Michigan Will Build 25 Self-Driving Trolleys In 2017 (observer.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Michigan Will Build 25 Self-Driving Trolleys In 2017 (observer.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Tuesday July 18, 2017 @10:00PM from the shuttles-and-buses dept.

French trolley-maker Navya announced its first manufacturing facility in North America. The company will build a 20,000 square foot facility for the construction of its self-driving trolley, the Arma. "It aims to construct 25 vehicles there this year," reports Observer. "It has 45 vehicles deployed around the world already. These robots have a max speed of about 27 miles per hour, but typically travel more like 12 miles per hour (the speed of a typical bike ride). Each one can transport about 15 people." From the report: The plant will be built in Saline, Michigan, a suburban town just south of Ann Arbor with a population of less than 9,000. The Michigan Economic Development Corporation estimates that the plant will support 50 new jobs. "As the greater Ann Arbor area continues to establish itself as a hub for autonomous vehicle development, we feel it's the perfect location for us. Strong government and community support for mobility initiatives combined with an excellent talent pool provide the ideal environment for our expansion in North America," Navya CEO Christophe Sapet said in a press release. "I have no doubt that they will become an important and valued member of our already stellar business community," Brian Marl, Saline's mayor, said in a release.

100 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Because they can rather than because its needed by Viol8 · 2017-07-18 22:05 · Score: 0

That pretty much sums up the whole self driving car/bus/whatever market right now. There is zero gain not using a driver, in fact because of the reduced speeds and limited operational areas there is a lot to lose not having a human at the controls. Also I doubt not having to pay the miserable salary a bus driver pulls in any way offsets the huge upfront cost of these vehicles which will be out of date within a few years anyway.
But hey, self driving, AI, shiny shiny!
1. Re:Because they can rather than because its needed by Mr+D+from+63 · 2017-07-18 23:12 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Autonomous driving allows us to put more vehicles in places where they may not be needed, or not very valuable. It could also allow more people to use a vehicle, and will likely create more uses like overnight driving (while sleeping in the car) instead of taking a plane, using a car as an office, having cars run errands (pick up) you'd otherwise bundle, etc. In short, it might put many more cars on the road, which will come with a cost of its own. Not saying this is bad overall, but its something that doesn't always get talked about when swooning over self driving tech.
2. Re:Because they can rather than because its needed by stealth_finger · 2017-07-18 23:18 · Score: 1
  
  I'm guessing these aren't the type of trolleys you push around the shops.
  
  --
  Wanna buy a shirt?
  https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
3. Re:Because they can rather than because its needed by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-18 23:41 · Score: 0
  
  >Traffic sucks
  >Make robot cars so you don't have to think about it
  >Overeager "innovators" think up all kinds of other stupid shit to do with the robot cars
  >"Hate having to coordinate multiple errands into single trips to save time and gas? Have your robot car do them for you individually on-demand."
  >"Hate walking to the mailbox every day? Have your car drive to pick up your mail for you."
  >"Hate the burdens of property ownership? Rent a shared car that shows up at your doorstep (and doubles the average miles driven per trip)."
  >Traffic 9001% worse
  >You can dick around on your phone all the way to work, but it now takes 4 hours to get there.
  Screw the future.
4. Re:Because they can rather than because its needed by msauve · 2017-07-19 00:22 · Score: 1
  
  I'll bet you defended the elevator operators against automation, too.
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
5. Re:Because they can rather than because its needed by Oswald+McWeany · 2017-07-19 00:41 · Score: 1
  
  I'm guessing these aren't the type of trolleys you push around the shops.
  Probably not, but I want an automated trolley next time I buy groceries... that would be pretty cool. Pointless, but cool.
  
  --
  "That's the way to do it" - Punch
6. Re:Because they can rather than because its needed by drinkypoo · 2017-07-19 00:56 · Score: 1
  
  There is zero gain not using a driver, in fact because of the reduced speeds and limited operational areas there is a lot to lose not having a human at the controls.
  This is why the first bus routes which will be replaced with self-driving vans will be on college campuses and the like. The low speed will not inhibit their activity. At some times of day, there are empty (or mostly empty) buses rolling around campuses because they might have to pick up a passenger.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
7. Re:Because they can rather than because its needed by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-19 00:56 · Score: 0
  
  The big question is: Why do we need an automated trolley? You would have to program in exactly what groceries you want to buy before you enter the store. Quicker to just push the trolley yourself.
8. Re:Because they can rather than because its needed by Viol8 · 2017-07-19 01:03 · Score: 1
  
  "t could also allow more people to use a vehicle, and will likely create more uses like overnight driving (while sleeping in the car) instead of taking a plane, using a car as an office"
  How does that differ in any way from using a human driven taxi?
  "having cars run errands (pick up) "
  Yeah sure, and they'll do your washing and make you dinner when they get back home too.
9. Re:Because they can rather than because its needed by Viol8 · 2017-07-19 01:06 · Score: 1
  
  A lift just goes up and down in its own exclusive shaft. In terms of automation its a trivial task that can be implemented with simple relays and solenoids, never mind computers. Driving is not a trivial task and humans still outperform any kind of self driving AI in an unknown crowded enviroment. The only reason to roll this out is to say "Look who cutting edge we are! We've got our finger on the pulse of technology!". Its marketing BS for suckers.
10. Re:Because they can rather than because its needed by 0100010001010011 · 2017-07-19 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  What technological improvement in the last 2000 years doesn't fit that?
11. Re:Because they can rather than because its needed by Mr+D+from+63 · 2017-07-19 01:18 · Score: 1
  
  "t could also allow more people to use a vehicle, and will likely create more uses like overnight driving (while sleeping in the car) instead of taking a plane, using a car as an office"
  How does that differ in any way from using a human driven taxi?
  "having cars run errands (pick up) "
  Yeah sure, and they'll do your washing and make you dinner when they get back home too.
  I suppose it may happen, but I've never seen anyone send a taxi to pick up their laundry or dinner (an errand), and it would be prohibitively expensive to hire a taxi to drive you overnight or for most to work everyday.
12. Re:Because they can rather than because its needed by tempmpi · 2017-07-19 01:19 · Score: 1
  
  You need more than a single driver per vehicle. The driver will operate 40h per week, but your bus service is likely operating something such as 7*16h=112h per week and the bus driver can't drive 8h straight without breaks. Even at minimum wage the cost for 3-4 drivers is pretty significant. Within a single year you be able to get back the extra money required for expensive sensors, compute modules and software.
  Out of date also doesn't really matter as long as it can still do its job. This first generation self-driving trolley might only work within environments that are easy to handle and in a few years you might have a second generation trolley that can handle more complex environments and drive faster, but that doesn't mean that first gen. trolleys cannot continue to fulfil their limited roles.
  The speed of a local bus is slow, so limit of 45 km/h is not going to make a significant difference. This could make journey time shorter by increasing the frequency of the buses and thus reducing waiting times. With self-driving buses cities can easily go use a high number of smaller trolleys instead of large buses at a low frequency.
  More people would use public transport instead of their own car. While bus drivers will lose their job, new jobs will be created elsewhere, e.g.: When people save money by not owning a car, they will likely spend that money elsewhere, e.g.: eating at restaurants more often.
  
  --
  Jan
13. Re:Because they can rather than because its needed by msauve · 2017-07-19 01:19 · Score: 1
  
  "humans still outperform any kind of self driving AI in an unknown crowded enviroment."
  
  Somehow, I don't think that's the target market for 12 mph trolleys. I'm thinking more of airports or other locations where there's a fixed route, and possibly even dedicated lanes in places.
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
14. Re:Because they can rather than because its needed by GLMDesigns · 2017-07-19 01:41 · Score: 1
  
  Bus drivers in NYC make $75,000 + not counting benefits.
  
  --
  If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
  Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
15. Re:Because they can rather than because its needed by Oswald+McWeany · 2017-07-19 01:47 · Score: 1
  
  Modern medicine. Modern food distribution services. Indoor Heating. Water purification. Lion Bars.
  I would say all "needs" rather than "because they can". Without any of the above you're quite likely to die a much earlier death... ... well maybe man can live without having Lion Bars- but what pointless dreary existence would that be.
  
  --
  "That's the way to do it" - Punch
16. Re:Because they can rather than because its needed by s_p_oneil · 2017-07-19 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  I disagree on the self-driving cars. While it's an extremely difficult (and expensive) technical challenge at this point, it seems to be getting closer to a tipping point. Google is a lot farther a lot faster than I thought they would.
  At some point I believe that it will make driving safer overall, that it will both come down in cost and reduce auto insurance rates enough to pay for itself, and that it will provide better mobility options to handicapped or elderly drivers that have difficulty driving (or drivers who make a mistake and get their license suspended). It may even provide health and/or productivity benefits for commuters as well. A number of us suffer from stress-related health issues, and commutes can add a lot of stress to a work day. A number of us have times when we feel the need to work too many hours and not sleep enough, and being able to nap or even just rest our eyes during the commute would be a big help.
17. Re:Because they can rather than because its needed by Viol8 · 2017-07-19 02:08 · Score: 1
  
  "it would be prohibitively expensive to hire a taxi to drive you overnight or for most to work everyday."
  What makes you think that when/if automated cars take over from taxis, the fares will be any lower? What would be the incentive once there's a captive market?
18. Re:Because they can rather than because its needed by xxxJonBoyxxx · 2017-07-19 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  >> At some times of day, there are empty (or mostly empty) buses rolling around campuses because they might have to pick up a passenger.
  
  This is also why last-century busses and their static routes should be retired in favor of ride-sharing almost everywhere they exist. A lot of mid-sized cities have already figured this out for elderly and low-income transportation - skipping past the "bus" generation and right to subsidized taxis...er...I mean "ride sharing."
19. Re:Because they can rather than because its needed by Viol8 · 2017-07-19 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  Airports already have shuttle buses and people movers which are far quicker. And if a route is fixed with a reserved ROI then lay some guiderails and ditch the AI.
20. Re:Because they can rather than because its needed by Viol8 · 2017-07-19 02:12 · Score: 2
  
  People don't want to share the cars they've paid good $$$$ for with complete strangers unless there's a very tempting cash advantage. Something the tech evangelists in their silicon valley castles tend to forget.
21. Re:Because they can rather than because its needed by bano · 2017-07-19 02:15 · Score: 2
  
  Trolleys always operate on a fixed route.
22. Re:Because they can rather than because its needed by Viol8 · 2017-07-19 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  "While bus drivers will lose their job, new jobs will be created elsewhere, e.g.: When people save money by not owning a car, they will likely spend that money elsewhere, e.g.: eating at restaurants more often."
  I love the way people like you handwavingly dismiss the loss of jobs and pretend they'll be replaced on a 1:1 basis. They won't , and as for working as a waiter in a restaurant, yeah, I'm sure every bus and truck driver just dreams of that stellar position.
  There is no advantage to the public transport end user to have self driving vehicles that replace a driver (you think the fares will be lower once there are no alternatives? Think again) The ONLY advantage is to companies who can save the money on wages yet the push this concept as if they're advancing the cutting edge of tech rather than just carrying out more backhanded cost cutting.
23. Re:Because they can rather than because its needed by Mr+D+from+63 · 2017-07-19 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  "it would be prohibitively expensive to hire a taxi to drive you overnight or for most to work everyday."
  What makes you think that when/if automated cars take over from taxis, the fares will be any lower?
  I never said they would be. But if you own an autonomous car, I don't think its a stretch to think it would be much cheaper to have it drive you somewhere overnight than to hire a taxi to drive you overnight.
24. Re:Because they can rather than because its needed by plague911 · 2017-07-19 02:37 · Score: 3
  
  Because the taxi industry currently has high barriers to entry. Autonomous vehicles reduce them. Specifically Taxi drivers have to have rigorous background checks (for good reason), this acts as a huge block. You need to hire someone to drive at undesirable times, another huge block. Thirdly you have to have a vehicle specifically for Taxi driving, another huge block.
  Now with an autonomous vehicle and a nice easy app to join.....say....uber.... I can easily start my own taxi business with little to no effort. Say I work a classical 9-5. Maybe I get up a little early and get in to work at 7:45. Send my autonomous car out from 8:00 to 10:30 while doing my day job. I take in a nice $50 + gas and mileage. Now say I want to go out Friday and Saturday night. I can still do that and send my autonomous taxi out while I am out in the bars. If I am lucky maybe my car will pay for my drinks.
  The ease of entering the market now with autonomous cars will theoretically push the price of a taxi to the marginal cost
25. Re:Because they can rather than because its needed by MightyYar · 2017-07-19 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  That's probably true vs market rates, but when government employees are driving those buses it's a different story.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
26. Re:Because they can rather than because its needed by plague911 · 2017-07-19 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  Are you just being a troll or do you really not see the obvious scenarios where it would be a cost advantage to eliminate a 50k a year cost(driver) by replacing it with an autonomous vehicle? Or are you proposing we just send the buses down a bumper car bowling lane with no driver? My guess is you see some edge cases in a technology which will prevent it from being useful in very specific situations, but are wasting everyone's time by pretending those edge cases block the application of the technology in every situation.
27. Re:Because they can rather than because its needed by plague911 · 2017-07-19 02:55 · Score: 3
  
  Now this is just conspiracy theory noise. Yes trucking companies will save and make more money due to not having to pay truck drivers. Yes some of those savings will get passed along to retailers and yes they will make more money. Here's the part that you just ignore, yes some of those savings will get passed onto end consumers. Capitalism has its issues, but this is one of the areas that actually functions close to theory.
  Beyond that, the majority of the public transportation I take is ummm public.... and owned by the government, who I have exactly 1 share in. Sooo when the government pays less for their drivers, I win.
28. Re:Because they can rather than because its needed by xxxJonBoyxxx · 2017-07-19 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  I'm right with you there - when self-driving is real, I plan on buying my own car.
  
  However, subsidized taxi services for low-income citizens using shared cars/vans are real and (thankfully) growing. Hopefully the bus/trolley trend of the last century is over.
29. Re:Because they can rather than because its needed by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-19 03:55 · Score: 0
  
  Specifically Taxi drivers have to have rigorous background checks (for good reason),
  Where the hell do you live!? Background checks for hack-drivers, wut!!? I've driven a hack in numerous cities across the US from mid-sized to fairly large, and in every single one, the *ONLY* things taxi companies wanted to hire a driver was a valid & clean chauffeur's license or equivalent in that local area, and no felony convictions. They wouldn't have given two shits if I'd raped and murdered every single passenger as long as I made sure they paid the fare first.
30. Re:Because they can rather than because its needed by Viol8 · 2017-07-19 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  "Here's the part that you just ignore, yes some of those savings will get passed onto end consumers."
  Or they'll get pocketed as profit if everyone else does the same.
31. Re:Because they can rather than because its needed by syn3rg · 2017-07-19 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  Please don't leave graft out of the equation: which vendor will get the no-bid contract, and to whom to they donate re-election funds?
  
  --
  The contents of this message have been doubly encrypted by ROT13
32. Re:Because they can rather than because its needed by Hognoxious · 2017-07-19 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  I assumed it meant trolleybus. They're a weird hybrid of a tram and a regular bus.
  I've ever actually seen one, I've only heard of them because I had a children's book with one as a character.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
33. Re:Because they can rather than because its needed by plague911 · 2017-07-19 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  "valid & clean chauffeur's license or equivalent in that local area, and no felony convictions." Irony. You claim I was wrong, than share your own experience validating my exact statement.
34. Re:Because they can rather than because its needed by Squirmy+McPhee · 2017-07-19 09:31 · Score: 1
  
  There is zero gain not using a driver,
  I guess that depends on where you live. In Paris, when the Metro drivers go on strike -- and I do mean when, not if -- the Metro lines that are automated can still run. One of those is Line 1, which connects the business district with the city of Paris and runs parallel to Line A, which is not automated and is the busiest subway line in all of Europe.
  Granted, this situation doesn't apply everywhere, but that's kind of the point -- you're concluding that automation can't make sense by excluding the cases where it might. And you'll notice the company building this plant is French, so they likely have a certain point of view themselves (and maybe one that means building a plant in Michigan is a bad idea, but I have no idea what their order pipeline looks like...).
Responsibility? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-18 22:06 · Score: 1

Who's responsibility will it be if someone gets hurt? So there will be no human operator to ensure if the automation fails that no one gets, for example, ran over?
1. Re:Responsibility? by DrXym · 2017-07-19 00:14 · Score: 1
  
  More to the point, humans are extremely adept at modifying their behavior to nullify safety and exploit weaknesses in systems. Unless the system accounts for that, it will fail.
2. Re:Responsibility? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-19 00:53 · Score: 0
  
  Who's responsibility will it be if someone gets hurt? So there will be no human operator to ensure if the automation fails that no one gets, for example, ran over?
  Donald Trump.
3. Re:Responsibility? by presidenteloco · 2017-07-19 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds like a Trolley Problem http://imgur.com/gallery/pKEMa
  
  --
  
  Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
4. Re:Responsibility? by Dragonslicer · 2017-07-19 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  Who's responsibility will it be if someone gets hurt?
  Who's responsible now? Hint: unless the driver is impaired (e.g. by alcohol or other drugs), the answer is an insurance company.
  
  So there will be no human operator to ensure if the automation fails that no one gets, for example, ran over?
  What is there that ensures that if the human operator fails that no one gets run over?
'trolley' ? by ChunderDownunder · 2017-07-18 22:27 · Score: 3, Informative

Sorry for growing up in the wrong hemisphere but I'm just confused by the American usage of the word 'trolley'.
It just looks like a 'mini-bus' to me.
1. Re:'trolley' ? by stealth_finger · 2017-07-18 23:20 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry for growing up in the wrong hemisphere but I'm just confused by the American usage of the word 'trolley'.
  It just looks like a 'mini-bus' to me.
  Same, we push trollies around the shops where I'm from.
  
  --
  Wanna buy a shirt?
  https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
2. Re:'trolley' ? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-18 23:34 · Score: 0
  
  "Trolley" is what we call street cars when we visit other countries. It's also what we call shopping carts (a.k.a., buggies, grocery carts) when we visit some parts of the world. I wouldn't call that thing pictured in the F.A. any of these things, though. I might call it a mini-bus, but likely most Americans wouldn't do so. Perhaps "shuttle" to describe its function rather than what it really is.
3. Re:'trolley' ? by fnj · 2017-07-19 00:02 · Score: 1
  
  What the hell are you talking about? What kind of illiterateville do you come from? A trolley is short for trolley car. A trolley car is an electric railcar that runs on tracks laid in the street.
  Sheesh.
4. Re:'trolley' ? by AmiMoJo · 2017-07-19 00:07 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't even seem to fit the American English definition. A trolley is either a wheeled device you push around, or short for trolleybus which is a vehicle powered by overhead electric cabling. The latter is usually on rails, or at least guided, so that it doesn't wonder away from its source of power.
  This thing appears to be an electric bus. A fairly small one. The manufacturer doesn't describe it as a trolley.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
5. Re:'trolley' ? by stealth_finger · 2017-07-19 00:23 · Score: 2
  
  Nah mate, this is a trolley. You probably call it something else though....like wheelcage
  
  http://unisci24.com/data_image...
  
  --
  Wanna buy a shirt?
  https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
6. Re:'trolley' ? by Oswald+McWeany · 2017-07-19 00:39 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry for growing up in the wrong hemisphere but I'm just confused by the American usage of the word 'trolley'.
  It just looks like a 'mini-bus' to me.
  I was thinking it would be great to walk around Tesco and have my trolley drive itself! Frees up my arms for loading it up with groceries.
  
  --
  "That's the way to do it" - Punch
7. Re:'trolley' ? by jfdavis668 · 2017-07-19 00:52 · Score: 1
  
  We call them shopping carts. Here is a guide to identifying them in the wild: https://www.amazon.com/Stray-S...
8. Re:'trolley' ? by drinkypoo · 2017-07-19 00:54 · Score: 1
  
  A trolley is either a wheeled device you push around, or short for trolleybus which is a vehicle powered by overhead electric cabling. The latter is usually on rails, or at least guided, so that it doesn't wonder away from its source of power.
  We (people on the street) don't call that a "trolleybus" in America, we just call it a bus. The transit departments call them trolleybuses, though. And AFAIK the last place they're actually still in use in any number is San Francisco, and they are very much not on rails. Sometimes the bus drivers DO get out from under the pantograph, and another bus has to come along to fix the situation. The bus drivers in SF are particularly bad at driving, or at caring about other humans. I've never been so brutally cut off by buses anywhere as commonly happens in SF. People call the cable cars trolleys.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
9. Re:'trolley' ? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-19 01:02 · Score: 0
  
  Nah mate, this is a trolley. You probably call it something else though....like wheelcage
  http://unisci24.com/data_image...
  
  It's called a shopping cart or just a "cart" for short. Hence the phrase "carting around" meaning "to transport" something.
10. Re:'trolley' ? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-19 01:03 · Score: 0
  
  What kind of illiterateville do you come from? A trolley is short for trolley car.
  Sheesh.
  That shows what an illiterate, small minded fuck you are.
  Trolleybusses got that name because of the pole that collected power from the overhead line.. guess what, those poles were called trolleys.
  I guess your attitude shows how shit the schools are in illiteratville, when they can't even be bothered to teach the inbreds simple things such as words can and do have more than one definition.
11. Re:'trolley' ? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-19 01:07 · Score: 0
  
  What the hell are you talking about? What kind of illiterateville do you come from? A trolley is short for trolley car. A trolley car is an electric railcar that runs on tracks laid in the street.
  Sheesh.
  Sounds a bit inconvenient having to run out to the store to put each can of soup, or box of cereal in. What if it leaves before you finish buying all your groceries?
12. Re:'trolley' ? by Oswald+McWeany · 2017-07-19 01:10 · Score: 2
  
  Sorry for growing up in the wrong hemisphere
  As you should be! All that sun and those attractive women while we have rain, snow and chavvy women... you bastard!
  
  --
  "That's the way to do it" - Punch
13. Re:'trolley' ? by elrous0 · 2017-07-19 01:24 · Score: 2
  
  Same, we push trollies around the shops where I'm from.
  Next you'll be telling me that you call a car trunk a "boot" even though you don't kick anyone with it.
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
14. Re:'trolley' ? by Oswald+McWeany · 2017-07-19 01:49 · Score: 1
  
  Same, we push trollies around the shops where I'm from.
  Next you'll be telling me that you call a car trunk a "boot" even though you don't kick anyone with it.
  Yeah, and I bet your car has a "hood" even though you'd look pretty silly wearing it.
  
  --
  "That's the way to do it" - Punch
15. Re:'trolley' ? by msauve · 2017-07-19 01:49 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, after looking at the pictures, those are more like small buses, which we often call shuttle buses.
  
  But, trolley is often used to refer to something similar which is styled like a traditional overhead-wire electric trolley - often with open-air windows and used for sight-seeing or short loop shuttle service.
  
  Like these: Image 1 Image 2
  
  Note that a trolley differs from a streetcar - the latter runs on rails.
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
16. Re:'trolley' ? by Drethon · 2017-07-19 02:08 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry for growing up in the wrong hemisphere but I'm just confused by the American usage of the word 'trolley'.
  It just looks like a 'mini-bus' to me.
  Don't worry, this Michigander is also confused by the usage. We would just call it a bus.
17. Re:'trolley' ? by elrous0 · 2017-07-19 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  And I check under my hood with a flashlight, which I don't call a "torch" because I don't have to set it on fire.
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
18. Re:'trolley' ? by swell · 2017-07-19 02:31 · Score: 2
  
  In American mass transportation circles, a 'trolley' is usually a vehicle on tracks that handles urban transit. It's not a 'train' that travels at higher speeds between cities, and it's not a bus which has rubber tires suitable for public roads. It is said that those rubber tires do as much damage to the roads as 1,000 cars.
  In San Diego there are bright red buses that are shaped like trolleys and visit all the local attractions. Tourists are expected to find them inviting and similar to the transit trolleys of a bygone era.
  Many US cities still have tracks buried under their main streets that were once used by trolleys. The commercialization of automobiles competed with the trolleys, so lobbyists pressured the leaders of each city to abandon their trolley system to encourage auto sales. Kinda like industry lobbyists pressure cities today not to install public internet utilities so that they can lock you in to local monopolies.
  
  --
  ...omphaloskepsis often...
19. Re:'trolley' ? by Oswald+McWeany · 2017-07-19 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  Why would you want a flash light? Surely a steady light would be more useful.
  
  --
  "That's the way to do it" - Punch
20. Re:'trolley' ? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-19 02:45 · Score: 0
  
  And I check under my hood with a flashlight, which I don't call a "torch" because I don't have to set it on fire.
  Amazing that you're able to check under your hood with just a flash of light!
21. Re:'trolley' ? by plague911 · 2017-07-19 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  We also have them in Boston :( The locals call them part of the "T" or the subway...... The locals don't actually know what functioning subway is.
22. Re:'trolley' ? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-19 03:08 · Score: 0
  
  Cable cars?! Those are the things you go up mountains in when you're skiing!
23. Re:'trolley' ? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-19 03:26 · Score: 0
  
  San Francisco's streetcars are cable cars that are pulled up the rather steep hills there. They're a type of finicular, since the cars move at fixed intervals to one another. (They're not a cog-rail finicular, though.)
  Those things on ski slopes are more accurately a tram (they're suspended from the cable), and are usually referred to as "ski lifts".
24. Re:'trolley' ? by AmiMoJo · 2017-07-19 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  Don't tell me you call a car bonnet a "hood" even though you don't pull it over your head.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
25. Re:'trolley' ? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-19 03:34 · Score: 0
  
  Actually San Fran's cable cars are not fixed to the cable. They clamp to the constantly moving cable when the operator wants to move. The cars use turntables to reverse direction or move on to other cable runs.
26. Re:'trolley' ? by AmiMoJo · 2017-07-19 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  In France they call them chariots.
  Just wanted to mention that.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
27. Re:'trolley' ? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-19 04:07 · Score: 0
  
  Do shopping websites have "add to trolley" buttons where you are from?
28. Re:'trolley' ? by EETech1 · 2017-07-19 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  My mom wears a bonnet on her head..
29. Re:'trolley' ? by Oswald+McWeany · 2017-07-19 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  In France they call them chariots.
  Just wanted to mention that.
  So was Chariots of Fire about French Arsonists in a grocery store?
  
  --
  "That's the way to do it" - Punch
30. Re:'trolley' ? by Dragonslicer · 2017-07-19 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  Boston actually has some of each. The Green Line (which is part of the subway system, though it goes above ground outside of downtown) is on rails and has overhead wires, and a few of the bus routes that go out from the Harvard University campus have overhead wires but drive on regular streets.
31. Re:'trolley' ? by radarskiy · 2017-07-19 10:22 · Score: 1
  
  This thing isn't a trolley by American usage, either.
32. Re:'trolley' ? by radarskiy · 2017-07-19 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  The vehicle in question has rubber tires and no track.
33. Re:'trolley' ? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-19 10:51 · Score: 0
  
  So was Chariots of Fire about French Arsonists in a grocery store?
  I would watch that movie...
Why Michigan? by DNS-and-BIND · 2017-07-18 22:27 · Score: 0

Why build the trolleys in Michigan? You realize this sort of thing just empowers Trump? Gives him ammunition? After Michigan's disgraceful performance in the election, you'd think responsible interntional countries would locate a new plant anywhere BUT Michigan.

--
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
1. Re:Why Michigan? by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-07-18 23:05 · Score: 1
  
  The same reason Henry Ford built cars in Michigan: cheap land.
2. Re:Why Michigan? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-18 23:21 · Score: 0
  
  Wrong. Ford built there because of cheap labour. Right next door is Canada, where they work for a small fraction of what an American worker would fetch.
3. Re:Why Michigan? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-18 23:30 · Score: 0
  
  Most likely he built cars in Michigan because he lived in Michigan, and living in Michigan is probably what encouraged him to build cars, as the preceding, existing industries were significant enablers.
4. Re:Why Michigan? by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-07-18 23:37 · Score: 2
  
  Ford built there because of cheap labour. Right next door is Canada, where they work for a small fraction of what an American worker would fetch.
  The same Henry Ford who doubled the minimum wage he paid his workers and reduced the work hours from nine to eight?
  http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2014/01/03/history/post-perspective/ford-doubles-minimum-wage.html
5. Re:Why Michigan? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-19 01:01 · Score: 0
  
  "Responsible international countries"
  LOL
  Reminds me of some beauty pageant contender show I saw a clip of back in the day.
6. Re:Why Michigan? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-19 01:06 · Score: 1
  
  I think you know less about Canada than you claim. Labour is not cheap here. ;-)
7. Re:Why Michigan? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-19 01:50 · Score: 0
  
  Because Detroit is still the automotive capital of the world which is located in Michigan. You should note the amount of automotive industries located in Michigan. This plant is within commute distance of all these resources.
8. Re:Why Michigan? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-19 01:53 · Score: 0
  
  Because how about Trump is doing a great job and people in these communities who voted for him love what he's doing. We live in a big world and your narrow fake news point of view doesn't always fit.
9. Re:Why Michigan? by plague911 · 2017-07-19 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  Ford set the hours at 8 because of extensive experimentation on his workers. He targeted the optimum hours to get the most product out of people. He found that working more hours actually reduced net production. It was not altruism, it was a simple realization that if you give your "machines" proper maintenance they function better. The AC's narrative actually fits better with the reality that Ford was a cold yet smart brutal capitalist. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us...
Re:"I need some proof!" by stealth_finger · 2017-07-18 23:19 · Score: 1

^How to make someone miss goatse posts. At least they were short.

--
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Re:"I need some proof!" by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2017-07-19 00:57 · Score: 1

Hi there,
I *knew* D. Elton Trueblood, and I'm pretty sure he would not wish to be connected to any of your nonsense.

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
So... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-19 01:33 · Score: 0

We get the privelage of double the travel time for the sake of 'innovation' (also known as, 'Ha, HA! Now we don't have to pay a driver!'). Great. Definitely progress. Such a futuristic wonderland we live in. :/
27mph by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-19 03:32 · Score: 0

is the AVERAGE speed of a bike?
Yay! Death to the job! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-19 05:36 · Score: 0

Who needs workers.... lol
Re: Because they can rather than because its neede by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-19 05:44 · Score: 0

Not really because most traffic jams are provoked by human drivers who speed up then suddenly break, don't respect speed limits and distances, change lanes randomly, etc, etc. However, if the traffic is regulated by an algorithm you could easily stack additional vehicles without increasing the time it takes you to travel. For instance, you could stack all cars at a distance of one or two meters, driving like a road train at a reasonable speed without ever having to reduce the pace. That doesn't work with human drivers - at best it will get you a nice traffic jam.
Troleys need tracks and overhead power by hackel · 2017-07-19 06:22 · Score: 1

This delusion of language really bothers me. These aren't trolleys, they are simply buses. We've had self-driving trains and trams for ages, that's not such a big deal. They can only go where the tracks take them. The automaton consists of starting, stopping, and presumably automatically detecting obstacles. Not particularly exciting. This disgusting company is just trying to confuse the language to generate buzz for their products.
1. Re:Troleys need tracks and overhead power by hackel · 2017-07-19 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  Okay I need to take this back. The Company, Navya, is not disgusting at all. They refer to their ARMA devices as "fully autonomous shuttle vehicles." It's Brady Dale and The Observer that are killing the English language. Fuck you, Brady.
Re: Because they can rather than because its neede by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-19 11:36 · Score: 0

stack all cars at a distance of one or two meters,
Reaction time accounts for a small fraction of the time it takes to make an emergency stop. With thousands of cars on a freeway driving 3 feet apart, one blown tire would cause 9/11-tier carnage.
Re: Because they can rather than because its neede by fluffernutter · 2017-07-19 14:07 · Score: 1

Bingo.

--
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Re: Because they can rather than because its need by KGIII · 2017-07-19 21:22 · Score: 1

Humans do not change lanes randomly. They do so stupidly, but it isn't random.

--
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
It's a... by CmdrTamale · 2017-07-20 05:33 · Score: 1

...TRAM.
--
The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.