Ford Just Invested $1 Billion In Self-Driving Cars (usatoday.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ford Just Invested $1 Billion In Self-Driving Cars (usatoday.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on Saturday February 11, 2017 @05:34AM from the car-wars dept.

An anonymous reader quote USA Today: Ford Motor is betting $1 billion on the world's self-driving car future. The Detroit automaker announced Friday that it would allocate that sum over five years to a new autonomous car startup called Argo AI, which is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pa., and will have offices in Michigan and California. Ford's financial outlay is part of a continuing investment strategy anchored to transforming the car and truck seller into a mobility company with a hand in ride-hailing, ride-sharing and even bicycle rentals.
Lucas123 writes: Argo AI founders CEO Bryan Salesky, and COO Peter Rander are alumni of Carnegie Mellon National Robotics Engineering Center and former leaders on the self-driving car teams of Google and Uber, respectively. Argo AI's team will include roboticists and engineers from inside and outside of Ford working to develop a new software platform for Ford's fully autonomous vehicle, expected in 2021. Ford said it could also license the software to other carmakers.

113 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Better late than never! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-11 05:37 · Score: 0, Interesting

Looks like the penny dropped.
In Star Wars flying is for droids, but in reality driving is for robots.
They can leave competitive driving for the car enthusiasts that want to shift gears despite automatics doing it better than humans these days.
I'd much rather have my coffee in piece, read a book or sleep another 30 minutes!
1. Re:Better late than never! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-11 06:00 · Score: 0
  
  No half measures. I have my coffee in peace or in pieces.
2. Re:Better late than never! by 0100010001010011 · 2017-02-11 06:10 · Score: 0
  
  despite automatics doing it better than humans these days.
  That depends on the technology used in the automatic.
  Slushbox fluid coupling automatics still take a hit in MPG because of the physics.
  Dual clutch automatics are more or less manual transmissions with the clutching and gear movement automated.
  They're different beasts.
3. Re:Better late than never! by johanw · 2017-02-11 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  In Star Wars, only Obi-One believes that. Anakin and Han Solo disagree.
4. Re:Better late than never! by ShanghaiBill · 2017-02-11 07:40 · Score: 1, Offtopic
  
  Dual clutch automatics are more or less manual transmissions with the clutching and gear movement automated.
  Exactly. Other than being automated, they aren't really automatic.
5. Re:Better late than never! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-11 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  You are a delusional fool if you think the tech is even close to being ready. That coupled with the networked nature of these things will cause a privacy and hacking nightmare.
6. Re:Better late than never! by HornWumpus · 2017-02-11 08:10 · Score: 0
  
  There are use cases that automatics just can't do. Downshifting in anticipation of a corner is the main one. With paddle shifters to override the 'automatic' features they become almost as good as a real transmission.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
7. Re:Better late than never! by OrangeTide · 2017-02-11 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  They're different beasts.
  The end user probably doesn't care about the details, only the results.
  
  --
  “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
8. Re:Better late than never! by ShanghaiBill · 2017-02-11 10:08 · Score: 1, Offtopic
  
  There are use cases that automatics just can't do. Downshifting in anticipation of a corner is the main one.
  That is because the transmission doesn't know about the corner. But a SDC will know, so it can pre-shift just like a human can.
9. Re:Better late than never! by drinkypoo · 2017-02-11 10:47 · Score: 0
  
  Slushbox fluid coupling automatics still take a hit in MPG because of the physics.
  Not really. The ZF8 and 9 both deliver superior mileage because they have a deep overdrive and they shift to it aggressively (the latter of which is why they suck.)
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
10. Re:Better late than never! by LostMyBeaver · 2017-02-11 15:48 · Score: 2
  
  Agreed!!!
  
  Let's just stop making the cars and do whatever is possible to kill the enthusiasm that has convinced Ford to make a huge investment in this technology. I think we should just give up and all become naysayers and just keep doing it the same way we always have.
11. Re:Better late than never! by jandersen · 2017-02-11 22:24 · Score: 2
  
  But would people actually want to OWN a self-driving car? It seems to me that they would be perfect for public transport: when you need to go somewhere, you attract one with your phone app, pay what amounts to a bus ticket, and go to your destination. No more buses running empty of with just one passenger, no car in your driveway taking up space and costing money. It would be great, IMO.
Uber is dead by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-11 05:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

And this is why. Several companies are set to invade their space.
1. Re:Uber is dead by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-11 05:59 · Score: 0
  
  I wouldn't be so hasty.
  Why would I own a car when I could summon a self-driving car with an app - or better yet, just get into one of them already parked in a parking lot?
  If self-driving cars become a big deal there is no way I'd own my own. I'd rather pay a monthly fee for a service and let someone else handle all the hassle and maintenance.
  If anything companies like Uber are a way for Ford to stay in business.
  Taxi drivers and truckers though - those are jobs on the way out.
2. Re:Uber is dead by johanw · 2017-02-11 06:29 · Score: 0
  
  Probably because it will be much more expensive for a lot of people: those who don't care about driving a brand new car. And you have to plan ahead - the less planning, the higher the price, just as with airplane tickets.
3. Re:Uber is dead by fluffernutter · 2017-02-11 06:45 · Score: 0
  
  Why would I own a car if I could call a taxi? It's the same thing. If you think summoning a self driving car will be cheaper than taking a taxi today you're dreaming.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
4. Re:Uber is dead by ShanghaiBill · 2017-02-11 07:48 · Score: 2
  
  If you think summoning a self driving car will be cheaper than taking a taxi today you're dreaming.
  Most of the cost of a taxi is to pay the driver. A self-driving-taxi will not only be cheaper, but likely by an order of magnitude. Instead of a $30 ride to the airport, it will be $3. For most people, that will be cheaper than owning a car. My family has 3 cars (mine, my wife's, and my daughter's). Once SDTs are available, we will likely get rid of at least one of them, and maybe two.
5. Re:Uber is dead by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-11 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  Why would I own a car when I could summon a self-driving car with an app - or better yet, just get into one of them already parked in a parking lot?
  Because ownership comes with a host of benefits relating to convenience, like priority access and privacy.
  
  If self-driving cars become a big deal there is no way I'd own my own. I'd rather pay a monthly fee for a service and let someone else handle all the hassle and maintenance.
  Then you're a short sighted fool who's willing to trade his and everyone elses liberty and safety for his own convenience. Fuck you.
  
  Taxi drivers and truckers though - those are jobs on the way out.
  Would you trust one of these things to haul nuclear waste or toxic chemicals? How about any children you might have? Remember, these self 'driving' vehicles' software is being developed by the same people who've demonstrated they can't even secure far simpler existing devices (operating systems, cellphones etc). People avoid public transportation for obvious reasons. Removing the human drivers will not suddenly make it more convenient or less expensive.
6. Re:Uber is dead by fluffernutter · 2017-02-11 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  Companies will charge you what they can charge you. Consumer cost is not set by expense to provide the product, and the goal of a company is to mark up their service as much as they can. Consumer cost is only set by the alternatives that are available to consumers. Right now taxis cost as much as they do because they are more convenient in many situations than taking your car. So they are able to charge at a level that is more expensive than using your own vehicle. The lack of a driver won't motivate them to pass that cost savings onto consumers unless there is a more premium service putting downward pressure on them. Perhaps if there is a teleportation service that costs $50 to teleport you to the airport with your bags, then self driving cars would feel they need to beat that price and charge $3. But without any viable alternatives, they will keep charging the same as taxis cost today for providing the same service. Omitting the driver is a way for them to make more profit, not to charge you less.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
7. Re:Uber is dead by religionofpeas · 2017-02-11 08:10 · Score: 2
  
  Omitting the driver is a way for them to make more profit, not to charge you less.
  You're forgetting the concept of competition.
8. Re:Uber is dead by HornWumpus · 2017-02-11 08:12 · Score: 0
  
  For commodity products, price is closely related to cost. Cars may not be pure commodities, but taxi rides are pretty close now that 'medallions' are mooted.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
9. Re:Uber is dead by fluffernutter · 2017-02-11 08:18 · Score: 0
  
  There's no real competition. If a company is charging $1 per mile another one might charge $0.99 but they all arrive at close to the same price point.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
10. Re:Uber is dead by fluffernutter · 2017-02-11 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  Price is related to cost for taxis because they are heavily regulated. Remove the regulation and the cost skyrockets.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
11. Re:Uber is dead by religionofpeas · 2017-02-11 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  They arrive close to the same price because their costs are similar.
12. Re:Uber is dead by fluffernutter · 2017-02-11 08:33 · Score: 0
  
  So there was just an article about UPS saving all kinds of money by omitting left turns. Are you trying to say that UPS immediately lowered all their delivery costs for everyone because of this savings? No of course not, they went up if anything.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
13. Re:Uber is dead by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-11 08:37 · Score: 0
  
  Would you trust one of these things to haul nuclear waste or toxic chemicals? How about any children you might have? Remember, these self 'driving' vehicles' software is being developed by the same people who've demonstrated they can't even secure far simpler existing devices (operating systems, cellphones etc). People avoid public transportation for obvious reasons. Removing the human drivers will not suddenly make it more convenient or less expensive.
  Taking only the US, even if there is a hack that causes 1000 deaths every MONTH, then you would still be far safer without the human factor, as over 90% of road accidents are due to human error. You have no liberty if you are dead. And we are not talking about the complete lies being spun about "protecting us" against terrorists to take away our liberties (even if we had a 10000% increase in terror deaths, we would still be at nowhere near as many deaths as on the roads), we are talking about actual, real carnage every single day out there on the roads. So maybe fuck *you*?
14. Re:Uber is dead by Squiggle · 2017-02-11 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  Companies owned by humans (private, shareholders, etc) will charge what they can charge you. Self-driving fleets may start out like that, but it won't take long before we realize that we can automate management and remove ownership.
  Thus this wouldn't be the case for non-human "companies" that are essentially a symbiont that are designed to meet the transportation needs of the humans as efficiently as possible (assuming a level of oversight/control that it provides services humans want). First they will drive themselves, then they will manage themselves, then we will bootstrap a service that doesn't require ownership overhead and essentially functions "at cost" because that's how it was designed.
  
  --
  Complexity Happens
15. Re:Uber is dead by religionofpeas · 2017-02-11 08:41 · Score: 0
  
  I honestly have no idea how UPS's rates compare to other courier services, or how they've changed over time. You probably don't know either, but are just pulling the numbers out of your ass trying to make a point. But it's pretty obvious that a lower cost also lowers the optimal price point of your product, and I'm fairly sure that UPS has people that are pretty good at calculating that.
16. Re:Uber is dead by fluffernutter · 2017-02-11 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  Delivery rates have gone up over my lifetime, while efficiency in the logistics chain has been vastly improved. Prices simply don't go down.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
17. Re:Uber is dead by religionofpeas · 2017-02-11 09:08 · Score: 0
  
  First of all, there's more cost than just their left turns. Secondly, their rates vary a lot with the size of the customer. If you only send a few packages, and you don't ask for a discount, you'll pay the sucker price. Big name customers, like Amazon, get the best rates, and they will be carefully calculated based on cost. You don't want to have a big customer walk away while you still had room to lower the price and make a profit.
18. Re:Uber is dead by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-11 09:09 · Score: 0
  
  Delivery rates have gone up because USPS subsidies have been reduced allowing UPS, FedEx, and DHL to charge higher prices without people saying "fuck that" and just shipping things via USPS.
  If Uber's claim to fame is owning a fleet of self-driving cars that can be summoned by a cell phone app: the only way they will be able to maintain a competitive advantage is through maintenance infrastructure or other economies of scale.
  Uber's customer base doesn't have any brand loyalty. If Lyft started undercutting them tomorrow by 50% then Lyft would become the #1 game in town again. It's just like airline tickets: lowest price will get the majority of sales.
  Since any jackass can string together Apple and Android's mobile API to send a GPS coordinate pair encoded as a JSON string for pickup and dropoff: the only "secret sauce" is route planning and similar boilerplate optimization algorithms, and "branding". Once car manufactuers start selling fully self-driving cars: Uber will have a half dozen "me too" copycat taxi dispatch applications in every city.
  The only barrier to entry is the capital investment requirement to lease a fleet of cars. The price per mile will approach operating costs for such a startup asymptotically as the number of competitors increases. The only way Uber will be able to prevent this is (Poetically) through the use of some sort of Taxi Medallion regulator licensing requirement($X in bonding against liability for instance) to keep small operators out of the game.
19. Re:Uber is dead by fluffernutter · 2017-02-11 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  This doesn't mean the average cost per package is coming down with increases in efficiency.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
20. Re:Uber is dead by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-11 10:12 · Score: 0
  
  You're not taking into account the fragility of current robotics. Computers are faster and more consistent than humans, but only within extremely rigid parameters. When the situation falls outside them humans' superior contextual awareness wins the day.
  This tech is being pushed before it's ready and I think the likely motivations are less than moral.
  They should start by automating trains first.
  No thanks. I don't want to be anywhere near you while you're flying down the road in your automated battering ram.
21. Re:Uber is dead by ShanghaiBill · 2017-02-11 10:29 · Score: 1
  
  Price is related to cost for taxis because they are heavily regulated. Remove the regulation and the cost skyrockets.
  Uber/Lyft are basically unregulated taxis. They are cheaper than taxis. So your assertion that the price will "skyrocket" is absurd. That is exactly the opposite of what has actually happened. In the absence of regulation, anyone can offer rides.
22. Re:Uber is dead by LostMyBeaver · 2017-02-11 16:02 · Score: 1
  
  In my experience, if you can afford to buy more expensive cars (you have good credit) then you can have a car which is pretty reliable and relatively low cost to maintain. In addition, you can maintain a relatively high resell price which means that often it costs less to drive an expensive car than a cheap one over a period of 4 years. That is of course if you maintain that car properly. If you simply drive cars into the ground, the cheaper car is probably... well cheaper.
  
  So that said, if I could pay a self driving car to pick me up at around 6:30 and drive me to the nearby train station, then pick me up from the same train station around 17:00 and drive me home, I would gladly stop driving my own car. I pay about $1000 a month to drive, that includes car payments, the occasional cost of using a fast charger, parking, etc... when I consider resell value, I can adjust that to about $600 a month. If I could get driven 7km each day for about $10 a day, I would pay about $200 a month for the car and about $100 a month for the train. If there are 3 other people in the car also paying $10 a day which is extremely likely and the car is used for more trips which is also likely, that's car could likely generate $200 a day revenue. For 20 days a month on average, that would be about $4,000 per car per day. Consider car payments, insurance and charging to consume about half that. If I owned five of those cars, I would generate a mediocre income on top of my normal income.
  
  PS, I drive new cars because of things like EU control. If you own a new electric car, it cost almost nothing compared even to a gas car you got for free but is out of warranty. Consider the insanely high gas prices as well. Used electric cars are stupid because after 4 years, you might as well just toss the batteries.
23. Re:Uber is dead by LostMyBeaver · 2017-02-11 16:05 · Score: 1
  
  Companies will also try to increase their business. If you don't have to pay the driver, you can afford to decrease the rates you charge for the car.
  
  Marking up a car as much as you can is "within what the market will bare". If your goal is to be more profitable, you will exploit all avenues. You can't be someone smart enough to build a self driving car taxi company and then be so dumb as to shoot yourself in the foot by pricing yourself out of the range of what customers will pay.
24. Re: Uber is dead by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-11 19:59 · Score: 0
  
  Why would it be more expensive?
25. Re:Uber is dead by stoatwblr · 2017-02-12 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  The reason they tend to be heavily regulated is because lack of regulation has historically led to cut throat competition which invariably leads to a situation where safety is compromised and/or taxi companies start a rapid boom/bust cycle. Some form of light regulation to ensure safety and to try and stabilise periodic gluts/shortages of taxis is desireable.
  Light regulation usually turns to heavy regulation due to regulatory capture. A "stable market" where competition can neither increase or decrease excludes newcomers and usually results in consumer prices increasing - which is clearly counterproductive to the economy as a whole.
  The interesting thing is that for all the vaunted "competition" and "free market" rhetoric thrown about, the USA has some of the most regulated and monopolistic markets in the world across most sectors of its economy and for the most part these aren't legislated that way for the benefit of consumers. When you start digging into who's associated with who, the country isn't much different to certain kleptocracies that the leadership likes to portray as "the enemy"
26. Re:Uber is dead by fluffernutter · 2017-02-12 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is without regulation the assholes win out. The closer you push into immoral behavior and walk the line of illegal the better your company does. Markets become dominated by corporate warlords. Yes I know there is unscrupulous behavior with regulation as well but at least there is a lid on it. This is the dirty truth of capitalism that has never quite had a correct balance on it.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
27. Re:Uber is dead by stoatwblr · 2017-02-12 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  "Would you trust one of these things to haul nuclear waste or toxic chemicals? "
  More than I would trust a human driver. At least I know it would be paying 100% attention 100% of the time and not be distracted by XYZ unrelated item.
  People primarily 'avoid' public transportation for convenience/availability reasons and secondarily due to perceived poor driving. Busses in particular tend to be sized for peak periods and the number of drivers available, without regard to the damage they do to the roads (Damage is related to the 5th power of axle weight and the 2nd power of speed), which in turn results in their running costs being uneconomic outside of peak periods.
  If you have self-driving busses there are pretty good arguments in favour of using more, smaller ones on the road when assessing the overall costs - some cities have found that pushing people towards public transport has actually resulted in significantly higher road maintenance expenses despite an overall reduction in pollution, etc.
  It's also worth noting that the single biggest cause of traffic congestion isn't so much the number of cars on the road so much as assholes driving selfishly. In the case of "ghost tailbacks" on british motorways (no crash, just stopped/slowed traffic for no apparent reason) it's been discovered that if only 10-15% of drivers observe safe/legal following distances these will dissipate in a matter of minutes, vs persisting for hours. The ramifications for mostly-automated roads are interesting and advanced v2v communications may not prove necessary.
28. Re:Uber is dead by fluffernutter · 2017-02-12 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  Uber is also losing millions of dollars a year. They are purposely trying to undercut the taxi market to make them obsolete. Once taxis are obsolete they jack the prices up. That's how capitalism works. Also, uber's cost cutting is allowing criminals to pose as Uber drivers to lure in women. Skipping the good things that regulation brings... vetting people to ensure they really want to drive people around all day and not rape women, is a serious concern. Unless you think Uber will be happy to lose millions of dollars per month forever.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
29. Re:Uber is dead by fluffernutter · 2017-02-12 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  Convenience never comes for free. A self driving car service is a convenience service and will be priced appropriately once taxi's are obsolete. Right now they are still trying to make taxis obsolete.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
30. Re:Uber is dead by stoatwblr · 2017-02-13 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  You're completely correct and why light regulation is needed.
  The problem is that the assholes can use excessive regulation to win out too, buying laws that eliminate competition.
  I've seen this happen specifically in taxis, where heavy regulation in the town that I grew up in resulted in taxis only being provided by one company (a supposed cooperative) that were expensive, badly maintained AND slow to turn up. (1970s/80s)
  That regulation was a response to an unregulated market in the 1950s where the opposite problem occurred.
  These days they seem to have solved the problem. There are multiple taxi companies - but compulsary regular vehicle inspections, limits on driver hours along with tools to enforce it and regular driver checks. As a result taxi costs are about half what they were 10 years ago and the drivers are a lot politer, but they don't get to live in the most expensive part of town anymore.
such a tiny number by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-11 06:04 · Score: 0

Ford is such a competent business; why did it take them so long to invest? Maybe everyone else was wasting their money?
1. Re:such a tiny number by johanw · 2017-02-11 06:45 · Score: 2
  
  And now Ford is wasting it as well.
2. Re:such a tiny number by fluffernutter · 2017-02-11 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  I think right now it kind of looks like a sham and a lot of hype, but the danger for a company like Ford is that someone actually will make a breakthrough and then they will be left in the dust.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
3. Re:such a tiny number by LostMyBeaver · 2017-02-11 16:14 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed,
  
  First of all, I like that Ford decided to do this outside of their company. Ford has always been piss-poor at technology. I've rented many of their "better cars" and have been horrified by how poorly they work from a technical aspect. Even the door locks always feel like the "budget model". Every time they try to build technology in-house they fail. For example, when they used Microsoft's car system for the stereo and then made it impossible to update the software without bringing it to the factory. As a result, they released a version and thought "wow, that's shipped... next product" and when bug reports came in, they were confused... actually outright clueless.
  
  Ford can make engines and gears and seats. They sure as hell can't build computers. Need proof, show me a Ford which has an ignition computer which isn't utterly stupid. I actually found myself in a Mustang pulling to the side of the highway, shutting off the car, locking the doors and unlocking and starting it again to reboot computers. They can manufacture big metal things. As for making new technology ... NO!!!!
  
  As such, as you said, Ford has to think about what to do in case self-driving happens and then we start getting rules which say "No human driven cars on main roads" which I personally will contribute to the lobbying effort for. I want human drivers off the roads I use ASAP. Driving sucks and it's mostly because of "good drivers". So, if self-driving cars work and even become mandatory, Ford needs a solution and they know they can't possibly do it themselves. So, throw a bunch of money at some people who can do it and then give them the cars they should do it in.
4. Re:such a tiny number by fluffernutter · 2017-02-12 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  Except until such a day "force humans off roads" means something different than "force people who can't afford automation off roads", forcing humans off roads is discriminatory and would be proven such. They day where every person can afford their own automation is long off, if it ever happens and not much worth talking about.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Very Encouraging by Seranfall · 2017-02-11 06:05 · Score: 1

It's great to see where this technology is going. You've got so many players now in the self-driving vehicles as well as hybrid and electric vehicles. I'm happy to see Ford jump in on this with both feet even if they are a little late to the game. Riding in a vehicle will be a much safer experience when humans aren't the ones driving.
1. Re:Very Encouraging by johanw · 2017-02-11 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  It will be a lot slower too. Manufacturers will put in huge safety limits to prevent liability - imagine what will happen in some countries when bycicle riders figure out that the car will stop anyway if they just continue, wether they have priority or not. In The Netherlands they already do that with human drivers...
  Further, I don't see this happening anytime soon. It may work in the US, where streets are wide, people drive slow and orderly and traffic is adapted for cars. Did you ever drove a car in Paris, Rome, Manilla or Sjanghai? Please do so and come talk again.
2. Re:Very Encouraging by fluffernutter · 2017-02-11 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  A lot of people think that insurance companies will be happy to cover the flaws of self driving cars because over all they will be safer, so the automated car companies will be left with zero liability for everything. There, I just typed that with a straight face.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
3. Re:Very Encouraging by religionofpeas · 2017-02-11 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  And why wouldn't that be true ?
4. Re:Very Encouraging by fluffernutter · 2017-02-11 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  Because when someone's family member dies because they were riding a bicycle and the automated car didn't see them because of a gap in the sensors or what not, the insurance companies won't accept covering the payment to the family. They will sue the car company.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
5. Re:Very Encouraging by religionofpeas · 2017-02-11 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  Why ? Currently they don't sue a driver for not seeing the bicycle either. Insurance companies don't care about individual cases, they deal with statistics. If self-driving cars cause fewer accidents per year, they'll make more money in insuring them.
6. Re:Very Encouraging by fluffernutter · 2017-02-11 08:38 · Score: 2
  
  Because we're not talking about a flaw in a human, we're talking about a flaw in a piece of technology that is supposed to be designed to be safe. Insurance companies cover human error, not technical error. If a car's accelerator pedal fails and sticks on and someone dies, insurance companies don't pay for that the car company does for faulty design and issues a huge recall. The same will be for automated driving, it is just a far more complicated technical error.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
7. Re:Very Encouraging by religionofpeas · 2017-02-11 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  A rocket is a piece of technology, with a fairly high failure rate, and you can get insurance for that too. For the insurance company it's a simple calculation: if the premium covers the expected pay out, they'll cover it. The only thing they really hate is systemic errors, but these can be reduced by thorough testing, and by quick feedback from accident analysis. Because every detail can be logged, technical errors can be fixed and those fixes distributed to the rest of the fleet before they occur in large numbers.
8. Re:Very Encouraging by fluffernutter · 2017-02-11 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  Then why are there vehicle recalls? Why don't the insurance companies just cover it?
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
9. Re:Very Encouraging by ShanghaiBill · 2017-02-11 10:48 · Score: 1
  
  Because we're not talking about a flaw in a human, we're talking about a flaw in a piece of technology that is supposed to be designed to be safe.
  Tesla Auto Pilot has already killed people, and other driver assistance technology has as well. The insurance companies paid up. So what you are saying has not been true so far.
  
  Insurance companies cover human error, not technical error.
  Hogwash. insurance companies pay according to their contract. Standard auto insurance includes coverage for mechanical failure.
  
  If a car's accelerator pedal fails and sticks on and someone dies, insurance companies don't pay for that the car company does
  Car companies carry insurance to cover those liabilities. So an insurance company (maybe even the same insurance company) still pays ... and that is only if the manufacturer is found liable. If the failure was the result of normal wear-and-tear or poor maintenance, then that is unlikely.
10. Re:Very Encouraging by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-11 13:47 · Score: 0
  
  They do. They pay for the recall costs (for car manufacturers who don't self-insure).
11. Re:Very Encouraging by LostMyBeaver · 2017-02-11 16:27 · Score: 2
  
  I have driven in many European cities and I think the point you're missing is related to the attitude behind the driving.
  
  Mediterranean bordering countries are a special exception to... well every rule ever made. Ask them, they believe it too.
  
  If you're talking about Amsterdam, self driving cars will never work, but I give it less than 5 years before cars are simply illegal within the main city. They just passed that rule in Oslo, Norway. After June, it will be illegal to drive within the inside ring of the city except for deliveries. If you consider someplace like Enschede or Tilburg, it will work perfectly. This has to do with organized management of pedestrian and bicycle traffic. You'll also see more effort placed on providing pedestrian tunnels for crossing main roads which has been very successful for safety in many places. Of course that's really not an option in Amsterdam.
  
  It won't work anywhere in France or Italy. These are countries where you drive like a frigging mad man and ram yourself into traffic and just pray you make it. I am still shaking in fear 5 years later from the last time I drove in Paris. I have never encountered more mean spirited drivers anywhere in the world. I honestly think the drivers in Paris believe that they are on earth purely to punish each other.
  
  I think Oslo, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Helsinki, well... pretty much anywhere you have civilized people, self-driving cars will be faster than human driven ones... especially when they consider queue management and we can merge lanes at 70km/h instead of 1km/h. Also when the cars have proper traffic information and can make better choices for driving and directions. Traffic lights can talk with cars and change based on actual queue information.
  
  It's not about just the immediate area surrounding the car, it's about the overall traffic environment. Queue management functions substantially better when viewed as a big picture than if every car manages itself.
12. Re:Very Encouraging by LostMyBeaver · 2017-02-11 16:35 · Score: 1
  
  It seems that most people on slashdot like to talk about things they speculate on as though they are authorities on the topic.
  
  Insurance companies are in business to make money.
  
  If people chose one insurance company over another because of price and restrictions, the rules of the first company will adapt to attract new customers.
  
  Insurance companies almost certainly will try to find a way to profit more from self-driving cars but when there's more profit to be made, one company will offer better terms than another causing the other to respond in kind. Eventually, once the terms leave both companies relatively profitable, the consumer will likely have pretty good terms in the contract and no reason to move to someone else.
  
  I've now read like 10 articles and 1000 comments this morning and it seems to me that everyone is an expert on everything and most of us just simply talk utter nonsense without thinking at all about what we're saying.
  
  As for this topic, let's just assume for now that insurance will be expensive to start with and will come down quickly because their customers can just leave them.
13. Re:Very Encouraging by fluffernutter · 2017-02-12 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  This is just a problem in itself. We all know costs filter down to the clients, and other insurance holders should not be asked to bear the burden of failed AI. Did the insurance agencies at least have the self reason to call these accidents 0% responsibility to the driver? Because otherwise someone's premiums are going up for something that is beyond their control.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
14. Re:Very Encouraging by fluffernutter · 2017-02-12 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  The question is, will they profit more by holding the providers of AI responsible for their technical issues and weaknesses, or will the clients of said insurance company be all contributing to clean up after these flaws? I think there must be a wave of court cases just under the radar that are minor things, where Autopilot ran over someone's pet or clipped a kid on a bike or didn't quite drive around another car. The money that the insurance company uses to 'fix' these things has to come from somewhere, and it shouldn't be the clients since they didn't make the AI.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
15. Re:Very Encouraging by stoatwblr · 2017-02-12 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  Self-driving cars are covered in sensors. It's no longer "your word against his" when it comes to insurance claims.
  If automated cars are seen to have significant faults which result in them causing crashes, software updates can rectify that across the fleet quickly - with humans that means extra individual training which most won't do.
  Bear in mind that most human drivers are barely competent to actually pilot a machine and tend to be easily distracted - automotons will be paying 100% attention 100% of the time in 100% of directions ("tunnel vision" is a major contributor to crashes). Even the absolute best humans have bad days and make tens of mistakes per hour and one of the larger challenges for automated vehicles is taking account of human driver errors (eg, when the human fails to yield right of way, etc)
16. Re:Very Encouraging by stoatwblr · 2017-02-12 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  "I have never encountered more mean spirited drivers anywhere in the world. I honestly think the drivers in Paris believe that they are on earth purely to punish each other."
  On the other hand, the Parisian public transportation system is very good and gets you most places faster than can be driven.
  Paris has a major pollution problem. It's surprising that cars aren't banned within the old city wall ring road already.
17. Re:Very Encouraging by fluffernutter · 2017-02-12 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  Software updates can only be pushed out if these cars are all connected 100% of the time which is a huge security concern in itself. Furthermore, automation doesn't pay attention in all directions 100% of the time. The sensors only have a certain view radius and they seem to want to limit the number of them used. If sensors saw everything then Autopilot wouldn't be able to run into a trailer which has happened at least two times now. Sure they increased the radar after the the accident and they say there are no longer any gaps, but how are we to believe them? What about heavy snow or fog? What about protecting anything right on the ground up to the top of the car roof?
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
18. Re:Very Encouraging by stoatwblr · 2017-02-13 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  Heavy fog/snowing == system slows down to safe speeds - which most humans do not and is why we end up with massive fogbound pileups.
  The Joshua Brown trailer incident was specifically because the system wasn't programmed to encounter clotheslining events - and given that Joshua _always_ recorded his trips, there's still the nagging question of what happened to his dashcam - it's never been found. (IE: there are a lot of unanswered questions about the crash and the conduct of the trucker)
  The chinese tesla incident is debateable (the guy was in a lane which the overhead gantries were signalling as closed and if you've driven in china you'll know how bad the driving is generally), but more to the point the system and manuals give explicit warning that it cannot detect and react in time to stationary objects directly in front when travelling at 50+mph.
  Tesla's "autopilot" is an advanced driver assist/cruise control, NOT a self driving system. That's why the germans have legally prohibited Tesla from calling it "autopilot" or anything else which implies the driver can stop paying attention to the road.
  Sensor costs are what's driving the attempts to reduce the numbers - but in some cases it makes more sense to use more, lower powered sensors with a narrower field of view.
  WRT software updates: The security concerns are primarily about the complete lack of attention paid to any kind of security. A car doesn't need to be 100% connected to update its systems (there are good reasons for NOT doing it whilst in motion) and redhat's RPM updates come with better signature verification than most automotive updates, so the first target for improvement is fairly easy tow.
  Bear in mind that automated driving systems don't have to be perfect, just better than the majority of human drivers - and that really isn't difficult to achieve. For areas outside of the robot's experience the vehicle will need to _stop_ and then hand control over to the passenger or a remote operator. Handing over control whilst moving is simply too dangerous to even consider.
  The old saw about people standing in front of a car and blocking it is a strawman. A human driver would eventually start pushing through or drive around the obstacle and so will a robot. (They will have to learn to do this for instances like driving through herds of cows or flows of sheep, as I had to do regularly when living in rural areas)
19. Re:Very Encouraging by fluffernutter · 2017-02-13 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  Yes you're one of those down with human driver people. You likely have a much lower bar for "safety" than I do. If AI is as good as an average driver then it won't save any lives because it will just get in as many accidents on average, and half the people that use it will actually be *less* safe than they would be without. No, it has to be pretty perfect in all circumstances.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Late by religionofpeas · 2017-02-11 06:10 · Score: 1

Ford is late to the game, but still expects others to license their tech.
real information, burried in audio by epine · 2017-02-11 06:26 · Score: 1

The technology behind self-driving cars has come up in a number of episodes of the O'Reilly Data Show hosted by Ben Lorica. Ben knows his stuff well enough to perform this role, but to my taste, he's pretty softball most of the time; his show is more of a polite survey than a contest of minds.
Here is one link I could quickly find:
* The technology behind self-driving vehicles
The guest is Shaoshan Liu, "co-founder of PerceptIn and previously the senior architect (autonomous driving) at Baidu USA".
As I recall it, Liu says that the instrument package for a fully autonomous self-driving car—in the not too-distant past—costs around $100,000 and requires 3000 W to post-process (heterogeneous algorithms, including some neural networks).
The "cheaper" self-driving cars require that the road network is completely pre-programmed, such that the car is almost more of a trail running on data rails than a fully autonomous vehicle.
It didn't sound like even the most expensive car can handle all conditions of day/night and heavy weather.
Some vain, vainglorious, or just plain glorious startup was mentioned with the goal of driving the cost of the LIDAR unit down to $200, probably with some fancy chip (the audio is not always well-balanced on this show; even with buds, I miss a lot unless I'm in a quiet room).
I personally wouldn't invest this kind of money at this time scale unless I thought "just plain glorious" was rounding the bend with mini-Craig Venter hard on the lash.
Do they know something we don't know? Or is this just another fifth-generation-AI industrial drum bang?
1. Re:real information, burried in audio by fluffernutter · 2017-02-11 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  A big question on my mind, is if there is a difference in the ability of an expensive self driving car to drive safely as opposed to a cheaper car, how will that work? That would be somewhat akin to having economy seats on an airplane with a pilot with 100 hours of flying experience, and putting the pilots with 2000 hours of experience in planes with more expensive seats. Doesn't really seem very fair to me. I realize more expensive cars may have better passive protection for passengers today, but we're talking about actually giving the wealthy better drivers.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
2. Re:real information, burried in audio by religionofpeas · 2017-02-11 08:33 · Score: 2
  
  As I recall it, Liu says that the instrument package for a fully autonomous self-driving car—in the not too-distant past—costs around $100,000 and requires 3000 W
  
  "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." -- Thomas Watson, president of IBM, 1943
3. Re:real information, burried in audio by ShooterNeo · 2017-02-11 13:14 · Score: 2
  
  You can get another order of magnitude by moving those algorithms to ASICs and FPGAs. 300 watts is within reasonable bounds for a vehicle electrical bus. I would be willing to bet that the prototype algorithms are running on less power efficient but more programmer friendly GPUs and CPUs mainly.
  The 100k figure is mostly driven by the LIDAR. There are cheap LIDARS for this.
  A $10k price tag plus a $1k a year license fee is achievable, and this would make self driving taxis readily feasible. Most people probably won't own the first self driving cars in widespread use.
Lots of small manufacturers by Bruce66423 · 2017-02-11 06:29 · Score: 1

Once automatic driving becomes required - when the safety advantages are recognised - there will be a need for small manufacturers to offer it. And they won't be able to start from scratch....
1. Re:Lots of small manufacturers by johanw · 2017-02-11 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  Start talking about requiring it when it works at all in less than ideal conditions. Further, what makes you think it will ever be forbidden to drive manually? I think revoking the right to bear arms in the US will be easier.
2. Re:Lots of small manufacturers by fluffernutter · 2017-02-11 06:47 · Score: 1
  
  People are going to have to actually be able to, you know, afford it, before it becomes required.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
3. Re:Lots of small manufacturers by ShanghaiBill · 2017-02-11 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  Further, what makes you think it will ever be forbidden to drive manually? I think revoking the right to bear arms in the US will be easier.
  The right to drive and the right to bear arms are not really comparable. Gun owners tend to be geographically concentrated in rural states where they have disproportionate political power. It is also not clear that many "gun control" proposals would actually leads to less gun violence.
  The "right to drive" is more like the "right to smoke". Smokers are geographically dispersed, so have little political power, smoking is clearly dangerous, and restrictions on smoking have been effective in reducing harm. More restrictions and taxes cause fewer people to smoke, and as people stop smoking, they also stop caring about "the right to smoke", so there is even less resistance to further restrictions on tobacco.
  It will be the same with human-driven-cars. As more people switch to SDCs, or forego car ownership to use self-driving-taxis, there will be less and less support for the "right-to-drive". So there will be more and more restrictions, starting with banning HDCs from express lanes and charging higher insurance premiums. Then they will be banned from congested roads during commute hours, etc. Finally, some drunk human will run into a van containing eight blonde honor students, and the moral outrage will compel the politicians to ban all human drivers.
4. Re:Lots of small manufacturers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-11 09:50 · Score: 0
  
  Good luck trying to take trucks away from people who replace their vehicle every 20 years and live in places that still don't have good cell phone service. That self driving car is going to work great when trying to navigate a road that floods every spring. How well will Google or Ford understand the correct path through a cornfield, or up the side of a montain looking for a good spot to camp? How will this tech help plow their mile long "driveway" that doesn't have an official name?
  This tech is useful if you live someplace where all of the roads are paved, but I don't see the 75 million NASCAR fans being OK with their hobby being destroyed because your neighbor can't handle the power under the hood of their Prius.
5. Re:Lots of small manufacturers by stoatwblr · 2017-02-12 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  For the most part it won't take legislation to force people out of the driver's seat.
  Once the stats come in showing that robots are safer than meatsacks, the differential in insurance premiums will take care of the rest.
  At some point further down the track (as robots become ubiqutous) you can expect the requirements for actually holding a driving license become _much_ tougher and you'll also see a requirement for XYZ number of hours/year to keep the license, just like aviation licensing.
  The _vast_ majority of people who drive, do so for the vast majority of the time because they have to, not because they want to. This is a primary factor in driver distraction (they'd rather be doing something else) and as such the initial tranche of change will be done voluntarily.
Seems mental alienation to me by johanw · 2017-02-11 06:30 · Score: 1

All those companies spending such amounts of money on a technology only a few people really want.
1. Re:Seems mental alienation to me by CrimsonAvenger · 2017-02-11 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  Not so sure "only a few people really want".
  I admit I won't be using it, but that's mostly because I don't buy new cars. If it could be retrofitted to older cars without too much trouble, I'd put it on my car right now. Otherwise, ten or so years after it's available on everything, I'll have it on my car.
  And by then, I expect to be either dead or no longer driving....
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
2. Re:Seems mental alienation to me by fluffernutter · 2017-02-11 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  There are a lot of dreamers. They dream that a self driving car will be just as cheap as a manual car is today. They dream that a self driving car will get them places as quickly as if they drive themselves. They dream that, if they hail a self driving car it will be like having their own and cheaper and more convenient than a taxi. They dream that the safety and convenience in a car they buy will be equal to that of a wealthy person. You remind them that they will have to fit into the economy somehow, and that car companies expect to be paid for this technology more than for a manual car and they just get angry at being woken.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
3. Re:Seems mental alienation to me by religionofpeas · 2017-02-11 08:04 · Score: 2
  
  $1 billion in 5 years isn't all that much, though.
4. Re:Seems mental alienation to me by JaredOfEuropa · 2017-02-11 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  There are a lot of dreamers. They dream that a self driving car will be just as cheap as a manual car is today.
  When mass produced, it is unlikely that self driving cars will be much more expensive.
  
  They dream that a self driving car will get them places as quickly as if they drive themselves.
  Why wouldn't it? And with ultrafast lanes for self driving cars, not having to stop at intersections (or even red lights) when they are clear, and other benefits too dangerous to let human drivers have, they may get there faster.
  
  They dream that, if they hail a self driving car it will be like having their own and cheaper and more convenient than a taxi.
  It will certainly be cheaper to rent a self driving car than owning a second car that only sees occasional use, in a lot of cases. It's like renting a car without the suckiest part of car rental: picking up and returning the vehicle. They are about as convenient as taxies and will most likely be cheaper too, with the advantage that it doesn't come with an expensive, tired, cranky, smelly driver.
  
  You remind them that they will have to fit into the economy somehow, and that car companies expect to be paid for this technology more than for a manual car and they just get angry at being woken.
  Car companies will be paid for this, initially by car rental companies, who will be happy to pay since their vehicles can now serve a multitude of paying customers every day instead of just one. More kilometers per day = more €. Some people dream, get inspired, and turn those dreams into reality. And some people just sit around complaining, muttering about pipe dreams and the impracticality of it all, while others get shit done.
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Unsustainable by lazy+genes · 2017-02-11 06:33 · Score: 0

Fucking retards, Transportation system needs to mimick biological systems in order for it to be sustainable. It needs to be scalable for a world population size of 16 billion. A track system is the only way to accomplish sustainability. The track needs to incorporate all utilities into it. Humans do not have the reflexes to drive sustainably.
1. Re:Unsustainable by johanw · 2017-02-11 06:40 · Score: 0
  
  The number of humans needs to decrease. As long as the asians and n1ggers breed like rabbits those who don't starve will have to walk.
2. Re:Unsustainable by lazy+genes · 2017-02-11 06:49 · Score: 0
  
  Population size is the main factor in human intelegence. It works by having many different ways to see things. It's the only thing that keeps us alive.
3. Re: Unsustainable by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-11 07:23 · Score: 0
  
  Fuck you, kiss smelly indo-chimp ass all you want, idiot, your diversity is an abomination.
  Abomination that needs to be exterminated, along with all indo-chimps and libtards.
That's nice and all but... by Gravis+Zero · 2017-02-11 06:45 · Score: 1

I really rather they invest the billion dollars in making electric cars instead. They are chasing the wrong technology.

--
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
1. Re:That's nice and all but... by DontBeAMoran · 2017-02-11 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  I was about to post something similar but with a much harsher tone toward their wrong decision.
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
2. Re:That's nice and all but... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-11 10:32 · Score: 0
  
  I think they announced $700 million as an investment in vehicle electrification recently, one of which is an electric unibody SUV. The others are HEV's or PHEV's, and there's already an electric Focus that's been available for several years. My Fusion Energi is a PHEV, and there's a C-Max PHEV available, too.
  Ford's no slouch, but with cheap gas, people just don't buy electric. Right now I break about even on gas versus electric power, but I do come ahead because I have free charging at work.
  Heck, Ford launched the third Hybrid in the US market, and it was was the first from an American manufacturer.
Headline by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-11 07:14 · Score: 0

Once upon a time, a story like this would have the headline, "Ford Invests $1 Billion In Self-Driving Cars." Why is the new trend to say that "Someone Just Did Something"? Does the "Just" make it sound like breaking news and therefore make it more exciting? Why is the recent past of "Just Invested" more exciting than the present "Invests"?
The other trends are "How Someone Did Something" and "Why Someone Did Something" headlines. Does "How" and "Why" make it more exciting? Headlines like this, which are now showing in all sorts of otherwise respectable places, remind me of all the "... With This One Simple Trick!" stories.
Is all of this just a sign that I'm officially a curmudgeon?
1. Re:Headline by fluffernutter · 2017-02-11 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  I thought the same thing. I'm probably a curmudgeon as well, but just to let you know you're not alone. It's like an attempt to get every bit of sensationalism one can out of an article. I think we get so inundated with current news on the internet people try to use language to make it seem like this is MORE current news.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Self-driving bus. Car is obsolete by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-11 08:48 · Score: 0

I wonder why CAR companies invest into self-driving vehicles. This is car killer. There is no need to own one. A self-driving BUS is a lot more viable, and bus makers should take notice. In any case, the number of cars on the road will decrease with this technology, so price of such vehicle will go up, and significantly, if manufactures want to survive...
1. Re:Self-driving bus. Car is obsolete by OrangeTide · 2017-02-11 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  Two vans is more agile in servicing the needs travelers than one bus. And a bus is more than twice as expensive as a van. (about 10x).It's also safer to be strapped into a seat and it is more convenient to enter and exit through a van door than to walk to either end of a bus.
  I agree 100% that the number of cars will decrease. I think vehicle ownership will decrease dramatically in the next two decades, while the utilization will increase for cars, vans and buses because they are automated.
  Why would someone in an urban area own a car if a door-to-door service is affordable and perhaps more convenient. Even commuting can be taken care of for those of us that live in the suburbs, it's becomes a more convenient form of car pooling. My wife can still pick up groceries without having to drive herself and without us having to own two cars.
  We'll see a lot more suburban single car households almost immediately, and more zero car urban households over time.
  And now that my driveway is free of cars, and I don't have a bunch of insurance and registration on my head. I can get a big RV and ride in style on vacations instead of cramming in the family's grocery-getter. But seriously, I don't think I'll save any money switching to car services, but I don't think auto companies like Ford are going to be making much money either. It's more like the Uber's and Lyft's of the world are going to get the money I would have otherwise spent on a car.
  
  --
  “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
2. Re:Self-driving bus. Car is obsolete by JaredOfEuropa · 2017-02-11 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  It's more like the Uber's and Lyft's of the world are going to get the money I would have otherwise spent on a car.
  In a world of self driving cars, Uber and Lyft do little more than provide a fancy app and capital. What people management and logistics is left to take care of is more akin to a car rental company than a taxi firm. Why wouldn't Budget and Avis trounce Uber and Lyft at that game? At the very least there will be some healthy competition, and with Uber and Lyft not being the only game in town, they will not be able to fleece the public.
  
  That's why Uber is investing in self-driving tech as well.
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
3. Re:Self-driving bus. Car is obsolete by drinkypoo · 2017-02-11 10:50 · Score: 1
  
  In a world of self driving cars, Uber and Lyft do little more than provide a fancy app and capital.
  That's already true. Uber and Lyft don't care what lies beneath their app. Right now, it's Joe Schmoe. Tomorrow, it could include a handful of self-driving cars owned by anyone, whether it's Uber or Lyft themselves, or Ford, or Joe Schmoe. Or Ford (or someone) who has a whole bunch of self-driving cars could buy them out in order to get the name.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
4. Re:Self-driving bus. Car is obsolete by OrangeTide · 2017-02-11 11:35 · Score: 1
  
  If car rental companies can arrange for competitive pricing, then they certainly could be a contender as they have car fleets and mechanics to service them. But mostly I suspect that car rental companies are too broken to adapt to new markets. Most of them rely on junk like Orbitz rather than keeping the 30% cut for themselves (or passing the savings along to the customer). These car rental companies are too busy organizing their franchises to realize that the next generation are not rushing out to get drivers licenses.
  
  --
  “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Not yet by drinkypoo · 2017-02-11 10:44 · Score: 1

They'll wait to destroy Uber until they make as much progress as possible at killing taxi companies.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
This will be fun by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-11 12:39 · Score: 0

I cant wait to f*ck around with them. They will be defensive and stupid, the road will be mine hahahaha.
Cyclist
Save the cost of insurance every year? by Bruce66423 · 2017-02-11 13:29 · Score: 1

Over the life of a car, that's a big gain. Similarly your medical insurance will be lower if you don't drive yourself.
1. Re:Save the cost of insurance every year? by fluffernutter · 2017-02-12 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  I don't understand your first sentence. How is there a big gain? Very few people will be able to afford to purchase an automated car for themselves. If they only use driving services they sacrifice their personal freedom and get tracked everywhere they go. Either way there is a huge loss. Your second sentence I will grant you on the day that automated driving becomes that save for 90% of the population and insurance companies actually become altruistic and lower insurance premiums.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Fair comment by Bruce66423 · 2017-02-11 13:31 · Score: 1

I think it will be a case of city and suburban dwellers will take to it pretty rapidly as the financial advantage dawn on people and on the governments. It's not the answer for every situation, but it will make massively safer roads rapidly. The ability to give mobility to kids and old people who would otherwise be stuck without it will be worth a LOT.
Will they sell? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-11 15:06 · Score: 0

Expect the next Democrat president to force people to buy these after Ford "donate" money to his/her campaign.
The ONLY way I would own a self driving car, is if for some reason I am physically unable to drive a car.
There is a lot of reasons to OWN self-driving car by burbilog · 2017-02-12 05:43 · Score: 1

But would people actually want to OWN a self-driving car? It seems to me that they would be perfect for public transport: when you need to go somewhere, you attract one with your phone app, pay what amounts to a bus ticket, and go to your destination.
No. Just think what's going to happen -- you want to go to work at 8:00, your neighbors are going to their work (somewhere else) and suddenly there is serious shortage of self-driving taxis during rush hour. And today you were unlucky one and had to wait an hour or two. And now you are fired.
This alone is the reason to own self-driving car, just to be sure that you'll always have one.
Another reason is that public transport is always going to be neglected and filthy, while you can keep your car clean. Also you can keep a lot of necessary things in your car without ever forgetting them (like blood pressure meter). Etc, etc.
Re:There is a lot of reasons to OWN self-driving c by stoatwblr · 2017-02-12 06:18 · Score: 1

For city dwellers - especially ones not in the endless suburbia of the USA, the non-owning model is gaining a lot of traction, in conjunction with more and better quality public transport - many cities are taking active steps to discourage car ownership and use (such as congestion charges, high parking fees and outright bans on cars in some areas) - not just on pollution grounds but also because cars are a significant hazard on heavily used streets.
Public transportation is only filth and squalor (like many USA ones are) because people let it be like that. In many other parts of the world, public transport is clean, efficient and cheap - and even executives use it, or cycle to work (or both. Bikes on trains are a common sight in many countries)
The target for many european cities is a reduction in private ownership of at least 90% and a reduction of actual vehicles in cities by 80%
Regarding your scenario regarding work times, everyone being at a particular location at a particular time is becoming less and less necessary, even in factories. By spreading the ridership peak public transportation systems can avoid most of the stressfulness associated with the morning crush.
Disclosure: I drive. There's no public transport where I usually work, in a semi-rural environment. However if work requires I head into a city, picking arrival time even 25 minutes outside the peak means the public transport is uncrowded.
How much will driver free operation cost? by Bruce66423 · 2017-02-12 10:06 · Score: 1

That's the issue we're disagreeing on. My expectation is that it won't add more than $10,000 dollars overall, and that's not dissimilar to the price of insurance over a 10 year period for a lot of people. Given that insurance will no longer be necessary for a lot of people - if they aren't planning to leave the areas that are fully automated - then this will pay for the upgrade
Of course this assumes that people will persist in having their own cars, when it is likely that the shift will enable people to rent cars more cheaply than buying.
1. Re:How much will driver free operation cost? by fluffernutter · 2017-02-12 11:53 · Score: 1
  
  Even if there is a $10K poor boy package, how well will it protect my family? Will the four sensor package be as safe as the fifty sensor package? How will they tap dance when it becomes evident that they sent all the experienced pilots to fly around wealthy people while the poor economy seats are all manned by bush pilots with 100 hours in the air? The software may be the same but will all packages budget and not *actually* be able to see everything happening around the car with no gaps?
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Ah the joys of FUD... already! by Bruce66423 · 2017-02-12 21:00 · Score: 1

The best reason for driverless cars is to reduce the massive death toll on the roads. The primary question is not whether the package will 'protect my family', but whether it will sufficient to ensure a substantial cut in road deaths. Given that the sensors will have a better view of the road than a human driver has atm, the only question is whether the software will be good enough to convert that data into safer driving than we get atm. This seems achievable.
1. Re: Ah the joys of FUD... already! by fluffernutter · 2017-02-13 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  The cure for cancer seems achievable too. It doesn't mean it's time to light up our smokes and celebrate.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
CognitionX by Matthew3015 · 2017-02-15 02:39 · Score: 1

Thought you might want to check out the daily/weekly newsletter from CognitionX with over 4K subscribers. We covered this story and many more. We provide you with the latest and greatest news related to AI. Subscribe to stay up-to-date: http://cognitionx.com/news-bri...