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."

Comments

No, it'll just be an OPTION

[crazyjj]

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.

Re:No, it'll just be an OPTION

[mr1911]

Please keep your logic out of blatant attempts to further bait class warfare.

Re:No, it'll just be an OPTION

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see traffic lights disappearing unless EVERY SINGLE CAR is autonomous, and probably not even then. How will pedestrians cross the street?

Re:No, it'll just be an OPTION

[AvitarX]

I'd say the biggest plus is the freedom to go to a bar as a suburbanite.

Re:No, it'll just be an OPTION

[bieber]

Once you get autonomous cars driving safer than humans on average (and I would be surprised if we haven't already passed that point, because humans get themselves into an awful lot of trouble operating motor vehicles), a manual override would be one of the worst possible things you could add. Think about it: when is a human driver most likely to override the car's AI? In a situation that they perceive as an emergency, say a pedestrian jumping out into the street, getting cut off at an intersection, so on and so forth. And when would the ultra-fast computational abilities of a computer be the most important? You guessed it, those same situations. If you give humans the option to take control, you can be sure that more often than not they're going to use it at the worst possible moments.

Re:No, it'll just be an OPTION

[nschubach]

I read both articles and I couldn't find reference to this "Rich people will change the laws for themselves" ... so yes, I'd agree that the summary was quite baiting.

Re:No, it'll just be an OPTION

[Anonymous Coward]

"Class warfare"? I don't see any bolsheviks around here. If you do, maybe you are hallucinating.

Rich people are not an oppressed minority!

Re:No, it'll just be an OPTION

[Sir_Sri]

When someone tries to run a red light.

It's not that the lights themselves are 'responsible' for accidents, it's the way people respond (or don't respond) to them that causes accidents. Driving is a giant game where everyone agrees to follow the same rules. If you don't follow the conventions and rules you significantly increase the risk of an accident. Speed conventions (which are set relative to speed limits, but not at them) and traffic lights are rules that exist primarily for the benefit of the average person, but on an individual basis you'd always be better to not have to follow them if you're trying to minimize the time you spend driving. People on foot of course are even worse when it comes to traffic lights, I think anyone who's been in any big city (first or 3rd world) is used to people trying to cross streets as soon as they possibly can regardless of whether the 'walk' light is lit up.

If you compare to europe, their entire thinking about travel is different than north america. European cars are designed more for interacting with pedestrians than interacting with cars. To that end, traffic lights in europe, and traffic in europe in general is completely different in pedestrian heavy places. If you take away traffic lights people are actually a great deal more safe, because they're trying to manouvre around pedestrians. Which goes to the second point, that without traffic lights, getting around can be really slow (unless you have a motorcade).

Probably a better way of saying what was said is "the presence of traffic lights makes drivers behave in ways more likely to cause accidents". Which sort of obviously makes sense, any time you ask someone to stop there's a probability that they won't stop, and therefore cause an accident.

But either way, the overall effect is there, it's a matter of which style you want to go with.

Re:No, it'll just be an OPTION

[Bert64]

Slower is not more efficient... It's a product of how a vehicle is designed which in itself is a trade off.

Cars today are designed to be most efficient at around 50mph because thats a sensible medium where speed limits typically range between 30 and 80mph... If they designed the car to be most efficient at 70-80mph then it would likely be less efficient at 30.

At slower speeds, the energy used for motion will be lower, but then the journey will be take longer so the lower level of power will be in use for a longer period of time. And there is background energy use which is not related to motion, such as lights etc... This power use will be there regardless of speed, and thus a longer journey will increase it.

Re:No, it'll just be an OPTION

[Anonymous Coward]

My city, in Canada, has converted to roundabouts. On my way to work I pass through 5 traffic lights and 6 roundabouts. The most dangerous of these to pedestrians is roundabouts based on our newspapers.

The problem is that in Europe, pedestrians are expected to cross in the middle of a street, or at least away from the intersection. Here, the cross walks are 3 feet away from the roundabout and priority is given to pedestrians. This makes the cross walk on the other side of the roundabout invisible until you are halfway through the roundabout (brush and raised humps on the roundabout are partly to blame, as is traffic) as which point stopping safely (so as no to cause accidents with other vehicles behind) is difficult, and makes pedestrians from the right invisible on a two lane roundabout with vehicles to the right stopped.

Pedestrians are safer in Europe because, from my experience in the UK, crosswalks rarely exist in the dangerous areas (intersections). Also, again, in the UK, pedestrians are often responsible for their own safety, and thus pay more attention. In Canada/USA pedestrians generally have the right of way on the side of the road they're crossing, even when doing so stupidly.

Re:No, it'll just be an OPTION

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

The rich always adopt new, expensive stuff first. LIKE CARS THEMSELVES YOU FREAKIN' HISTORICALLY IGNORANT CLASS WARFARE SAVAGE.

Who do you think brought previously-expensive cars to the common man? A guy who wanted to be, and became, fabulously rich.

What cars had nav systems in them for 5 years before high-end midline cars? Yup! Cars of the wealthy. I know, I freakin' built those things.

God damm it, Mr. Da Peepul, put away that PC developed with trillions in private investment over the decades and go get a trabby from the junk yard and whine until your politician gives you a nav system and a robot driver.

And finally, speed limits will go up because robot drivers will be much safer. I predict, fucking write it down, that big The People government types like you will lead the charge to outlaw human drivers as unsafe.

WRITE IT DOWN.

Re:No, it'll just be an OPTION

[bieber]

I don't know why everyone seems to be under the impression that these things are just going to blindly follow maps and GPS, but that's not how it works at all. They're equipped with all kinds of sensors and cameras that let them examine their environment, and they're not going to turn onto a "road" that isn't actually there. Will there be some freak accidents that could potentially have been avoided by manual controls? Sure there will, but they'll be far, far outweighed by the avoidable accidents that will result from letting humans take control.

Re:No, it'll just be an OPTION

[dgatwood]

With a fully autonomous system, cars in the appropriate directions would be told to stop after the pedestrian presses a button.

Not if they're designed right, they won't. With a fully autonomous system, the vehicles would by default prefer major roads over minor roads, and those major roads would often have pedestrian bridges. However, when a pedestrian needs to cross a road that lacks such bridges, the pedestrian pressing a button would change that preference.

Any vehicles within a span beginning a block away and extending to three blocks away would shift over one road in either direction. So as soon as the nearest block worth of traffic in either direction clears the intersection, the road would be clear for pedestrians for a period of time, but the cars themselves would not stop, or even slow down.

As for the cars when they are in manual mode? All intersections are to be treated as 4-way stops.

There would still have to be some sort of traffic lights for those vehicles. Preferably all-ways-red until a vehicle or bicycle sits on the sensor for a period of time. Incidentally, bicycles are potentially a concern because of their tendency to blow through stop signs and traffic lights....

Re:No, it'll just be an OPTION

[Bios_Hakr]

I don't think that will be an option for a *long* time. As it stands now, if you are close to your car (and have your keys on you) you can be charged with DUI/DWI. The cops argue that you are technically in-control of your car any time you are near it.

I've seen two DUI busts while people were sitting in a non-running car listening to music. I've seen one for someone who went to get something out of the car without ever sitting inside or turning the ignition.

And as long as we have MADD, it'll be hard to change. They will always come back with "what ifs" and TOTC and lawmakers will roll over.

Re:No, it'll just be an OPTION

[mcgrew]

So you'll only need one car instead of two or three, same as everyone else.

Re:No, it'll just be an OPTION

[CanHasDIY]

Groups who can afford lobbyists always change the laws for themselves

Here, fixed for you.

... and the favor, returned.

Re:No, it'll just be an OPTION

[Anonymous Coward]

Who do you think brought previously-expensive cars to the common man? A guy who wanted to be, and became, fabulously rich.

I think in a hundred years' time people will talk of Apple having brought computers to the common man.

And they'll be just as wrong as people now who claim that Ford brought cars to the common man.

Or the people who have praised Edison for all the things he didn't do.

Public history is written by the propaganda office; private history is written by the public relations department. But I repeat myself.

Re:No, it'll just be an OPTION

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we're all pretty clear on what Edison did and didn't do, beyond the simplifications we learned in 3rd grade.

And is there something about Ford you want to clue the rest of us in on? Because yes, history records the Model T as the car that made the auto industry, under his direction. The man was relentless in reducing the cost of Model T's and A's until virtually every driver in America had at least learned to drive on them.

Re:No, it'll just be an OPTION

[LordLimecat]

Everyone always tries to change the laws for themselves
Fix'd

Rich people don't like to go slow?

[icebike]

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.

Re:Rich people don't like to go slow?

[Samantha Wright]

Similar reasoning has revealed that rich people also hate waiting in line at the bank, filing their taxes, and telemarketers. In fact, rich people are a lot like you and I—it's just that they're the ones who will most likely be the first adopters of the cars being discussed.

But wow, what a summary. Not only did it start with a bizarre rhetorical question, it answered it, with a solution that was obvious to anyone who had ever seen Will Smith chase robots around for two hours! Now all we have left to discuss are minutiae like whether rich people enjoy sleeping in as much as everyone else. Bravo, submitter.

...maybe I should lay off the David Mitchell rants.

Re:Rich people don't like to go slow?

[csubi]

as a lot of people enjoy driving

I guess you speak of the 17-25 age group. Because I really don't know many working age adults who enjoy driving their daily commute on congested highways.

Re:Rich people don't like to go slow?

[petes_PoV]

The OP is confused. Rich people don't care what speed they go at, but they HATE to be kept waiting. So, provided they can use their travelling time productively the speed of getting from A to B is immaterial - within common-sense boundaries. That's why so many of them have drivers (who DO obey speed limits - safety is more important the richer you become).

Anyway, the truly rich don't travel - people come to them.

I think the OP is simply projecting their own impatience.

Re:Rich people don't like to go slow?

[profplump]

If a taxi could drive itself, why would you staff it at all? Why not just outfit it with a touch-screen map and a credit card reader?

Re:Rich people don't like to go slow?

[dr2chase]

If you are worried about your autonomous car losing dick-waggling contests, then perhaps you have forgotten that the point is to get from point A to point B in safety and comfort. The spare time you gain by not driving yourself should more than compensate for a minute or two lost to people who get their jollies from winning a pissing contest with an inanimate driver.

Rich people don't like to go slow?

[GameboyRMH]

I am poor as fuck and I have a sick fetish for speed!

Re:Rich people

[0123456]

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?

Slashdot seems to have become the last, best hope for Communism on the Internet in the last couple of years. Probably as the technical content has declined, the libertarians have moved elsewhere.

I believe the James Downey said it best:

[nitehawk214]

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.

What a load of

[dyingtolive]

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.

Probably not as irritating as you may think

[e3m4n]

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

That chain of logic is weird

[Daetrin]

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.)

Rich People already have automatic cars

[ZombieBraintrust]

It is called a proffesional driver. Rich people don't need an expensive robot to drive for them when a cheap employee will do.

Faulty premise

[artemis67]

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.

Top 10 worst /. Article Summaries

[avandesande]

This one definitely belongs.

Re:Rich people

[Tyndmyr]

I suspect most of Libertarians considered bitcoin little more than an amusing curiosity with a strange amount of slashdot stories. I certainly didn't even attempt to use it for anything serious.

Re:Model of automatic driving is wrong.

[Frequency Domain]

I couldn't imagine waiting an indeterminate amount of time to have your car pull up to get you with the wife/gf also waiting.

Yeah, I'd imagine having to wait somewhere with both your wife and your gf could get hellish.