In fact, cheap, ubiquitous, and wireless internet is far more useful for automated driving vehicles, as you would need a lot of bandwidth for cars to effectively keep track of each other.
No need for internet as cars would only need to communicate with other cars that are near them, not with cars on the other side of Earth. Short range wireless communication is easier to do that internet access, which requires access points while the car network may be mesh without an access point.
IIRC most of the property is taken away and sold (there are exceptions, for example, some money is left (equal to the minimal monthly salary) and the rest of the debt stays forever, trickling away money the person earns.
Though it is not very common for people to get into such large debts here - for one, banks do not lend money easily.
Unless the debtor is willing to forgive the debt bankruptcy sounds more like theft than anything else.
I guess he found some loophole in the law.
In my country there is no bankruptcy for humans (though such a law is proposed and may pass), only for companies and it means that the company gets shut down, employees laid off and all property is sold at auctions, the money is paid in the order of priority (IIRC unpaid salaries are first, then unpaid taxes then other debts) and not everyone may be able to get the entire amount of money (since there may not be enough money left to pay all debts in full).
So, the bankruptcy of a human would probably be the same (with exceptions for some necessary property, like the home).
Because in the past it was very difficult to design a device so that it fails a month after the warranty expires, but no device breaks before the warranty expires. So the designers chose the safer way to do it and built devices that can last a very long time.
Now everybody is trying to save the last penny, devices do not last as long and they are almost impossible to repair (unlike the old ones).
As long as that person has the money, it is not very difficult. If he does not pay voluntarily, the case goes to the bailiff service and they get the money from him - freezing bank accounts etc. The bailiffs also take their fee from the person responsible, so if the court orders the guy to pay 500EUR to me and he doesn't, he may end up paying more than the 500EUR (in this case it would be at least 614EUR - 500 to me and 114 to the bailiff), depending on how hard it is for the bailiff to get the money. If the person intentionally drags on the payment, after some time, he will also have to pay interest.
I don't know, maybe there are no such services in the US, but where I live you'd better pay or you will pay much more than that once the bailiffs get involved.
If the person does not have the money but has a job, then part of his salary will be deducted and paid to me (automatically, like child support). If he does not have a job then it may be a problem, but still, the bailiffs will figure something out.
When some idiot runs out of gas, or breaks down on a major freeway at peak hour because they didn't do scheduled maintenance, what sort of cost do you think that has on the economy overall as well?
Is that cost really high? After all, if I run out of gas or break down (engine failure or something like that, that leaves the car in some control) I can coast to the side lane (I do not know the proper English word) and park there.
Maybe American roads are different and do not have the side lanes. Here and here is what I am talking about - see that there are 3 lanes on the road, but the rightmost lane is marked by a continuous line. That lane is reserved for broken down cars and vehicles that cannot go faster than 40km/h (it is illegal to drive or park there otherwise). All roads have them - not all are paved, but there always is enough space between the rightmost "driving" lane and the ditch to park your car without disturbing the traffic.
In my country being hit by an uninsured driver means that driver has to pay for fixing my car out of his own pocket. And he will pay a fine to the police for both causing the accident and not having insurance (which is mandatory).
Human drivers have to leave several car lengths between vehicles in order to have sufficient stopping distance. Fully automated cars could drive almost nose-to-tail.
Stopping distance also includes the time it takes for the car to decelerate once the brakes have been applied. Unless the computer controlled cars can stop in a fraction of a second, there will be need for the buffer zone between cars.
Computer-controlled cars won't brake randomly and thus cause traffic jams.
So they will be able to go at the same speed even if one tire blew. Because if a blown tire means sudden deceleration then there would be a large pileup. Well, maybe smart tires will give 10 second notice before blowing. Same with things like axles.
Cars will be timed to go through intersections in one direction through the gaps left between cars in the other direction. Almost like a weave.
Because there will never be slight measurement errors (causing the car to be a few cm away from the spot it was supposed to be), potholes (causing the car to slow down or swerve to avoid them) or breakdowns in the middle of an intersection.
Also a taxi service would be less interested in any of the "features" that make current vehicles so inefficient
However, people still pay more for those "features" both in initial cost and the fuel cost, which means that those people would not use the service which has crappy (by their standards) cars. For example I like when the ride is smooth (meaning the car has to be heavy and have good suspension) and I also like listening to music (not very loud though, but someone else may want a 2kW amp).
Also, I doubt that the legislation banning human drives will be passed before there are a lot of self driving cars (if at all). Doing that (essentially forcing everyone to buy new cars at the same time) is one way of ensuring an angry mob outside the parliament.
So the moral of the story is, if you're going slower than the normal speed of traffic, stay in the right lane.
I always do that when driving in the highway, but not in the city. The reason is that the rightmost lane has the most potholes and in some streets cars are parked there, so if I wanted to drive in that lane I would have to constantly go to the second lane to pass the parked cars and every time I change the lane I increase my chances to get hit.
Hopefully the police manages to install even more speed cameras so that speeding costs more:)
We're at a point right now where the cost of gasoline has the potential to make a lot of people look for an alternative in their next vehicle.... Or it might be a service.
Right, because leased cars use less fuel. Or maybe the fuel is cheaper for the company so that the company can provide the service cheaper than it costs to buy fuel?
My car was modified to run on LPG probably 10 years ago, AFAIK it can run on natural gas too, the gas just needs to be liquified first.
If you allow automatic carpooling with 3 people for each of these rides, you're down to less than 20% of the cost of having your own car.
One more reason to have your own car - no need to share it with other people.
What you are proposing is basically the taxi service. Taxi is less preferable to owning a car not just because of the cost, but also the waiting time and the sharing of the car with other people (in case of taxi it's the driver, in your case 3 random people).
When I'm in my own car, I, for example, can listen to whatever music I like, however loud I like. That stops being possible the moment there is another person in the car, who probably does not like the music, the volume or both.
(demand GM send the "OMG, I'm stolen, stop right now" signal to all OnStar vehicles, and it would accomplish the same thing.)
That remains a possibility. The government won't do it just for the fun of it, but if it feels a threat from the people, cars may stop. Especially if that could be done for all cars. Just imagine - an uprising is brewing up and the government disables all cars so that the people who live further away from the capital cannot get there. Gaddafi probably would have liked this option. Same is true for your government.
Because I can customize it (maybe install 1kW (or high-end) amplifier and speakers, or a tape deck) and keep it like I want (maybe keep some items in the trunk or whatever). Also, the car I own is usually parked next to where I am (my home, my place of work etc), I do not need to wait for the car to arrive after ordering it or go to the nearest car-stop.
Unless the small cars have really good suspension, I would not want to sit in one while it drives on an unpaved road (or just a street where all manhole covers are a few cm below the road level, making small potholes).
I'd rather have a big and heavy car, so the ride is smoother.
Or maybe driving to the train station becomes worthwhile because the car will drive itself back home so you don't have to pay car park fees
But then I would need automatic gates so the car can open them. However, if I am going away, I'd rather lock the gates, but if the car can open them then someone can jam something into them so they do not close. Not good.
And you get to pay more than you would if you drove the car yourself. In addition, there will be no way to repair that car yourself, so you will be paying for that too.
Not to mention the endless hours the various crackers will spend trying to get in and finagle the software in the car itself. See overclockers and modders for prime examples.
One of the first modes probably will be a way to override the speed limit so the AI can speed. Just tell it the speed limit is 60km/h instead of 50 in the city and enjoy speeding.
However, the AI really has to be good to drive properly. For example - see a puddle of water - drive around it because there could be a deep pothole (or an open manhole) under the water. In my city, potholes are really common (to the point that some streets are worse than unpaved roads) so driving there means sometimes going to the opposite lane to avoid a pothole (checking to see if there are no incoming cars of course) or driving very slowly (walking speed) into the pothole if there is no way around it.
Where AIs succeed where people fail are reaction times.
Agreed, but where AIs fail is the decision making - people are much better at making new decisions than a computer is. All possible decisions have to be programmed in the PC.
The rollers can be replaced, just like with open reel tape decks.
Also, digital requires continuous work put into it to keep it from failing - you can't just put a hard drive somewhere for 20 years - odds are big that the drive will not spin up or fail to read anything even if it does spin up. Digital tape could probably survive longer than the hard drive, but still, it is more susceptible to degradation (that is, like digital TV, it will stop playing if the signal is too distorted, while VHS can lose color etc but still produce the image).
Slashdot Mirror
In fact, cheap, ubiquitous, and wireless internet is far more useful for automated driving vehicles, as you would need a lot of bandwidth for cars to effectively keep track of each other.
No need for internet as cars would only need to communicate with other cars that are near them, not with cars on the other side of Earth. Short range wireless communication is easier to do that internet access, which requires access points while the car network may be mesh without an access point.
IIRC most of the property is taken away and sold (there are exceptions, for example, some money is left (equal to the minimal monthly salary) and the rest of the debt stays forever, trickling away money the person earns.
Though it is not very common for people to get into such large debts here - for one, banks do not lend money easily.
Unless the debtor is willing to forgive the debt bankruptcy sounds more like theft than anything else.
I guess he found some loophole in the law.
In my country there is no bankruptcy for humans (though such a law is proposed and may pass), only for companies and it means that the company gets shut down, employees laid off and all property is sold at auctions, the money is paid in the order of priority (IIRC unpaid salaries are first, then unpaid taxes then other debts) and not everyone may be able to get the entire amount of money (since there may not be enough money left to pay all debts in full).
So, the bankruptcy of a human would probably be the same (with exceptions for some necessary property, like the home).
In Lithuania the sign most likely shows a radar wave or something like that.
Because in the past it was very difficult to design a device so that it fails a month after the warranty expires, but no device breaks before the warranty expires. So the designers chose the safer way to do it and built devices that can last a very long time.
Now everybody is trying to save the last penny, devices do not last as long and they are almost impossible to repair (unlike the old ones).
As long as that person has the money, it is not very difficult. If he does not pay voluntarily, the case goes to the bailiff service and they get the money from him - freezing bank accounts etc. The bailiffs also take their fee from the person responsible, so if the court orders the guy to pay 500EUR to me and he doesn't, he may end up paying more than the 500EUR (in this case it would be at least 614EUR - 500 to me and 114 to the bailiff), depending on how hard it is for the bailiff to get the money. If the person intentionally drags on the payment, after some time, he will also have to pay interest.
I don't know, maybe there are no such services in the US, but where I live you'd better pay or you will pay much more than that once the bailiffs get involved.
If the person does not have the money but has a job, then part of his salary will be deducted and paid to me (automatically, like child support). If he does not have a job then it may be a problem, but still, the bailiffs will figure something out.
When some idiot runs out of gas, or breaks down on a major freeway at peak hour because they didn't do scheduled maintenance, what sort of cost do you think that has on the economy overall as well?
Is that cost really high? After all, if I run out of gas or break down (engine failure or something like that, that leaves the car in some control) I can coast to the side lane (I do not know the proper English word) and park there.
Maybe American roads are different and do not have the side lanes. Here and here is what I am talking about - see that there are 3 lanes on the road, but the rightmost lane is marked by a continuous line. That lane is reserved for broken down cars and vehicles that cannot go faster than 40km/h (it is illegal to drive or park there otherwise). All roads have them - not all are paved, but there always is enough space between the rightmost "driving" lane and the ditch to park your car without disturbing the traffic.
In my country being hit by an uninsured driver means that driver has to pay for fixing my car out of his own pocket. And he will pay a fine to the police for both causing the accident and not having insurance (which is mandatory).
Human drivers have to leave several car lengths between vehicles in order to have sufficient stopping distance. Fully automated cars could drive almost nose-to-tail.
Stopping distance also includes the time it takes for the car to decelerate once the brakes have been applied. Unless the computer controlled cars can stop in a fraction of a second, there will be need for the buffer zone between cars.
Computer-controlled cars won't brake randomly and thus cause traffic jams.
So they will be able to go at the same speed even if one tire blew. Because if a blown tire means sudden deceleration then there would be a large pileup. Well, maybe smart tires will give 10 second notice before blowing. Same with things like axles.
Well, the police could make a lot of money by installing speed cameras there.
Cars will be timed to go through intersections in one direction through the gaps left between cars in the other direction. Almost like a weave.
Because there will never be slight measurement errors (causing the car to be a few cm away from the spot it was supposed to be), potholes (causing the car to slow down or swerve to avoid them) or breakdowns in the middle of an intersection.
Also a taxi service would be less interested in any of the "features" that make current vehicles so inefficient
However, people still pay more for those "features" both in initial cost and the fuel cost, which means that those people would not use the service which has crappy (by their standards) cars. For example I like when the ride is smooth (meaning the car has to be heavy and have good suspension) and I also like listening to music (not very loud though, but someone else may want a 2kW amp).
Also, I doubt that the legislation banning human drives will be passed before there are a lot of self driving cars (if at all). Doing that (essentially forcing everyone to buy new cars at the same time) is one way of ensuring an angry mob outside the parliament.
So the moral of the story is, if you're going slower than the normal speed of traffic, stay in the right lane.
I always do that when driving in the highway, but not in the city. The reason is that the rightmost lane has the most potholes and in some streets cars are parked there, so if I wanted to drive in that lane I would have to constantly go to the second lane to pass the parked cars and every time I change the lane I increase my chances to get hit.
Hopefully the police manages to install even more speed cameras so that speeding costs more :)
We're at a point right now where the cost of gasoline has the potential to make a lot of people look for an alternative in their next vehicle. ... Or it might be a service.
Right, because leased cars use less fuel. Or maybe the fuel is cheaper for the company so that the company can provide the service cheaper than it costs to buy fuel?
My car was modified to run on LPG probably 10 years ago, AFAIK it can run on natural gas too, the gas just needs to be liquified first.
If you allow automatic carpooling with 3 people for each of these rides, you're down to less than 20% of the cost of having your own car.
One more reason to have your own car - no need to share it with other people.
What you are proposing is basically the taxi service. Taxi is less preferable to owning a car not just because of the cost, but also the waiting time and the sharing of the car with other people (in case of taxi it's the driver, in your case 3 random people).
When I'm in my own car, I, for example, can listen to whatever music I like, however loud I like. That stops being possible the moment there is another person in the car, who probably does not like the music, the volume or both.
(demand GM send the "OMG, I'm stolen, stop right now" signal to all OnStar vehicles, and it would accomplish the same thing.)
That remains a possibility. The government won't do it just for the fun of it, but if it feels a threat from the people, cars may stop. Especially if that could be done for all cars. Just imagine - an uprising is brewing up and the government disables all cars so that the people who live further away from the capital cannot get there. Gaddafi probably would have liked this option. Same is true for your government.
why own a car if I can't drive it?
Because I can customize it (maybe install 1kW (or high-end) amplifier and speakers, or a tape deck) and keep it like I want (maybe keep some items in the trunk or whatever).
Also, the car I own is usually parked next to where I am (my home, my place of work etc), I do not need to wait for the car to arrive after ordering it or go to the nearest car-stop.
Unless the small cars have really good suspension, I would not want to sit in one while it drives on an unpaved road (or just a street where all manhole covers are a few cm below the road level, making small potholes).
I'd rather have a big and heavy car, so the ride is smoother.
So, tracking the car. It can be done now, but for some reason people do not like being tracked all the time.
Or maybe driving to the train station becomes worthwhile because the car will drive itself back home so you don't have to pay car park fees
But then I would need automatic gates so the car can open them. However, if I am going away, I'd rather lock the gates, but if the car can open them then someone can jam something into them so they do not close. Not good.
And you get to pay more than you would if you drove the car yourself. In addition, there will be no way to repair that car yourself, so you will be paying for that too.
Not to mention the endless hours the various crackers will spend trying to get in and finagle the software in the car itself. See overclockers and modders for prime examples.
One of the first modes probably will be a way to override the speed limit so the AI can speed. Just tell it the speed limit is 60km/h instead of 50 in the city and enjoy speeding.
However, the AI really has to be good to drive properly. For example - see a puddle of water - drive around it because there could be a deep pothole (or an open manhole) under the water. In my city, potholes are really common (to the point that some streets are worse than unpaved roads) so driving there means sometimes going to the opposite lane to avoid a pothole (checking to see if there are no incoming cars of course) or driving very slowly (walking speed) into the pothole if there is no way around it.
Where AIs succeed where people fail are reaction times.
Agreed, but where AIs fail is the decision making - people are much better at making new decisions than a computer is. All possible decisions have to be programmed in the PC.
The rollers can be replaced, just like with open reel tape decks.
Also, digital requires continuous work put into it to keep it from failing - you can't just put a hard drive somewhere for 20 years - odds are big that the drive will not spin up or fail to read anything even if it does spin up. Digital tape could probably survive longer than the hard drive, but still, it is more susceptible to degradation (that is, like digital TV, it will stop playing if the signal is too distorted, while VHS can lose color etc but still produce the image).
Video tapes recorded in the 90s play quite well.