine (like other posters have mentioned) that the cars will just start a given speed zone at the speed limit with the driver allowed to override that choice. Especially at first, the data on speed limits just isn't complete enough to give the car complete control over this aspect. Not only do the static speed limits all have to be available, every time there's a construction project, they have to be updated. I think that aspect will be the driver's responsibility for the foreseeable future of automated driving.
Rich dicks are the only ones (of the "rich" genre) that drive fast. The normal rich drive the same as most people... with different cars.
"but to mess with the safety systems of even your own vehicle is probably a felony."
Probably? Probably??? This part should have never even made it into the story. It's insinuation at best.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
to many what ifs
Did DRM inhibit DVD adoption?
How are they going to prevent people from altering their own car's "autonomous" settings?
The thing that will inhibit the adoption of autonomous cars is that people like to be able to do donuts in the winter when the parking lot out at the forest preserve gets covered in ice. They want to be able to cruise their little town's square on Friday night. They want to race out by the railroad tracks on the South side.
The only thing that would make autonomous cars popular is if they cost less than half of the price of a regular car.
Please don't expect widespread use of autonomous cars any time in the next few decades.
You are welcome on my lawn.
As cars become autonomous, speed limits will increase. Autonomous cars can be forced to obey safe following distances. Speed doesn't kill - unsafe following distances do.
Who says the first self-driving car will be a car at all? Go to any interstate highway (I live in the U.S. midwest, pardon my frame of reference) and count the trucks. Now, ask yourself ... Why pay an expensive driver? Why bear the risk and cost of the human element? And think about what the USAF has learned with unmanned drones. Self-driving trucks don't need a cockpit and they aren't subject to many of the shortcomings of human drivers - falling asleep, drinking, distraction, picking up hookers at truck stops, selling cargo on the black market. Google's drivers' license for self-driving vehicles was issued in Nevada ... where there are thousand of miles of long straight roads with little traffic (outside the Reno and Las Vegas areas, at least) and the weather is generally clear.
The first self-driving car will be a long-haul truck.
And the budget conscious could have a big ol' ED-209 welded to their hood - "Move away from the vehicle!" Keeps it safe while parked too! ;)
"There are people who do not love their fellow human being, and I _hate_ people like that!" - Tom Lehrer
When daddy Warbucks's little princess gets splattered all over the interstate due to an unforeseen glitch in one of the Chinese supplied control modules the whole thing will go back to Jeeves taking the precocious little nightmare around, and poor (middle class) folks hurtling along at 65 MPH at the tender mercies of 4,000 lbs of crap, assembled out of Chinese parts in Mexico by angry, resentful, dog tired people!
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
If you are riding rather than driving it won't matter because you will most likely be doing something else, (drinking, watching videos, etc etc) all those things you can't do while driving now. I do think there will be a manual override but once you "take the wheel" you super cheap auto rates will automatically change to super expensive manual driving rates which will make it very expensive to do. A more likely alternative is that privately owned cars will become less common. Vehicles will become a commodity that is used not something that is owned.
...is that you hate driving. Once you don't have to drive anymore moving fast loses 90% of its value.
We should learn what we need to know about issues, before we decide what we need to feel about them.
IIRC, roundabouts tend to result in having more accidents but the accidents that you have are much less serious. So they're a better choice for spreading risk.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
And don't forget about bicycles, motercycles and scooters. Those won't be automous so you will still need trafic lights for them.
a) Of course the rich will arrange for the laws to be written to their benefit. None of you are out in the streets, or in your rep's office complaining. We did *that* in the sixties and seventies, and it worked.
b) Ten years later, everyone will. Direct example: GPS
c) You might make better time *anyway*, since i) autodriving cars will move the fuck over out of the passing lane except to
pass, so that the idiot driving 5 mph *under* the speed limit in the left lane won't be there, and ii) they'll all be doing
the speed limit
d) Politics: Obama, a bolshevik? ROTFLMAO!!!!! Sorry, had to pick myself up off the floor. Try "Eisenhower Republican".
And, of course, anyone who thinks he's a bolshevik is *obviously* a fascist, and since you probably want "illegal
aliens"* to be rounded up and put in internment camps, along with all Muslims and gays, your attitudes and opinions
are literally indistinguishable from Nazism.
e) The political yelling may now end, thanks to Godwin's Law, and you may go back to discussing self-driving cars.
mark, actual leftist, and proud of it
* You'd send Mr. Spock to the camp, too, until Scotty beamed him out.
You eat the rich while they're letting their cars drive them where you want to go.
Rich people don't like to go slow.
Uh, based on WHAT fact?
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
All my colleagues who take the express bus to the subway at Alewife (Boston MBTA) would probably disagree with you.
Ob. Burns:
"Like my loafers? Former gophers! It was that or skin my chauffeurs!"
"But, if you go over the limit it's a fine, but to mess with the safety systems of even your own vehicle is probably a felony."
That's stupid. Making changes to the parts of your vehicle that are requied to be "street legal" is not a felony. It is a citation. Depending on the infraction and the jurisdiction (tampering with emission controls in California, for example) it can be a pretty hefty fine, but that's it.
Given the relative difficulty involved for an officer to determine that you have modified the auto-drive behavior of your vehicle vs. just having a lead foot, this is a nonexistent hypothetical problem with an imaginary projected solution.
Stupid. Like, when I read this a song was blaring in the back of my brain. All the words were stupid. Stupid, stupid stupid. How about this for news: [Stupid] people may not buy automated cars, because of the [stupid] limitations of the automated cars [stupid] system. [Stupid] people need [stupid] while driving, so I predict these [stupid] people may pass [stupid] laws, you know, to make the automated cars less stupid. I mean, obviously right? I'm pretty sure when cell phones first came out, some [stupid] journalist probably wrote:
"Here's a thought: at the start, only [fat] people will be the only people lazy enough to buy a [cell phone]. [Cell phones] have tiny itsy-bitsy buttons. Fat people have gigantic sausage fingers. Ergo, there won't be any market for [cell phones]. Wait, I hear you say. That [fat] guy will just modify his [cell phone] to have [gigantic buttons]. But, if you [dial], but to mess with the [cell phone] safety systems of even your own [cell phone] is probably a felony. Much more likely: the [fat] will get new laws passed to make it legal for [cell phones] to have much, much [bigger buttons] than normal phones."
So where's the data that shows that rich people aren't left lane hogging road raging jackasses like most other people? How about the guy last week in a Z4 that almost caused an accident as he tried to cut me off in the left lane, the only reason being he thought I was going too fast. Anecdotal evidence for sure, but at least I have some form of evidence.
"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." George HW Bush
Screw you and your class warfare.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I think there is actually a significant market for robo cars. And eventually the realities of insurance market forces will show Maximum Prophet's theory to be the inverse of reality. Human drivers will have to pay through the nose for the privelege.
The market right away:
Older people who don't want, don't trust themselves, or whose kids don't trust them to drive anymore.
People who have so many tickets they can't get insurance.
People who don't want their teenagers driving.
People who don't know how to drive or for some reason are unlicensable.
Drunk drivers who've lost their license.
Taxi and tour operators catering to people from out of town who don't know their way around.
Taxi service will be much cheaper because you don't have to pay a driver, plus insurance savings (see below).
Car services and car ownership clubs will be much cheaper and will start to displaced single ownership, pushing down car costs even more. (But their rules will forbid manual driving.)
Life insurance policies may require people not to drive unless it's unavoidable.
Robo cars will eventually price human drivers out of the market: insurance will be far cheaper on robo cars because they crash a hundred times less often (and it will usually be the human driver's fault). Insurance now costs people nearly as much as their car payments. With self driving cars, the difference between human and robo drivers should get even greater as insurance companies charge humans a premium to discourage the antiquated practice, or completely refuse to insure human drivers.
Ergo: only the rich will be able to drive manually.
If we didn't have a monopoly on roads, you could imagine some roads with higher speed limits, or special lanes for automated cars, and so on.
These comments are mine; I do not speak for my employer.
Until the auto-auto can carry the bags/umbrella, keep the car clean (inside and out) and buy the morning paper, rich people aren't going to be buying auto-autos and sacking their chauffeur.
Also, rich people generally don't speed much because they don't have to hurry, they're not under time-pressure and frankly whomever they're going to see can wait.
Or maybe OP meant middle-class? Remember them?
Well, if the auto cars can react faster than a human, sure why not. Not like there will be any more accidents as the cars will actually alway stop at red lights, at stops signs, use their turn signals, unlike humans. So I'm guessing the only accidents will mostly be caused by pedestrian or bikers that ignore every traffic laws, cross the street where they shouldn't or on a red light, etc...or by dirty/faulty detection systems on the car.
Normally I at least skim a few posts bearing a well-earned moderation bonus--or at least having accrued one or two after being thrown in the wash with the sick-day coveralls where no-one was brave enough to check the pockets--to pick up the tone.
The point of fact is that the speed "limit" is a social construct of a bygone era: The future is already here--it's just not very evenly distributed. Dumb humans presume that enforcement activity is centered around something real. It's buried deep in our psyche in the same place that getting a gold star on a grade 3 spelling bee as a predictor of future life accomplishment.
A real speed limit is where a road is physically unsafe under common conditions (early spring rain) for the bulk of the existing rolling stock. A local university has a ring road where the merge lane was built off camber. This slowed people down until someone died. That's a real speed limit, wrong-headed or not.
I don't read Gravity's Rainbow at the same speed as Harry Potter. Speed limits are a monument to acontextuality. Don't think for yourselves, we'll think for you. Alpha wolves, sort yourself to the front of the traffic jam, as your just deserts.
I drive in relation to the speed limit at all times. Other people are free to drive as if I'm actually obeying the speed limit, and I take this fully into account. It's the same language that the C++ standard is written in: implement it however you like, but it had better appear to work the way the standard requires, and no-one who counts on this can be criticised under any circumstance. It's called the "as if" rule IIRC.
I wouldn't mind at all if Thag's old "speed limit" is updated to a far more flexible "speed profile". But it will scare the politicians senseless if this new spirit of flexibility carries over into the polls.
Yeah, Boston has some affluent bus riders, too.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I trust you - I never took the bus in Chicago but the L was certainly not frightening. In Philly the buses are... interesting places. Same with the inter-city buses (Grayhound, Peter Pan, etc.) along the NE Corridor.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
So will we see our cities hollowed out even more, as suburbs closer to the core get abandoned? If your commute consists of listening to music, surfing the internet, reading, gaming, whatever, in the privacy and comfort of your own vehicle, will more people elect to do 1 to 2-hour commutes?
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
By the standards of many third-world countries, I'm rich. But I can barely afford a new Honda, let alone a chauffeur. So no, billionaires won't be sacking their drivers en masse. But the executive knocking down 150 grand a year might buy a self-driving Lexus. And since he'll be able to do work in it while commuting, I expect there's a nice tax loophole coming soon to a congress near you.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
The usual class warfare demagogues will block any speeding bill that is preferential to drivers of automatic cars. Lawmakers on the other side will offer a law raising speed limits regardless of the type of car. This will put a lot of traffic court lawyers out of business.
Speed limits didn't prevent KITT from driving itself.
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
Actually, early cars were a novelty, even for the rich, at least in the US. That all changed when some guy named Ford, made an affordable car that the masses could buy.
"Here's a thought: at the start, only rich people will be able to pay for a completely autonomous car."
That is not true per-se. I would even challenge the open source community to develop a free version.
"Auto-autos will only go the speed limit."
That is not true either: the speed might be even better to go slower than the limit (it could assets risks, traffic patterns, traffic lights speeds, etc.), so it might be possible that the optimal speed might be in many places slower than the speed limit.
"Rich people don't like to go slow."
That is not necessarily true! Many wealthy people value their lives more than arriving couple of seconds earlier.
"there won't be any market for automatic cars."
FALSE. The previous three sentences might be false, so the result one is false, therefore.
"The rich guy will just modify his car to go faster."
False again: it is not necessarily the thoughts of wealthy people. They might prefer THE OPTIMAL route, than getting there "faster".
"But, if you go over the limit it's a fine, but to mess with the safety systems of even your own vehicle is probably a felony. Much more likely: the rich will get new laws passed to make it legal for automatic cars to go much, much faster than human-driven vehicles." ...
It is false again
Well, whoever wrote this is lacking of real perception and vision.
The rich will put his favorite brewer on the dash and sip coffee while reading a newspaper, check Wall Street quotes and increase his profit even while stuck in traffic. When he'll have earned enough for the day, he'll have a nap or do his/her mistress. Rested and all he'll then press the "home" button on the satnav and the car will head home.
The poor will hold the wheel and watch the road and stay poor.
How will pedestrians cross the street?
Your car will take you everywhere - even one block over. Welcome to the auto utopia.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
State governments are built to screw this kind of thing up. They'll wind up letting insurance companies charge 10x the premiums for them and decide that as a result of self driving cars, a speeding ticket is now a million dollar fine and 10 years in jail. Plus it will cost $10,000 to get your car inspected and you'll have to hire a state employee 'expert' to ride along in the car.
Look around you, budgets are tight.
If I can sit in my car and work at my laptop, or read, or phone the first client of the day I'll care a lot less about how fast I get there. Much like people today who take the bus or train to work.
Often people speed because they are driving and that' all they are doing. Most of the time they aren't even late, they just like going a bit faster and it's fun. You don't usually tell your taxi driver to put his foot down unless you really are late for that very important meeting.
Never trust a man in a blue trench coat, Never drive a car when you're dead
I sincerely doubt the problem with autonomous car adoption is going to be because the cars won't speed. I suspect it'll be the price, technology, or likely both. After all, rich people usually hire other people to drive them around anyway. Why pay more for the same thing?
I like going fast. Look - get on I-95 here in RI. Once you get outside the city of Providence it moves along at 70 to 80 MPH. And I speed judiciously. Keep up with the car mass, or keep a faster vehicle out in front of you. Let them get the ticket.
One of the things the poster misses is that the rich will buy autonomous cars, use them frequently, but not actually drive them. Consider:
- Send the kids to school and pick them up
- Send the car to the grocery/Starbucks/liquor store where a order send via the Net is filled and loaded into the car
- Avoid drunk driving charges (OK, it's a use but no actual driving)
- Let their teens use it so the teen can text merrily while the car drives
- Send the car out with a dashcam so they can get vids of morons trying to road rage a machine
- Have the car scout ahead to see if there are any cops on the path they're about to take at lightspeed in a manual drive car
The rich simply need to be eliminated from the equation.
..the government will not only allow autonomous cars to go as fast as they want, they'll let the owners collect toll-road rebates for taking up less space on the freeways. Because, you know, they spend less time on the road going a million miles an hour than you do in your pathetic yugo.
When autonomous cars become ubiquitous, won't it be more convenient for many people to simple "call them up" on a phone and have it arrive at your door in minutes? No hassle parking downtown, it just lets you off where you want to go, and you fetch a new one when you are filling out the tip line after dinner. Want a luxury car instead for that special evening -- just select that preference. Seating arrangement possibilities allow for many new designs. This era might even be as exciting as the arrival of the horse-less carriage almost a century ago.
"The rich will get new laws passed to make it legal for automatic cars to go much, much faster than human-driven vehicles", and then will hopefully die in large numbers of asplody fireballs. Win-win!
When I first heard about autonomous cars one of the first things that occurred to me was that people might be prepared to have the vehicle drive a little slower. To save on gas and to get a smoother ride. I wouldn't care so much if it took a few extra minutes to get to work if my car was pretty much a small office I could work in.
Skynet will never take over as long as we love driving fast.
Instead of calling them self-driving cars call them virtual chauffeurs, and suddenly your relationship changes dramatically. You're no longer surrendering control, you're delegating responsibility. And to "someone" far better equipped than most to drive safely, without distraction, and in a manner to maximize fuel efficiency and minimize wear and tear on the vehicle (subject to any aggressiveness constraints you provide of course, there should at a minimum be "urgent" and "emergency" settings available). Give it a voice interface with a servile British accent and you're good to go.
And honestly, depending on just how much they cost, I could see these catching on far more quickly than GPS. It's sort of the opposite of the VHS-DVD-Blueray trend - map->GPS doesn't actually buy you all that much, it's a bit easier to figure out where you are, and a bit more convenient to read in the car. But how many people do you know with a 30-60 minute commute? With a chauffeur, instead of that being a stressful nightmare of traffic that becomes "me time". No spouse, kids, etc bothering you, you could read, watch TV, eat a proper meal, play video games, whatever you like. It's a little island of solitude in a world that has been chasing it away as fast as possible. I could actually see people embracing a longer commute - sure, take the more fuel efficient/safe/scenic route - maybe it takes ten minutes longer, but that's ten more minutes where I can be uninterrupted in my leisure.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
If they become prevalent it would be easy enough to re-purpose individual fast-lanes as autonomous-vehicle only, say with a +50% speed limit (and probably a "minimum speed" limit only just under that). Similar to how places getting serious about mass-transit occasionally set aside dedicated bus lanes. In fact, lets automate the buses and let them in the same lane. You know I really like that idea, we could get the rich, the poor, and the environmentally conscious all on the same side. Everybody wins.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
(noise of the rich and affluent, arguing and bickering over how fast their new car should go...)
(noise of the legal battles between manufacturers and all of their new patents, trying to secure their future profits while blocking others...)
(more noise of safety lobbyists and soccer moms picketing that fast robots are deadly killers on our roads...)
(more noise of congress bitching about budgets and taxes to charge the poor so the rich don't have to pay for it...)
And then strolls in little Charlie, a 23-year old genius inventor...
"Uh guys? guys? Hey GUYS!?!? Just wanted to let you know I invented the worlds first teleporter. Who's ready to beam themselves to work?"
(The rich, arrogant, and corrupt collective): "Well....Shit."
Never underestimate the power of innovation and it's ability to not wait around for bullshit.
+6 Informative
will be to turn ALL roads into toll roads, thus keeping the riff-raff out of the way of their high-speed, auto-piloted cars.
Eat the rich!
I'm not convinced the horse and buggy industry will want to implement cars for this very reason. Why is Henry Ford leading the research rather than Wilfred and Sylvester's Coach Company?
If a car has ABS and electrically assisted steering then all that is required to make them autonomous from a hardware stand point is a lidar unit additional cpu power.
Rich people may like going fast, but they probably have a track car for that, and unless it ever becomes illegal to have a non-self driving car (and we're a long long way from that) they can use that for when they want to go fast. Most of the time they don't want to waste time. The time a journey takes isn't so much a problem to them except that they have to sit there driving, and not much else. The very rich just have chauffeurs, who mostly don't speed as if they get a ban it's kind of hard to keep in employment. Their employers just sit in the back and get on with work as they travel. Or watch a movie, or whatever.
The killer app of driverless cars is that it will bring the time-luxury of being chauffeur driven to those of us who can't afford to employ a chauffeur. Those rich enough to affect the law don't care - they already have a chauffeur driven Rolls and a fast Ferrari for fun - all they'll do is ensure it never becomes illegal to have that self-driven Ferrari.
only when they can't do any work at the time (because they have to drive). If you have the time to work why should anyone give a shit if they are in the office or in a self-driven vehicle? :D
I think it is a big leap to assume that the first autonomous cars will be owned by the rich who have money to burn. The first autonomous vehicles will be used to MAKE money. Driverless taxis and buses will carry passengers, autonomous semis and trucks will haul freight, and small ATVs will courier documents and urgent deliveries in cities. The speed limit might matter to the last, but not the others.
The rich will still buy it, because it will be like having a chauffeur. They can sit in the back, read their Wall Street Journal, and harrumph at every bit of news.
Words, words, words
Driving will essentially become free time where I can read, study, listen to music, surf the internet or for those so inclined, even watch movies or television. We wont care so much about speed limits anymore.
Seems that they are smarter than the rest of people then.
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
Perhaps, but it can be terrifying :)
I once witnessed a fist fight over a guy sitting down in an empty seat next to a guy who thought he needed two. Go Grayhound!
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
If they calculate how to hit every light as green, either from a priori knowledge of light schedules or from communication from the lights them selves, there are many routes where an intelligent auto-automobile could hit all green lights shaving more minutes from a trip than speeding would.