Slashdot Mirror
Obama Proposes $4 Billion Investment In Self-Driving Cars (transportation.gov)
An anonymous reader writes: The Obama Administration has unveiled a proposal for a 10-year, $4 billion investment in the adoption of autonomous car technology. The money would fund pilot projects to, among other things, "test connected vehicle systems in designated corridors throughout the country, and work with industry leaders to ensure a common multistate framework for connected and autonomous vehicles." The administration says it has an interest in cutting the death toll — over 30,000 people each year in the U.S. — associated with traffic accidents. The proposal also calls for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to work with industry to resolve regulatory issues before they inhibit development of self-driving cars. "This is the right way to drive innovation," said Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx.
So the administration is spending somewhat less than half a billion a year to test the road-worthiness of such autonomous vehicles and then ensure that the different models can operate with each other. It's not about crony capitalism but ensuring that the autonomous vehicle market doesn't degenerate into a Wild West of clashing, or worse crashing, standards. Of course, the ideal would for a world body to set the standards for autonomous vehicles, but waiting for that could mean some other country could get a head start in developing the technologies that would later be incorporated in those standards.
The companies working on self-driving cars have complained that each state has different regulations about them. They asked the federal government to step in and make uniform regulations across the US. That's what Obama is doing.
The answer is obvious and wrong. Even in places like Germany, France, and the UK, the countries with the most highly developed public transportation systems, 85% or more of passenger miles are traveled by passenger car (and that number is increasing over time), and less than 10% by rail. http://tinyurl.com/zw7bdos So, even if we managed to achieve the same public transit ridership as, say, Germany, it would decrease the number of fatalities by maybe 10% (to get a better estimate, you have to take into split between long distance/local trips, fatality rates of public transportation, etc.). But that would be after massive spending and continuing subsidies, giving a lousy return on investment in terms of lives saved. (Incidentally, the US has the biggest rail system in the world and it is utilized nearly 100% for freight. If you were to focus more on passenger transport by long distance rail, you'd end up pushing freight traffic to the roads.)
PRT is a wonderful boondoggle for privileged middle-class snobs like you. However, when it comes to cost-efficient, sensible urban transportation that actually helps people who need public transit, buses are the right choice. Of course, they are cheap and unglamorous, so people like you don't support them. Buses also don't need massive federal spending.
Truck drivers. There sure are a lot of them in the US.
Just how many will there be when you can slap a sensors and servos package on an existing vehicle and have it drive without pause, without pay, consuming 25% less fuel and requiring less maintenance and tyre changes? How many fewer truck stops, diners, mechanics, etc?