Slashdot Mirror
Idiot Leaves Driver's Seat In Self-Driving Infiniti, On the Highway
cartechboy writes Self-driving cars are coming, that's nothing new. People are somewhat nervous about this technology, and that's also not news. But it appears self-driving cars are already here, and one idiot was dumb enough to climb out of the driver's seat while his car cruised down the highway. The car in question is a new Infiniti Q50, which has Active Lane Control and adaptive cruise control. Both of which essentially turn the Q50 into an autonomous vehicle while at highway speeds. While impressive, taking yourself out of a position where you can quickly and safely regain control of the car if needed is simply dumb. After watching the video, it's abundantly clear why people should be nervous about autonomous vehicles. It's not the cars and tech we need to worry about, it's idiots like this guy.
already "hear" huh? wow...
After watching the video, it's abundantly clear why people should be nervous about autonomous vehicles.
No, it's clear why we should be worried about almost-but-not-really autonomous vehicles, in the real deal this would be fine. If we could get this guy as far away from a steering wheel as possible, it'd be perfect.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
It's partially autonomous. And that's why it is so dangerous.
After watching the video, it's abundantly clear why people should be nervous about autonomous vehicles. It's not the cars and tech we need to worry about, it's idiots like this guy.
Once we actually have autonomous vehicles --- this won't be an issue as a human operator won't even be required for safe operation; only to provide instructions about where to go.
While an impressive tech display, it simply highlights why I don't trust fully automated driver systems, ESPECIALLY as the only control system.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
This is what happens when some entity like google tries to idiot proof. We just end up with better idiots. In this case, that infiniti is a far cry from google's claims for its own AV, and already we have morons who think the machine is infallible.
There's an old urban legend about a guy leaving the driver's seat of an RV (on cruise control) to use the bathroom. Personally I've never believed it, but it does serve to illustrate something about expectations.
Judgement (and self-preservation) isn't a step function, it's more like a bell curve. And you can bet your bottom dollar that there will be a hopefully small but nevertheless significant portion of the population, down on the left end of the curve, who will think it's ok to have nobody in the driver's seat, or (more likely) someone asleep in the driver's seat, while the car is driving itself. It's statistically inevitable.
I mean geeze, google "autopilot related accidents". And pilots get a lot more training than mere automobile drivers.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
That's why we have the internet isn't it?
Cat videos and the derring-do of strangers.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Hyundai did a similar stunt (though using professionals on closed road):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbjdmw8D9-Y
No, this is proof we need autonomous vehicles. Consider the current alternative that these "idiots" are driving.
Your sew dum
The image I had in my head, for some reason, was the driver leaving the car itself, which drove off without him. Apparently he wasn't stupid enough to do that, which is unfortunate because that would have been absolutely hilarious.
it should detect no one is sitting in the driver's seat, and safely slow to a halt.
I disagree. We should not interfere with Darwinian evolution.
It's pretty clear that this is merely a failed attempt to win a Darwin Award. Perhaps he needs to try the same thing on a windy road.
Yes, safely slow to a halt. Then get fatally rear-ended by the vehicle behind you because its driver was (a) following too closely and/or (b) not paying attention and/or (c) didn't get his brakes repaired.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/canadian-woman-who-stopped-to-save-ducks-on-highway-faces-jail-over-crash-9554721.html
Just like riding lawn mowers, you should be able to get up and have it cut the power. Or in this case, it should detect no one is sitting in the driver's seat, and safely slow to a halt.
...thereby being a sitting target for the next car behind it, as these systems don't handle stationary vehicles on the road very well, and don't identify them.
Halting on a freeway is never a safe option. What the car needs to do is find the nearest exit, pull off, and then pull onto the shoulder. But to do that, it needs to be a lot more autonomous than these cars are.
Most people receive no training and have no knowledge or skills on what to do in a emergency situation. Autonomous driving itself is being developed from technologies that were first developed to take over for the human in emergencies. I really don't understand the need of having the human ready to take over in a emergency.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... all driven by drivers, no CGI.
I would guess that the number of stupid jaywalkers will diminish quickly
I'm more shocked that Infinity doesn't have some sort of sensor in the drivers seat to make sure there is actually somebody behind the wheel.
'har' is the universal substitute
At least he had a self-driving engine, it is an improvement over the usual idiot that go to drive drunk and kill several in the way. And in some cases keep driving after doing that.
The real value of a self-driving car is just that, fully self-driving.
It's having something that can drive while you're asleep, reading, or maybe even working on your laptop.
It's something that can drive your 10 year old to school, drop them off, and then drive back to the house so that other people in the household can use the car.
And just as importantly, it's something that someone who is not fit to drive-maybe for medical reasons, maybe because they have not slept in 24 hours, maybe because they are drunk-can use to safely get where they need to go.
So no, the danger of salf-driving cars isn't that people will decide not to be in the driver's seat, the danger is that both automakers and regulators will try and give us supposedly self-driving cars that can't handle those cases, and then be surprised when things go horribly wrong, or when people just don't see the value in buying one.
Personally, I plan on ownning a true self-driving car very soon after I can buy one that can do the driving when I can't, and I bet that the vast majority of legally blind adults with enouh money will be right along there with me. But that won't happen anytime soon when people are acting like you need a driver for it to be safe.
Autonomous cars already hear.
My first take is to agree with you but like drunk driving the idiot may end up killing others who had nothing to do with his idiocy other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
...and poor people are generally smarter? what's your logic? or did you just mean "people generally are pretty stupid", but you don't like rich people, so you threw that in?
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
No, it's clear why we should be worried about almost-but-not-really autonomous vehicles, in the real deal this would be fine.
That's right. Automatic lane keeping plus radar-based cruise control is right in the middle of the "deadly valley" - good enough to allow hands-off driving 98% of the time, not good enough to handle trouble. This is why that Cruise startup building a budget self-driving system worries me. Thos guys are from "social" apps. They're thinking they can ship something that sort of works, and that's good enough. It isn't.
Auto manufacturers are held to a much higher standard than the computer industry is used to. GM is being sued because their ignition switches could turn off if people hung too much crap on their keychain. (Something unlikely to be caught in testing, because, at the test track, each key hangs on a separate key tag.) "Speeding, cellphone texting, intoxication... irrelevant. We are not looking at the driver, or the circumstances of the driver's negligence. We are looking at the automobile, and only the automobile." - terms of the GM settlement.
The minimum safe level of performance for a self-driving car is that the vehicle must be able to bring itself to a safe stop, preferably at the side of the road, in any emerging bad situation. Even after any single-point failure.
Few computer based consumer products meet that standard, but a some do. The Segway is a good example. There's enough redundancy in a Segway to keep single failures from face-planting the user. Five rate gyros instead of three, two batteries, two processors, and a safety shutdown mode that brings the vehicle to a stop and sounds alarms to tell you to get off before it fails.
Rich people generally are pretty stupid.
People who buy an Infiniti aren't particularly rich.
Infiniti's are just Nissan's with a body kit and a jacked up price tag. Almost all Infiniti's are based on the Nissan FM platform and can be bought as Nissan Skylines (V36) for much less. All the Infiniti range have a Nissan equivalent (Skyline, Altima, Terano). So buying an Infiniti on it's own is an indication of stupidity.
Beyond that, even though they're pricier than a Nissan they aren't that expensive. An Q50 starts at US$37,000. A rich person would be driving an Maserati or an S-Class or more accurately, they'd be being driven in it.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Wait you people expect to stay awake and watch the car run??HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHA this is not the end of what stupidity people will do I expect videos of people having sex in the backseat and women flashing there asses out of the driver side window or maybe if its got a sun roof they will stand up hair or tits flapping in the wind. Blowjobs videos you name it People are not ready for autonomous ANYTHING. I hate to see what the insurance is for that stupidity
Jack of all trades,master of none
What the car needs to do is find the nearest exit, pull off, and then pull onto the shoulder.
Then once stopped, automatically deploy the artificial arm and slap the driver firmly about the head and shoulders.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Poor people can't use their wealth to shield themselves from the consequences of their own stupidity, so yes.
I observe this fact every weekend in a nearby wealthy neighborhood where I go to eat at good restaurants. Stupid rich people who don't know how to obey traffic signals (both drivers and pedestrians), don't know how to operate simple machines (soft serve machines shouldn't cause issues for observant adults), and who generally seem to expect everyone to make allowances for their blundering and incompetence.
just a ghost in the machine.
WE DON'T HAVE VERY MANY AUTOMATIC TRAINS IN THE WORLD, the reason is because they have to contend with stupid drivers and jaywalkers.
Really? Bet you $500 it has more to do with unions than safety. Most trains can not stop to avoid drivers or jaywalkers. That's why there are train crossings where the cars and peds stop.....simply because the train can not. Trains are much easier to automate than cars or planes, having been done as early as 1961. Today there are several automated passenger trains, I rode on one at the San Fran airport earlier this year.
Self-driving cars will never succeed.
Driverless cars will probably be mandatory in the future, and my guess is that the insurance will become so prohibitively high, that you'll find it much cheaper to buy an automated car.
Year 2045, scene courtroom
Lawyer: So, sir, you (incredulously)willing chose to drive the vehicle by hand?
Defendant: Yes, I did! I just wanted to exercise my right to enjoy driving my car
Lawyer: Well, there you have it, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant freely admits to wanton and willfully endangering everyone else on the road! You must find him guilty!
Or if you prefer the scene from I,Robot:
Lt. John Bergin: What is the matter with you? Traffic Ops tells me you're driving your car manually. You ran two trucks off the road!
"OK, Google, I'm pretty sure that viaduct up ahead is flooded.
"Searching, why a duck..."
"OK, Google, slow down please, the viaduct up ahead is flooded"
*SPLASH!*
My guess is that self-driving cars will not become ubiquitous in the lifetime of anyone reading this. We may have personal jetpacks before any of us has a truly autonomous car. There won't be the required infrastructure expenditures to make the highways "smart" unless Google replaces the Federal Government. Which is a possibility, but probably not in the next half-century.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I've wanted to do that since I saw Marlon Brando in the Wild Ones. Or was it James Dean in Rebel Without a Cause?
Somebody look it up for me, alright?
You are welcome on my lawn.
You can't make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
I have not seen anyone yet comment on the obvious point that the video is a scripted advertisement for the Q50. I think the person leaving the driver's seat is not really deserving of the idiot or moron epithet. He is following the script.
Where is the outrage directed at Infiniti?
In the end, the need to get home from the bar w/o a D.U.I. will drive the technology. ,in a self driven chariot.
Perhaps this was just a drunk, in question. We'll call him a philosopher scientist, in a flash of dead brilliance, he reasons the cops can't give him a D.U.I. if he isn't driving. Others round the world, resonating sympathetically, will do the same. THEN, the self driving GOOGLE map using Smart Cars will take your drunk ass through a bad neighborhood before inevitably breaking down. Oh, of course there will be nice stories, like pregnant lady gets to the E.R. to spew quints
Strange stories, guy tells car to go to Best Buy, car takes him to Best Buy in a distant city. Auto Erotic stories, Exhibitionist couples lacking the task of driving, screw in the back seat, Daredevils on the hood.
I don't think safety issues will stop anyone, anymore than obvious ones with explosives, alcohol and indiscriminate unprotected sex. It doesn't matter if they don't work , at first, it makes good news copy. These are humans we are talking about , right?
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
To the dumbos who are down-modding comments on the atrocious use of the word "hear" instead of "here" in the summary, I offer you this piece from Mark Twain:
A PLAN FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF ENGLISH SPELLING
For example, in Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be dropped to be replased either by "k" or "s", and likewise "x" would no longer be part of the alphabet.
The only kase in which "c" would be retained would be the "ch" formation, which will be dealt with later.
Year 2 might reform "w" spelling, so that "which" and "one" would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish "y" replasing it with "i" and iear 4 might fiks the "g/j" anomali wonse and for all.
Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants.
Bai iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez "c", "y" and "x" -- bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez -- tu riplais "ch", "sh", and "th" rispektivli.
Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.
Just like riding lawn mowers, you should be able to get up and have it cut the power. Or in this case, it should detect no one is sitting in the driver's seat, and safely slow to a halt.
I wonder if it disables the air bags if it detects a child is driving though.
Lmgtfy?
"idiot dies in a fiery wreck after climbing out of driver's seat, bumping steering wheel"
Well, I was wondering about that. What happened to him? After the buildup, and the warning not to bump the steering wheel, we see him bump the steering wheel -- and the video just ends. Did it crash? Did it continue down the road? Did it slow to a stop? I don't see any clue, and none of the comments seem to mention this.
Everyone seems to be calling him an idiot, but how do we know that he didn't just continue riding to his destinatiion? What am I missing?
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
if everyone else is doing something and you aren't, hate to break this to you, you are wrong.
Somebody actually did this? I thought the gag was ridiculously over the top when I saw it on "Anchorman 2."
there is a weird hybrid in the maxima, but otherwise the nissan infiniti cars all come from the high end JDM Nissans.
When I was looking at cars (living in Japan) the equivalents were:
Fuga --> M series
Skyline --> G series or Q series now
cima --> higher ended infiniti, but they don't sell either anymore.
The problem is hte JDM nissans for "regular" folks weren't ported exactly so it makes comparisons a little off.
When cruise control was new in the 1970s, there was a news story about a guy who wrecked his brand new RV. He said he turned on the cruise control then went to the back of the RV to make a sandwich.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
...and while arguing that autonomous driving systems, which replace drivers, are scary because there are idiots driving cars.
What the car needs to do is find the nearest exit, pull off, and then pull onto the shoulder.
Then once stopped, automatically deploy the artificial arm and slap the driver firmly about the head and shoulders.
I was thinking something similiar but I was thinking it should lock all the doors and wait for the police to arrive.
I'm pretty sure leaving your seat when the car is on glorified cruise control is grounds for reckless endangerment
which in the US is just as bad if not worse than a DUI/DWI.
Indeed! That's why my suggestion was that instead of airbags we have sharp deadly AIRSPIKES! If you're in an accident, the airsplke stabs you in the face! I'll bet you'll pay some serious attention driving, THEN! If not now, then in a couple of generations once the people who don't pay enough attention to avoid getting an airspike in the face have weeded themselves out of the gene pool!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Okay, okay, fair enough. I won't even make the technically-correct argument that mean is only one kind of average and mode is another. I agree - for non-mathematicians average=mean. ...But only in a mathematical context. In common language the meaning of something like "average Joe" far more closely resembles both the population median and the mode than it does the mean. And of course that causes no end of (often cynically manipulated) confusion when discussion blurs the line between the three.
I would contend that the "average Joe" meaning is far more linguistically fundamental, while the more formal mathematical meaning is technically the name not of a specific function, but of a huge family of related functions. I would thus propose that the most logical solution to avoid confusion, intentional and otherwise, is to campaign against the use of "average" to refer to *any* specific mathematical function, using median, mode, and most especially mean any time numerical values are involved. With all of them of course referring to the *arithmetic* versions of their respective families unless otherwise qualified.
We thus preserve "average" as a richly non-specific term in common language, with "mean" replacing the overly-specific mathematical usage to make a clear linguistic distinction between largely unrelated concepts. I think that will be item #19637 on my list of things to do when I'm finally elected God.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Sounds like a layer 8 issue.
We don't have many automatic trains because the train drivers' unions are fairly powerful. Those that do exist work well. Trains generally don't have time to stop for someone on the tracks even if they wanted to (there's a lot of momentum carried by even a small passenger train at normal speeds) and so it's a pretty effective and increasingly popular way of committing suicide. The driver can see he's going to hit you but there's nothing he can do - there are a fair number of traumatised train drivers as a result. Automatic trains would be a significant improvement, but there are cost issues and it's handy to have some staff on trains anyway to deal with the passengers / contact authorities in the event of emergencies, disturbances etc.
Automatic cars will happen, and quicker than people expect. There are no problematic unions to get around, the legal issues with insurance are not insurmountable and there is a clear market for them. This video isn't really relevant. Sure, the guy was dumb to do what he did, but not because driverless cars inherently need a human supervisor. He was wrong because this car isn't designed to be autonomous. Sure, it can lane follow and adapt its speed, but it isn't designed to do all the fault mode diagnosis and safely get itself to the side of the road etc. It's designed to have a human in control, so this guy was operating it outside of design intent. A real autonomous car is designed on the assumption that the human isn't in control (look at the google models that don't even have steering wheels etc.) They are designed to get themselves to a safe state in the event of a failure in a way that this car frankly isn't.
Plus it seems they cant drive at all, every rich person car comes with lane assist, brake assist, etc.. It's as if they are incompetent idiots and need this tech...
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Interesting, under laws active in Europe she wouldn't be at fault but the family who rear ended her car.
- She saw something unusual on the road and stopped. Breaking because there's something that shouldn't be there on the way is considered a valid reaction. Imagine is the foreign object weren't ducks but some hard metal piece fallen from a truck (that would have saved a few Tesla battery punctures/fires...)
- The familly on motorbike behind her weren't keeping a safe distance and weren't able to break in time. There's a reason that you need to constantly keep a safe distance from the vehicle in front. They wouldn't have died if they kept a distance long to be able to break in case of emergency. (like the mother did. she was riding behind and was able to stop in time)
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
TDTG. (Too drunk to google).
You are welcome on my lawn.
"Idiot", "moron". You sound like a bunch of poor kids struggling in a lousy job economy, hurling insults at a successful man able to afford an Infiniti.
Except it's obviously a ploy by the car makers themselves.
Daring acts (like this scripted advertisement you're all being fooled by) will drive consumer demand for autonomous cars.
I think the word you were going for was "plebeians," there in the title...but maybe I didn't here you correctly.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
is why I feel secure in saying that we absolutely need self-driving cars. Stupid Humans make traffic a nightmare. Self driving cars won't stop three lanes of traffic trying to cut ahead of everyone at an exit, block the passing lane, weave all over because they're too busy on the phone, or make congestion worse by constantly trying to change lanes.
Suppose someone has a heart attack with these technologies enabled. The car will keep driving down the interstate until it runs out of gas. They'll find a dead body in a car driving three states away from where the driver used to live.
Does the semi-autonomous (or future, 100% autonomous) car pull over?
And yet, even while on RAILS, how many train accidents are there? Also Unions? BS. First of all if they were able to fully automate trains, then the Unions wouldn't have much leverage would they...
Insurance companies is an interesting notion. Provided they are not the first to go during the economic purges of the 2020's, assigning risk and fault to autonomous driving could be complicated. Just throwing it out there, but it may eventually follow a system whereby the car is insured itself by the Company and not by the individual... Can you see the court case? I personally have zero control over the actions of the car, how can I be held responsible for what it does? Ford (or whoever) are the ones who designed the logic that decides the actions of the car, and therefor is ultimately responsible for what it does... That is of course assuming the autonomous control can't be turned off or tampered with.
Not if places take New York city's approach - when the number of jaywalkers killed on a road gets to be what local politicians deem "excessive", they have either:
1 - The speed limit reduced
2 - A traffic lane converted to either parking or a bicycle lane
3 - Fences installed in the middle of the roadway, such that the jaywalkers now spend more time in the roadway walking around the fence
Recently they successfully managed to get the state to allow the city's "default" (unposted) speed limit to become 25 instead of the statewide minimum default of 30. In light traffic most cars go 40.
There were laws against texting while driving, so he submitted this summary from the passenger seat
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
Hit submit too early: if jaywalkers start getting hit by autonomous vehicles, they'll probably require a driver in the driver's seat to periodically hit some sort of deadman's button at random intervals, or restrict autonomous vehicles to 15 MPH or some such nonesense...
A slashdot post which links to a blog entry which very briefly describes a short video. Yipee!
Kind of like PEBKAC, but PENBBSWAS Problem exists not being between steering wheel and seat.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I can call B.S. they have been trying to cut the train crew since they did away with coal, shucks even before that some of the one train on the track outfits only had a brakeman, but they soon went back to a two man crew, just to have a head up for the end of the track. Check out the story of the general, or go back to the accounts of wartime train engineers. But stop blaming unions for you stupidity. Not enough method in your diet.
As much as we'd all love our cars to drive our drunk asses home from the bars, thereby saving us a cab fare, that's a long way off. I think in the near future, the laws will mirror pilots and autopilots -- even if the autopilot is on, you still need a licensed, non-drunk pilot in the cockpit in the event the autopilot fails. However, I am sure we are not far away before some drunk Infiniti owner tries to use his self-driving car in his DUI defense. Stay tuned to Fark.com for more details on that story, coming at 11.
20 gallon tank, let's say at highway speed you get 25 MPG... that's quite a distance if you pass out on the highway. Those super-comfy seats and climate control, one drink too much, some nice music... you just might be out for 4-6 hours... 100-150 miles away from where you last remember. Heh.
And yet, even while on RAILS, how many train accidents are there?
Almost none. Air and train travel are by far the safest forms of transport. Several times safer than walking even.
Also Unions? BS. First of all if they were able to fully automate trains, then the Unions wouldn't have much leverage would they...
If you could fully automate all trains on all routes overnight, indeed they wouldn't. But that's impossible to do.
assigning risk and fault to autonomous driving could be complicated.
It's absolutely no different to now.If you can prove systematic fault in the car design or manufacturer, then you can sue. However in the general case accidents are simply sorted out between insurance companies, often without bothering to establish blame. There's no need to change that, as autonomous cars will only be approved for general usage when they are safer than human driven cars anyway.
Reminds me of driving my old '67 microbus. You don't see them rear-ending things often with only maybe an eight inch of sheet metal between you and the bumper in front of you.
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
Unless you remember to slip into neutral or park, you can get out of the driving seat of an automatic and the car will "drive" itself and that's always been the case: how many times have I seen an altercation when one driver slams on the brakes and jumps out to argue with someone, only for the car to start off again before he can barely get out of his seat.
Fortunately, "driving" is still considered in law as an activity requiring control of *all* the vehicles functions while the engine is switched on. Lane-control is not the same as "driving" although you'd have a hard time convincing many Californians.
No so sure about that. Should you personal insurance then go up as a result of an accident caused by two independently operated machines without your input?
Insurance companies basically manage risk VS revenue, if you take the human out of the equation, what is left to evaluate? Only the car. Then it is one car VS another as far as if one is particularly less risk or not. At which point what does that have to do with the individual other than the initial decision to get one or another?
from the video it looks like the perpetrator is some 20- or 30-something foolish dumbass.
I agree with you except this (extremely minor) point. When we get to the point where automated cars are simply another part of life, I believe that car ownership will stop being a normal part of life. Instead, most people will belong to auto clubs or co-ops and pay a nominal monthly fee (likely tiered for miles/month + other perks) and call for a vehicle from their club ahead of time that will be sent to their location to pick them up and drop them off. Only gearheads, rural folk, and the rich will actually own cars--and then rarely automated cars, outside of collectors of early models--because it will be far cheaper to belong to one of these than pay insurance+gas/electricity+loan payment+maintenance while living in the city or even suburbs.
Sure, it might mean you wait, but if these clubs are run properly then unused vehicles will be parked in a distributed manner so you're only waiting 2-3 minutes. Need to go somewhere right fucking now? The clubs would have allowances for X priority calls/month, with high charges if you go over without setting up something ahead of time. The clubs could even have agreements with local city that their cars can have an "emergency" mode (enabled by club dispatch), where it gets priority in traffic for, say, getting a woman in labor to the hospital or to a dying relative.
This also helps with suburban sprawl and city traffic, because now most people don't need a garage, drive way, or parking spot. Bus terminals could be expanded for pick up and drop off of passengers of these cars (and perhaps even storing them), with most streets having a "quick stop" lane that can be used during lighter traffic.
We're probably 20-30 years out from this being standard, but when it is the whole auto-buyer thing is going to have a huge upset (if dealerships are only concerned about Tesla's direct sales now, they haven't seen anything yet...)
I liked the President-based Q45 with the active suspension. People were afraid of the expense in upkeep and such with them, so the Q45a was cheap to buy used. And, aside from the fuel economy, not bad. But it wasn't a "Nissan with a body kit" in that the Nissan it's based on was never available in the USA. And, as far as I can tell, the President was never available with the active suspension, and some other of the features.
Learn to love Alaska
You've said it all yourself. The difference in risk between one driver and another will be what car they drive. And that's one of the variables that exists right now. You pay a lot more insurance for a sports car than a runabout. Similarly you'll pay more for autonomous cars with a worse safety record.
These's nothing wrong with that. As you say, the insurance companies have to set prices against risks.
There is literally no hurdle to jump as regard insurance and autonomous cars. It's not an issue.
Manual control of a powered vehicle will be an organ bank crime. Obscure?
Please clarify what you mean by "right fucking now". Is it the time to take your bicycle from the stand by the door to whichever building you're in and start cycling towards your destination, or is it the time to get into the parking area (several floors further up, down or sideways), get to the vehicle, get through the access barrier, paying your parking fee, then start to negotiate the one-way system to get to the road leading to your destination.
The time to/ from parking, and the time to find parking are things that are normally left out of the "right fucking now" equation. Being in reasonable condition, and knowing my town well in terms of non-vehicle routes, I can normally beat a car over distances of up to 3 miles - about 20 minutes door to door. That's pretty "right fucking now" if you're looking for a taxi too.
(Of course, on foot I can beat someone on a bike for really short journeys ; there's a non-trivial time to undoing the bike lock, stowing and re-deploying it.)
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"