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]

Pedestrians? There will be no pedestrians in the future, only autonomous scooters!

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

[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

[tompaulco]

How will pedestrians cross the street?
The pedestrians will have to be autonomous, too. it's all part of the plan.

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

[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.

I'll be back.

[Sponge Bath]

"...honking does no good, because robots do not care if you honk at them."

Not if the auto-pilot is an 800 series terminator.

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.

Model of automatic driving is wrong.

[Animats]

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.

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

Re:Rich people

[jeffmeden]

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.

Why the outrage at this? I mean, if we are going to compete with the Chinese (a constant theme both on /. and in the rest of society) then the first step is obviously to become better communists than them.

Re:designated driver

[schlesinm]

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

The way DUI laws are written currently, I wonder if you could get a DUI for being in an autonomous vehicle while intoxicated simply because you have the option of taking over control.

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?

[drouse]

I could see people wanting the laws for autonomous vehicles to follow the laws for aircraft -- where parts and software have to be certified and it is illegal to use non-certified or modified parts. That path would make autonomous vehicles a lot more expensive (and have fewer "toy" features).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parts_Manufacturer_Approval

I think the real problem with autonomous vehicles is that there is a sizable percentage of people who would "bully" them. You know the thing is going to give you the right of way and slow down to keep a safe distance, so why not cut in front of them, etc. Then who wants a car with a pushover as an automatic pilot? But what lawyer would okay even a slightly aggressive autopilot?

I'd say autonomous vehicles would be great for taxis in cities with large, dense urban areas ... but the taxi companies would fight that I think (unless they decided they could replace all the drivers with minimum wage button pushers).

Maybe they would be big in Japan :-)

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh please, I'm in my 40s and I love driving. Its very therapeutic. Then again my daily commute is opposite traffic and there are multiple back roads alternatives if I need them.

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?