Slashdot Mirror


Ford Plans a Fleet of Fully Autonomous Cars Operating in a Ride-Hail Service By 2021 (recode.net)

Ford will mass-produce autonomous vehicles without steering wheels by 2021, Ford chief executive Mark Fields said today at the Ford Research and Innovation Center in Palo Alto, California. Recode reports:Fields announced that the company is working toward launching a fleet of commercial, level 4 (one level below a completely autonomous system, in which drivers don't have to be engaged) vehicles in a ride-hail service by 2021. The details of that ride-hail service -- such as which company Ford will partner with to operate it -- still haven't been determined. As part of that effort, Ford is investing in Velodyne, a self-driving tech company, and is working with three other startups. Ford has acquired Israel-based computer vision and machine learning company SAIPS, struck up an exclusive licensing agreement with machine vision company Nirenberg Neuroscience LLC and, as previously announced, invested in 3-D mapping startup Civil Maps.

101 comments

  1. Do not want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With much fewer cars on the roads, I'm not sure how they think they'll be able to maintain them. And with fewer insurance customers the premiums will probably explode upward for those of us that do want to continue to drive.

    1. Re:Do not want by Sowelu · · Score: 1

      I have doubts. Would autonomous ride-hailing remove people who are more or who are less valuable to insurance companies? If it removes people they don't want to cover anyway, premiums wouldn't necessarily go up.

    2. Re:Do not want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't even like automatic transmissions!

    3. Re:Do not want by stabiesoft · · Score: 3, Informative

      All I know is my state farm policy just made it crystal clear that if you are using your car logged into a ride share (with or without an active passengers) you are NOT covered for ANYTHING. If you want coverage for that add option XXX. My rates stayed exactly the same without the option. No idea what they charge for the option.

    4. Re:Do not want by Dare+nMc · · Score: 2

      > you are NOT covered for ANYTHING. If you want coverage for that add option XXX.

      FYI, the state I live in (likely true for every state) makes it crystal clear, if a insurer provides auto insurance in the state, they are required to cover accidents, even if they were used for business purposes without the proper class of insurance. They can go after the insured for premium differences, but they have to cover the accident.

    5. Re:Do not want by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 2

      Cars on roads are a utility to provide transportation.

      If you "want to drive" find a race track or lobby for Route 66 to be a place to cruise.

      I shouldn't suffer because you think cars are play things.

    6. Re:Do not want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, in time it will cost X to have insurance for a computer-driven car, and X * Y to have insurance for a human-driven car (where both X and Y are positive numbers greater than 1)

      It will become cost prohibitive for the proles to be able to drive themselves, so they will have no choice but to pick the cheaper option of having a computer drive them. Because humans are too stupid and error prone to be able to drive. Being able to drive a car (as a human) will become a luxury.

  2. subject by Sowelu · · Score: 3, Funny

    Thank you for choosing Johnny Cab

    1. Re:subject by HumanWiki · · Score: 0

      Thank you for choosing Johnny Cab

      Sue me, d*ck head.

    2. Re:subject by Lije+Baley · · Score: 2

      "Hello, I'm Johnny Cab, where can I take you tonight?"

      GET MY ASS TO MARS!!!

      --
      Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
    3. Re:subject by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      I need an number and a street

  3. Destined to REMOVE suicide from suicide truck bomb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But then it is Ford.

  4. Interesting by ErichTheRed · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Your Car in the Cloud.

    Makes sense given the sentiment everyone seems to have about not owning anything these days. Renting living space is way up, companies aren't buying their own computers and data centers anymore, companies don't even own their own core assets like buildings and office furniture. Everything is a creaky tower of outsourcing from the coffee pots to the building management systems.

    I'd actually be happier if Ford ended up doing this first instead of Google. I love the idea of a self-driving car, but don't really like the idea of Google having full access to yet another facet of everyone's lives.

    1. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First people bitched about not being able to own their own digital content.
      Then they bitched about not owning their own hardware to run it on.
      But they loved rental housing because it was more convenient and fit their lifestyle.
      They will love rental cars for the same reason. They will learn to love it in all aspects of their lives. Rental food (restaurants), rental entertainment, rental everything. And they will love it out of convenience. But they will simultaneously complain about not owning anything.

      Cognitive dissonance will be complete. They will not own their own lives.

      captcha: subsume

    2. Re:Interesting by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sometimes it just makes sense. Leasing instead of owning means you have a lot more flexibility, your capital isn't tied up, and if you lease something that turns out to be not to your liking, your headache will be an organisational rather than a financial one. My brother's small company actually owned their office but had to move to something larger, and then that office turned into a financial millstone around their necks (try selling any office space in this area post 2008, ha ha). Same happens with people who have to move for whatever reason (or worse: go through a divorce) and need to sell their house, but can't.

      In the long run, owning is cheaper and you can do whatever you want to your property, but in a lot of cases that freedom isn't very important to people or companies. And when it comes to cars, I suspect that it will be a lot cheaper to rent an autonomous car instead of owning one in case that (second) car is not used daily. There is some convenience to owning a car; you can leave your crap in there and have it as dirty or clean as you want, it's always there to be used at a moment's notice. But if you're not using it every day anyway, who cares?

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    3. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is how people are enslaved. Give them everything they need but at a moments notice they can be cut off and will have no way to fight back.

      This also makes it harder and harder for individuals to build real wealth. Real wealth is built by owning means of production. Most people think of that as a factory but in reality it is every tool and object you have that can be productive. Cars, kitchen utensils, screw drivers, lawn mowers, power tools, your home, etc. If you own these items then you own tiny pieces of what makes production and maintenance of goods possible. If you own things and inflation goes crazy you don't have to keep paying more and more for the same thing. If you own something and lose your job or the economy tanks - you can carry on with many aspects of your life.

      Ownership means independence from relying on someone who can change the terms on you at any time. And the terms will change.

    4. Re:Interesting by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      I'd actually be happier if Ford ended up doing this first instead of Google. I love the idea of a self-driving car, but don't really like the idea of Google having full access to yet another facet of everyone's lives.

      Well, I'm delighted to inform you that I have some bad news for you!

      Google and Ford will create a joint venture to build self-driving vehicles with Google’s technology, a huge step by both companies toward a new business of automated ride sharing,

      It's not Ford doing this, it's Google and Ford. ;)

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    5. Re:Interesting by Kjella · · Score: 1

      There is some convenience to owning a car; you can leave your crap in there and have it as dirty or clean as you want, it's always there to be used at a moment's notice. But if you're not using it every day anyway, who cares?

      Well it's also available during crunch times like Christmas, Easter, Thanksgiving and so on. The airplanes are full, the trains are full, the buses are full and if autonomous cars are profit-optimized for normal traffic you can be sure they are full too so short term leases might not be available when you need them. As for long term leases, unlike a house or office building cars are mobile if Detroit goes to hell you can always sell it in New York, California or some 40+ other states. If the whole economy from coast to coast has gone down the drain you probably have bigger problems. I'm thinking most people will either own the car or hail one like a cab, not lease it unless they need a particular car for a particular job or for a particular time.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    6. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But ownership is inconvenient. Think of the work involved that could be better spent playing video games. Much easier to revolt against the people who've built up capital and take it.

    7. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The change to buying services over assets is often seen as people owning less and becoming more vulnerable, or at least less secure, and I guess it can mean that; after all at least if you own your house and your car you have some assets if you fall on hard times and hadn't saved. That said I think the issue there is people's inability or aversion to saving for the future. I certainly don't see it as some agent of a dystopian future.

      Your assumptions about owning things meaning that you can go on more easily if you lose your job is only true if you didn't save money by not buying and/or didn't save the money saved; unless you own your own refinery then you're still going to be reliant on savings to use your car whether you also have monthly payments or not. Sure it can be an inflation hedge, and in the UK owning property has been like a magic ticket to wealth for many many people due to house price inflation, but ask someone who bought at peak in Tokyo how well they benefited from owning vs renting.

      This mystical 'they' who can cut you off seems like paranoia to me. Sure Ford could refuse to rent me a car, or ramp up prices, but if they don't have a monopoly (which is an issue whether I want to rent or buy) then I can go somewhere else. If anything paying for services makes it harder to be 'enslaved'. It's easier to move, change jobs etc if you don't have to deal with buying/selling assets that are often worth more than the rest of your belongings combined.

    8. Re:Interesting by Gussington · · Score: 1

      I'd actually be happier if Ford ended up doing this first instead of Google. I love the idea of a self-driving car, but don't really like the idea of Google having full access to yet another facet of everyone's lives.

      I don't either, but I also don't like the idea of latest product offering being 20 year old tech. Seriously, car manufactures were still selling cars with cassette players in them only a few years ago, and most still don't offer Bluetooth as standard today. A car is just technology, it needs to be run by technology-minded companies.

    9. Re:Interesting by Gussington · · Score: 1

      This is how people are enslaved. Give them everything they want but at a moments notice they can be cut off and will have no way to fight back.

      Needs are managed by the government, wants are open to the free market. If Facebook or Google disappeared overnight, there would be more freedom, not less.

    10. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you own your house free and clear your monthly expenses are generally 1/3th less
      those savings will stretch a lot further with 1/3th less expenses

  5. A hop, skip, and a jump by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    It won't be too long after such driverless 'services' are implemented when the organs of state security and corporations (but I repeat myself) will run real-time scans on a customers' finances; any found debts, back taxes, or warrants (real and imagined) will alter their 'final destination' to debtors' prison.



    What? It was all there in the half-point font EULA.

    1. Re:A hop, skip, and a jump by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      and will rundown people on the FBI wanted list. No court for you just death without the cost of a trail

    2. Re: A hop, skip, and a jump by BlytheBowman · · Score: 1

      So when this happens, do the doors lock, steel panels roll over all windows including the windshield, and the seatbelt release button disables Cause, I would bail out, and if I have to, I will smash everything inside of the car to do so.

  6. By 2021? Bollocks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So in (less than) five years they're going to perfect (almost) fully autonomous driving, when today's efforts are so ass poor they can barely cope with highways, let alone all the crap that happens in the middle of the city?

    This is almost as laughable as Tesla's time frames.

    The only way they'll have this ready in 5 years is if the cars are restricted to their own physically segregated lane (by which I mean a barrier, not a painted line) and even then it'll be a functional disaster.

    1. Re:By 2021? Bollocks. by dwillden · · Score: 1

      Have you seen what Google's cars are currently capable of? They actually do very well. And are better at anticipating potential threats than human drivers in the cars around them. Wish I had a link to it handy but I don't have access to youtube at work, but I recently watched a video about the Google cars and they showed several scenarios showing what the car was seeing. In one example a bicyclist was coming from the left, the Google car saw it, identified it and that it was not likely to stop at the intersection but just zip through trying to beat the light but failing. Sure enough that is exactly what happened and when the light turned green the Google car remained at a stop as the car to the left (which had a better view of the approaching bike) started to pull forward and almost hit the bike. At the pace tech advances I can fully see this being in wide deployment in just five years.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    2. Re:By 2021? Bollocks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google's cars are not capable of doing anything that autonomous cars twenty years ago were not capable of. They can just do it in real time at highway speeds.

  7. Just like FBI --- FUCKED ON RACE DAY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Just to manufacture the machinery to build the vehicles will take massive amounts of oil. Just one tire takes something like 11 gallons of oil.

    This is not useful nor is it safe nor is it green. It is job creation and Wall Street equity pumping. No steering wheel means your cars would rely on what? Computers. Any idea who will want control over those computers? The same ones who want control over your computers right now.

    Fucking dead spies.

    1. Re:Just like FBI --- FUCKED ON RACE DAY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This.

      They are inviting themselves to control of your life under the guise of "your convenience".

      Saying anything about it being green is just flat out lying.

    2. Re:Just like FBI --- FUCKED ON RACE DAY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget about electric cars claiming to be green but there is no network of charging stations. If you made everybody's cars electric, after the huge waste of limited oil you would have a government in control (remotely) of all transportation. This is why you kill the spies today, not in a year from now.

    3. Re:Just like FBI --- FUCKED ON RACE DAY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who is "they"? There are a lot of posts for this submission here saying that it will be more convenient and getting upvotes. Is slashdot in on the conspiracy or is this what people really want? Should I start wearing tinfoil?

  8. Because.. Lawsuit? by s.petry · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I know we all want cool automation, but just like Tesla is seeing the litigators won't let it happen. Fix laws and maybe.

    Simple fact: Google cars get into wrecks too, and they are not doing any Freeway driving. The cars are doing 10 miles under the speed limit on roads (probably to increase safety), which causes some of the wrecks. Try driving down El Camino at 25 MP/h because "Google Car" and you will become impatient too.

    Yup, I'm a cynic but also a realist. Current laws are going to stop automakers long before anything is in widespread use.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:Because.. Lawsuit? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      I know we all want cool automation, but just like Tesla is seeing the litigators won't let it happen. Fix laws and maybe.

      I'm seeing 1 settled lawsuit, 1 class action, and 1 'possibly liable' over the autopilot death.

      What I'm not seeing more lawsuits than I'd expect against any given company. The site that mentioned the class action said that it's almost certainly going to be tossed out in court, because it's tying stock price declines after news that a Tesla car had caught fire. 3 cars in total, all 3 after serious collisions. It's alleging securities fraud because Tesla didn't disclose that the battery pack could be pierced by road debris and catch fire, despite honestly getting the highest safety ratings*, and the news of such supposedly depressed sales which might of cost those who purchased securities money.

      *Which aren't actually about the car at all, but survivability for the people IN the car.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    2. Re:Because.. Lawsuit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do think it is the laws that are broken? Should be make it harder for the end user to litigate after $big corp fucks them up real good?

    3. Re:Because.. Lawsuit? by s.petry · · Score: 1

      You are not seeing cases which were dropped, for which there are at least a few cases. You also can't measure the impact to sales because of the media coverage of those few suits. Given the landscape and tiny percentage of people driving Tesla's and using the Autopilot feature, you don't see this as a legal challenge as it gains adoption?

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    4. Re:Because.. Lawsuit? by johanw · · Score: 2

      > I know we all want cool automation

      I prefer not this kind of automation because it will eventually be forced uppon everyone (except the very rich), remove freedom (you have to plan each drive beforehand) and increase mass surveillance.

    5. Re:Because.. Lawsuit? by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

      Have you heard of lobbyists?

      Pretty sure Google and Apple have a few.

    6. Re:Because.. Lawsuit? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Dropped cases mean that they really didn't have a shot in the first place. Impacts to sales? I'm going to note that Teslas have shown themselves to be extremely safe - the drivers all walked away from the 3 car fires the class action suit was about. The Autopilot death was one of a handful of deaths in a Tesla, and an interested buyer can simply tell themselves that that guy was being an idiot.

      Somebody researching the car that might be turned off by those news items can look at the death rates for other vehicles on the road and note that they're all higher.

      As for the Autopilot feature - Tesla has shielded themselves pretty well by labeling it as an alpha feature and not a true autopilot where you don't have to still monitor the vehicle. They also have live updates, so fixes can be deployed over the air.

      Roughly speaking, after the car fires, Tesla stock took dips, but sales weren't actually affected, so the stock prices recovered.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  9. In olden days. by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Funny

    (This is not totally all my comment, but based on something I saw on CL of all places)

    In olden days when someone was driving their car and had a heart attack and died, the car would veer off the road and just crash. But instead in the age of driverless cars that dead body is simply going to be served up at the destination, albeit somewhat ripe.

    Imagine the fun when little Johnny runs out to greet the car that brought his dear granddad to Johnny's birthday party!

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:In olden days. by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      Name one person who had a heart attack and veered off the road and died.

      Sorry, I couldn't find just one: had heart attack and died while driving

      You can't spin your bullshit so hard that you base *an implied assertion* [need electric cars to save people from being killed by heart attacked drivers]... on craig's list.

      Um .. that wasn't my premise. And where did I even mention electric cars?

      You are out of your fuckin mind.

      The fact remains you will have more problems with spies in control of your car networks than you will have safety from dead drivers wrecking into parades because they had heart attacks.

      You are out of your fuckin mind, faggot.

      Or mention that I was worried about parades?

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:In olden days. by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      In the future the car will recognize the occupant died, and text the person they were driving to with the message "Sorry, died en route, not coming today. :-(" then drive them to a morgue.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    3. Re:In olden days. by BenBoy · · Score: 1

      " ... The route recalculation is complete; proceeding to the nearest Google coroner-partner."
      Easy peasy; it's all in the TOS for which you clicked "OK" at the beginning of the trip.

    4. Re:In olden days. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Harry (Cat's in the Cradle) Capin.

    5. Re:In olden days. by dwillden · · Score: 1

      No the car will recognize that the passenger's heart is in fibrillation and will redirect to the nearest medical facility while pinging the medical facility about the condition, the police about the emergency and the surrounding traffic to notify that it is going to be exceeding normal traffic flow behaviors. Thus instead of dying and either ruining a birthday or killing someone else when the car crashes, Grandfather instead is delivered to a nearby urgent care facility just as a doctor rushes out the door with a defib pack saving his life so he is there for little Johnny's next birthday as well.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
  10. Sort-of want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While I applaud them for picking a specific use case to concentrate on, I wish they would have picked something that transported non-people like packages, food, etc. In this sense it would reduce risk (particularly for a 5 year operating development timeframe where Ford is frantically hiring people because it's got nada) and allow well defined routes. It allows tailoring the scope nicely and opens the door open to other mitigations that may ease various state and local governments concerns (like adding yellow flashers to delivery vehicles). Governments do not like new ideas very well, and you should never underestimate any government's ability to say "this makes me uneasy, so no".

    CAPTCHA: unmanned

  11. %%% LATEST FBI AGENDA HERE ON SLASHDOT %%% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wondering what spies have on their minds today? Visit Slashdot.org for the latest Microsoft, Facebook, Google, and yes even Twitter news.

    Have a splendid day folks. No worries, we at the FBI are working hard to protect you from the moles we don't know about yet.

    1. Re:%%% LATEST FBI AGENDA HERE ON SLASHDOT %%% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      %%% LATEST FBI AGENDA HERE ON SLASHDOT %%%

      Special greetz lulz and thanks out to my homies at Softpedia, ZDNET, CNET, and fbi.gov for the constant bundling of malware in my freeware for decades. Better than reading about the adware is to just get your malware directly from them and find out for yourselves.

      This is especially great for Windows 10 Anniversary users. You get all the bundled free malware adware and spyware without the need for any of that reading the security patch notes. Microsoft are handy enough to just remove the bother for your convenience.

      Stay tight FBI, we know where you are.

  12. Ford: Sued out of existence... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... Introduce cars passengers can't control in 2021, see them crushed by insurance lawsuits in 2022. Unless, of course, they can totally change liability law before that.

    1. Re:Ford: Sued out of existence... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .. this of course if there even is a currency in USA in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022.

    2. Re:Ford: Sued out of existence... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's adorable how you think you're a world-weary cynic.

    3. Re:Ford: Sued out of existence... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot: News for luddites, stuff to complain about.

    4. Re:Ford: Sued out of existence... by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      If Ford are smart, they'll have bought insurance for that.

    5. Re:Ford: Sued out of existence... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who has spoken with most of germany's top-level auto execs about selfdriving cars and their legal ramifications i can tell you that car companies have a simple solution for the whole insurance issue (applies for EU, maybe also US): If a car is in driverless / autonomous mode, the car manufacturer assumes liability.

      I know it sounds strange that a car company would actually take that risk, but as BMWs Klaus Fröhlich (chief of R&D) told me last may, car companies dont expect law makers to come up with a solution in time for the first autonomous / semi-autonomous cars to hit public roads. Assuming liability for their selfdriving cars seems to be the only viable option.

      In BMWs case this liability-strategy will also extend to ride sharing - as BMW plans to expand ride sharing significantly.

  13. About the only place I see this happening by DrXym · · Score: 0

    Is on a closed circuit loop, e.g. between airport terminals and hotels, or convention centre buildings. The roads can be dedicated and one-way, the cars don't have to drive fast and there can be some guy in a booth to take over if the system breaks down.

    1. Re:About the only place I see this happening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you're just wrong.

      Because the place you WILL see this happen is on the public roads, in traffic, at highway speeds, with no guy in a booth.

      The only way you won't see it is if you're dead by 2021.

    2. Re:About the only place I see this happening by DrXym · · Score: 1
      Uhuh, sure thing. Come back to me when self driving cars are capable of driving without any human intervention or supervision whatsoever (not even Google's car is level 4), fail to safe, refuels / recharges itself, can extricate itself in every situation, can follow traffic signals, cop hand signals, road diversions, road works, floods, snow, sleet, ice, pothole and deal with hundreds of unique and intractible problems that a human taxi driver would cope with any given day.

      Then and only then we'll see if your assertion true. A more rational person who thought about the complexities of the problem would realise it won't be happening in 5 years and if it happens at all it will be in the limited form I suggest.

  14. What will the police do for revenue? by old_skul · · Score: 1

    It's a serious question.

    1. Re:What will the police do for revenue? by Aqualung812 · · Score: 2

      Do you have any evidence that their traffic ticket revenue exceeds their budget for traffic enforcement?

      Fuel, wear and tear on the cars, high-speed runs out to crash sites, multiple officers required to route traffic around crash sites, etc.

      Add to that the administrative overhead of tickets. Sending the summons, processing it through the court system, even getting paid costs money.

      Every cop I know would love to not have to walk up on a depreciation, bodies burned in a fire, or child death from an automobile wreck.
      I don't know any of them that actually enjoy handing out tickets, but they do it to avoid the aforementioned grizzly scenes.

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    2. Re:What will the police do for revenue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jaywalking. I have lived in many cities in the US and all of them had jaywalking laws which weren't enforced. Police will dig up little things they are overlooking to replace the lost revenue.

    3. Re:What will the police do for revenue? by gachunt · · Score: 1

      Hire less police officers?

    4. Re:What will the police do for revenue? by tipo159 · · Score: 1

      Do you have any evidence that their traffic ticket revenue exceeds their budget for traffic enforcement?

      Like this?

    5. Re:What will the police do for revenue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You want evidence, look at any city's budget.

      I doubt there's a city anywhere in the US that doesn't make a profit on traffic police. Overhead costs don't even come anywhere close to profits in most cases.

      And there is ZERO evidence that traffic tickets do anything to reduce crashes. There's evidence that traffic stops cause crashes, of course.

    6. Re:What will the police do for revenue? by b0bby · · Score: 1

      This is my hope - that there will be less cops overall, and less opportunities for people to get pulled over for driving while black and other nonsense which happens all too frequently.

  15. AI Winter by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    We have all these promises of what AI is going to accomplish (here's an explanation of driverless levels, level 4 means you'll be able to sleep in the back seat of the car. Our technology isn't close to that point yet). Even if driverless technology existed at that level right now (it doesn't), it would still take them a couple years of engineering before everything worked well enough to release.

    But with all these promises, if they aren't delivered, there could easily be another AI backlash into winter.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  16. Isn't level 4 fully autonomous? by Aqualung812 · · Score: 1

    Actually, in the course of asking this question, I found my own answer and will share with others.

    The NHTSA has levels 0 through 4, with 0 being fully driver-controlled (not even ABS, which is level 1) and level 4 being fully computer-controlled.

    The SAE uses levels 0 through 5. Level 4 is:

    The automated system can control the vehicle in all but a few environments such as severe weather. The driver must enable the automated system only when it is safe to do so. When enabled, driver attention is not required.

    So, I suppose this means that during bad weather, the service would be unavailable.

    --
    Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    1. Re:Isn't level 4 fully autonomous? by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Sounds like: weather so bad that it's not a good idea to go out on the road in the first place.

    2. Re:Isn't level 4 fully autonomous? by b0bby · · Score: 1

      I think this also means that the cars will be restricted to certain areas where they have high quality 3d mapping. The example I read was taxis in Manhattan; they might be restricted to Manhattan, plus a couple of defined routes to the airports etc.

  17. The zmobie attacks you by s.petry · · Score: 2

    Yeah, there are rare occasions where companies do fuck people, but nobody is making people push the autopilot button in a Tesla now. The way you framed your question tells me more than I need to know about your political leanings, just in case you care.

    How do we know that laws are in need of work? Because we have, and have had for decades, Lawyers who chase ambulances and nitpick to make money and cause harm to consumers and businesses in the process. Since I know you will attempt to fabricate reality by claiming nuh-uh, here is an easy citation.

    Laws are a problem, as is rampant ignorance and cowardice.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:The zmobie attacks you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't say anyone was forcing them to push the button, now did I? I'm saying that if you provide a good, or service doesn't do what it is advertised to do, and that results in harm to me, I expect you to pay for the damages.

      Not that hard to understand, now is it?

      Perhaps it all depends upon your definition of "rare". Go read a fucking newspaper.

      Oh, and pray tell, what are my political leanings, genius? Stereotype much?

  18. I Can't Wait! by kackle · · Score: 1

    Death and slower traffic for all!

    Driving is harder and more "quirky" than any computer will ever be able to comprehend. Don't believe me? The best computers on the planet, after countless revisions and countless years of testing (i.e., our brains), still aren't perfect when it comes to the task. It is comical to me to see engineers again believe they are "more clever" and will overcome everything if enough tech. is thrown at it. Mark my words, this will be a slow-motion clogging of our roadways as such cars get befuddled by a simple plastic bag blowing about the freeway.

    "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

  19. I want to be the dealer for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since most states are trying to keep Tesla out of direct sales, do they really think they'll be allowed to do this without going through a dealer?

  20. FMC is smoking crack by kheldan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In 5 years we still won't have 'fully autonomous, self-driving' cars, they'll still be full of bugs and flaws, and there's no fucking way I'd step into one and have no manual control over direction and speed.

    * * * DO NOT WANT !!! * * *

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:FMC is smoking crack by seven+of+five · · Score: 1

      It may be possible to run a fleet of not-yet-ready-for-prime-time autonomous cars along a few restricted routes and not in bad weather. Fewer unknowns to deal with.

    2. Re:FMC is smoking crack by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      In 5 years we still won't have 'fully autonomous, self-driving' cars, they'll still be full of bugs and flaws,

      Well, gotta agree in part but in part only.

      I'm quite confident that by the time fully autonomous cars are released for sale to the general public (or for use as automated taxi service carrying passengers) they'll be a lot safer already than the average human driven car.

      Why? Because it's in the companies' interest. They have to prove their worth, everybody is very skeptical about cars being able to drive themselves safely, so every single accident will be all over the news (just look at Tesla's autopilot crash coverage). They must gain the trust of the general public and the only way to do this is by putting a very well developed computerised car on the road.

      This won't be ready for mass production in five years from now. It eventually will be, but not then. At this moment there is no working prototype that can reach such levels of confidence. Google at least is getting very far, but not sure if they're there already. Ford I never heard of any experiments, so no idea how far they really are, but I doubt they're far enough or we'd have heard about it.

      This prototype is what I'm waiting for. The first fleet of maybe a dozen taxis operating in a big city, maybe with a human driver to operate an emergency stop button just in case but otherwise operating autonomously. When that is there, it's indeed just a few years for mass production.

    3. Re:FMC is smoking crack by sstrick · · Score: 1

      Do they have to make them flawless? Or just better then the average human driver who is also buggy and unpredictable.

      --

      "Do you think we could wipe out world hunger forever if scientists figured out how to make AOL's Free CD's edible?"-
    4. Re:FMC is smoking crack by kheldan · · Score: 1

      they'll be a lot safer already than the average human driven car

      Still don't want one and I wouldn't step into one that doesn't have a full set of manual controls for a human driver who can take control of the vehicle on a moments notice. Luckily for me it won't likely be in my lifetime that they'll allow anything on the road for which 'self driving' means anything more than 'sophisticated autopilot' and all cars will still have a full set of controls for a human driver. Again: DO NOT WANT. IDGAF how safe anyone claims they'll be, DO NOT WANT. I work in high tech, I know better!

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    5. Re:FMC is smoking crack by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Let the accident statistics speak for themselves, and see what happens. I for one would be happy to see all those incompetent human drivers off the road, would make traffic a lot safer and predictable.

    6. Re:FMC is smoking crack by DirkDaring · · Score: 1

      Have current taxis taken them off the road? No, and neither will this.

    7. Re:FMC is smoking crack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every time I get into a car the driving software is very flawed and laden with bugs. It's so bad that over a million people a year die on the roads currently.

    8. Re:FMC is smoking crack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have current taxis taken them off the road?

      Neither have current trains, or current horses, or current chocolate bars, but I'm not sure of the relevance of any of these points.

    9. Re:FMC is smoking crack by kheldan · · Score: 1

      Here's the thing: As strange as it sounds? I'd much rather be the victim of an automobile accident that a human driver is responsible for, rather than some damned piece of software, because the manufacturer of the vehicle at fault will ultimately be who is sued over it -- and they'll lawyer the hell up way more than I ever could, and ultimately I'll get no justice. You can't put a piece of software on a witness stand in a civil or criminal trial; they'll claim "Oh, our software is thoroughly tested to Federal standards and passes all the tests, it couldn't possibly be at fault, this meatbag of a human driver over here must somehow have caused the accident regardless of evidence to the contrary!", no human programmer or any other human being will be held responsible, and as previously stated I will get NO JUSTICE. I say FUCK THAT NOISE; I'll keep driving myself, thank you very much, and I'll keep speakout against so-called 'self-driving, autonomous cars' because I think the whole concept sucks ass. The most I'll accept is this functionality as a sophisticated autopilot, or as a sophisticated collision-avoidance system; I will NOT accept a box on wheels with a seat and no controls for a human driver. EVER. The idea has all the appeal of being one of the cattle in line at a slaughterhouse.

      You want to complain about incomptent drivers? Then lobby for reforms in driver education, training, and testing (which in my opinion are way overdue), and stricter laws regarding getting incompetent drivers out from behind the steering wheel; do not take away MY driving privilege, being a safe and competent driver, just to make way for your dystopian 'self-driving car' future, damnit!

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  21. autonomous taxi services are the real game-changer by roca · · Score: 1

    More than any other change in the car industry, autonomous taxi services would make things massively better. Once you make it cheaper and more convenient for most people to use the taxi service than to own your own car, then:

    You can customize your car to the journey. One-person 3km trip? Hail a short-range one-person electric car. No need to drive a big car just because you need it once in a while. This leads to a massive reduction in average vehicle size on the roads, and big reductions in energy consumption.

    Most people won't need driveways and garages anymore. Extend your house or put in a garden.

    Large reduction in the need for on-street and off-street parking. Replace on-street parking with pickup/dropoff bays and/or bike lanes and/or more general lanes.

    On one hand, this would reduce public transport usage by providing a more convenient alternative for many people. On the other hand, this would increase public transport usage by reducing instances where people drive from A to B only because they'll need their car to get from B to C. Both of those cases are wins.

  22. Re:autonomous taxi services are the real game-chan by tomhath · · Score: 1

    Once you make it cheaper and more convenient

    It'll never be more convenient than using your own car or calling a taxi driven by a real person.

    Cheaper? That depends on how often it's used. Outside of college campuses and urban areas, people use their cars a couple of times a day; it'll be a challenge for this to be useful by commuters because of the sheer number of vehicles that have to be available for a couple of hours each day, then sitting idle the rest of the day. Sounds like a niche that replaces Uber to me.

  23. So what happens..... by BlytheBowman · · Score: 1

    ....when you are in one of these steeringwheelless cars, and a carload of gangbangers pulls up to you wanting to rob/rape/murder you? No steeringwheel = no chance for evasive maneuvers.

    1. Re:So what happens..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lock the doors, call 911, and write out your last will and testament.

      Or, better, don't live in a shithole full of gangbangers wanting to rob/rape/murder you.

    2. Re:So what happens..... by smelch · · Score: 1

      It does bring up an interesting point of how people will change their behavior when they know the person driving a car can't just run them over if they block the car. I live in a city where the good parts and the "bad" parts aren't separated by very much distance. If I'm driving from home to work I have to drive by several homeless people. Being at a stop light and having a guy stand in front of my car while another guy tries to shake me down would be very uncomfortable.

      I'm not really that worried it would happen, but we also don't know how people will adapt to that. I imagine in the beginning it would take the form of pedestrians being impolite once they know they can walk in front of a car at an intersection and it'll stop. I already experience slow moving pedestrians entering a crosswalk at the tail-end of a stoplight's cycle once or twice a month. That type of person might become more bold in their behavior. The overly aggressive homeless person that won't take the first few "no"s might also become more bold.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
  24. Re:autonomous taxi services are the real game-chan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    people still have garages and drive ways... I'm thinking we'll see companies "renting" out those spaces from regular users in exchange for a discount on the transportation services...

    You agree to allow one maybe two cars park at your house, maybe hook them up to the power grid if they are electric and they let you use it sometimes.... some one in your neighborhood orders a cab, that car disconnects from power and drives over to their house...

    That car needs scheduled matinance? it drives it self to the shop...

    But you can "host" that car for them in off peak periods because no one is going to want to have a parking lot full of cars, and no a centralized location for those cars means longer wait times for pickups compared to a distributed location...

  25. more clickbait . . . by swell · · Score: 1

    Yes, you may want to think that this announcement comes from the Ford engineering department as the result of solving a number of intractable problems related to autonomous vehicles.

    Sorry. It's from the marketing department. Nothing has been solved, but the important thing is that even before Slashdot got hold of the story, many others did. The name Ford has again been associated with headlines which will make Ford owners feel good, and Ford investors will be happy. It's 'obviously' not just marketing hype because Ford did invest some actual money to back up the mirage.

    Will anyone, after the passage of five years, point to this press release and complain that Ford deceived them? No, that's part of the plan. It's a bit sad that Slashdot is part of the ignorant mass that falls for this scam.

    --
    ...omphaloskepsis often...
  26. Driverless Uber Car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this mean I can rent out my car as a driverless Uber?
    I can sit on my ass at home, and let my car do all the work.

  27. First GM, now Ford. by mykro76 · · Score: 1

    "General Motors announced in 2005 that it expects it could have a self-driving car that could pilot itself in heavy traffic at a speed of up to 60 mph in production by 2008." From: http://www.elon.edu/docs/e-web...

  28. Re:autonomous taxi services are the real game-chan by wvmarle · · Score: 1

    People will likely use it a lot less than they use their own cars now. Instead of taking a car for that 1 km ride to the supermarket, they'd walk or take a bike. Many short trips would simply not be done by car, but by other means.

  29. Re:autonomous taxi services are the real game-chan by roca · · Score: 1

    Owning my own car isn't all that convenient. I have to have it serviced. I have to refuel it. It's not always the ideal model for the task at hand. Every so often I have the hellish experience of buying another one. I have to juggle usage with other family members (or spend significantly more money for another vehicle that'll be less used).

    Autonomous taxis would be more convenient than taxis driven by real people simply because you could afford to have a lot more of them on the road.

    Even in rush hour, it would be common for an autonomous car to complete multiple trips so there's still a significant increase in utilization there. Also, sane road rules would give one-person micro-cars preferential treatment over space-wasting big cars.

  30. Re:Destined to REMOVE suicide from suicide truck b by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

    I was thinking that Ford can't make the user interface of their car radios work (neither can GM) reliably. Mustangs are the only cars I've ever had to actually reboot. Shouldn't congress act quickly on behalf of the American people to stop this from happening?

    The biggest problem with car companies making self driving vehicles is that they are car companies. I was just talking yesterday with some people about my BMW i3 which is an excellent example of the fall of a great company. While the things like the interior, motors and chassis are amazing in the vehicle. There are just SOOOOO many bugs in the design that they should hire Toyota (who has done electronics and software for decades) to fix it. Let's not even get into stuff like doors which don't properly close (checked the floor models too, design problem) or trunk covers which seem designed for a totally different car. And don't get me started on the touch sensor for the door lock. I drove a 2004 Prius for 11 years and the doors locked and unlocked instantly every time. The i3 requires touching, holding, rubbing... I swear, just to lock and unlock my car, I'm putting my marriage in jeopardy.

    See, car companies have been more or less forced into modernizing with computers and technology. The problem is, they have absolutely no f-ing clue what they're doing. They could try and buy the tech but it wouldn't be integrated and would likely cost too much. They could develop the tech, but they have no idea how to build and maintain something that complex. You see it when the apps on the computers in the cars are the same ones a year later than they were when the car was first designed. You also see it when the API/SDKs for the computers are closed and require licensing. You see it when the computer needs to be reboot while driving down the road and it can't been done without stopping the car and powering it off. You see it when the iPhone app for the car needs 1-2 minutes to lock or unlock the doors.

    I think that the real future for car companies is not to actually make their own cars anymore. I think that car companies will become manufacturing facilities for new companies with the skills required to design the next generation of transportation. I would much rather a Google, Apple or Microsoft vehicle drives me somewhere than a Ford or BMW. It's not that I believe that those three companies make good code. It's that I believe those three companies know how to maintain technology.

    Oh... and so far as I know, the computer in my brand new, fully loaded BMW i3 is not able to be upgraded and likely will never be. So, while the vehicle chassis will likely never need changes, the computer which should improve and change with the times ... won't. The developers will at some point decide they need a better CPU or graphics and that will be end of life for my car.

  31. Re:autonomous taxi services are the real game-chan by b0bby · · Score: 1

    You're not an American, are you? ;)

  32. Re:autonomous taxi services are the real game-chan by wvmarle · · Score: 1

    I know, I know, that'd be 0.621371 miles for you :-)

  33. Bots taking over? All I see is Lost Livelihoods! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Al I see is Lost Jobs! as if there are enough jobs now? let's take away taxi drivers, truckers, delivery trucks.
    what are we going to do? subsidize them?! Get rid of things that need electricity or Lose your independence & be bound to them!
    If it needs to be plugged in or fed batteries I am NOT BUYING.
    P.G.&E smart meters took away so many good jobs = guys I know who did that work Loved it! being outside, not in a confine.
    Start refusing to let automation take over! refuse to tell the "robot" on the phone MAKE THEM Hire a Real Person!

  34. Re:autonomous taxi services are the real game-chan by b0bby · · Score: 1

    Over half a mile?!? No way am I walking or biking that far! :)