It will end up being cheaper cars designed to only be automated are built. You can also build lighter and simpler vehicles as the number of human drivers drops.
The lobbyist driven aspects will be the people trying to keep their jobs driving (truck, bus, taxi.)
If the above scenario takes place it will mean that other jurisdictions (Singapore, Korea, China, Taiwan) will end up as the chief source of expertise for these vehicles and end up with the largest portion of the profits.
The current trend of some states (e.g. Michigan) to enact robotic car testing friendly rules show that some politicians really want the business to be built locally. So its unlikely they will stand by and let the courts (well litigants in the courts) play games.
At least in places with law derived from the British Courts, the default is precedent unless there is a specific law.
More specifically laws are strictly interpreted to see if they cover a specific situation. But if there is no specific law then the closest precedents are used to determine which is closest.
Skytrain may be on a separate track (mostly two, one for each direction.)
But you still need very careful traffic management to ensure that any train does not run into another one stopped at a station or anywhere else. I.e. a planned (station) or unplanned (random) stop.
These things go fast and hitting a stopped train would generate headlines. And if you where around Vancouver in the mid eighties when Skytrain was first built there where numerous naysayers predicting catastrophe if there was not an operator in each train to be able to "hit the brakes" if needed.
Trains are on rails but that does NOT stop them from killing people when they crash. Typical causes are trains going too fast around corners (recent news, driver was "inattentive") or going through warning signals to hit another train.
Sort of. But you (or the owner) will still be responsible for making sure the proper maintenance schedule is followed. And in some situations even though the vehicle didn't manage to avoid a crash it may still be that something else is liable.
Think plane landing on freeway (in the news yesterday).
Or animal control fence damaged and elk or cows wandering across the road. The car should have avoided them, but the underlying cause is STILL the owner of the fence not doing HIS maintenance.
It is rarely that you can simply point the finger at a single entity and say its ALL your fault.
The human drivers are there to satisfy legal and insurance requirements.
To date the number of times that they (humans) have taken over the vehicle is limited (last I heard was three) and in those cases a review of the data after the fact showed that the computer would done the same thing.
As deployed the Google solution is getting pretty close based on the data sets they are using. In other words they don't need any new magical algorithms. They do need better and cheaper sensors with improved ways of recognizing things in real time. Most of these requirements will be solved by higher manufacturing volumes and Moores Law (in general if not specifically.)
To a certain extent, assuming the cost of accidents will drop, the total $ value of required insurance will drop, so the profit participation of the insurance companies will also drop.
But that is seen as a global effect, while the immediate reaction of most insurance companies will be to accept increased profits on a short term basis by over charging for insurance that doesn't reflect probable pay outs.
Not much different from now. Car manufacturers already have insurance (or do self-insurance) against law suits for faulty goods. Again the incidence of successful lawsuits will cause their premiums to rise or fall providing a good incentive to make safe fault free vehicles.
If you own the vehicle you will pay the insurance.
If you don't own the vehicle the owner of the vehicle will pay the insurance.
Think taxi or limousine service. Their insurance costs are simply bundled into the fee you pay for hiring them.
When you own the vehicle you are responsible for its operation and maintenance. So as with everything else the reputation of the builder of the vehicle will be a guide to the cost of the insurance (lots of accidents will mean higher premiums.) So you will want to compare cost of insurance as part of your purchase decision. Nothing new, we already do that (although its about the cost of repair mostly).
Don't forget that a large volume (i.e. > 50%) of traffic will end up being both driver less and passenger less. Think delivery vehicles. Think cars taking themselves somewhere to park or pick up another passenger or charge their batteries.
So you need to have the car be reliable without a human in the vicinity.
This also means that you reduce the cost of the vehicles because you remove the redundant and now unused and unneeded controls. More room for people and cargo.
Drivers licenses will be optional for today's pre-school aged kids. And only available after special training for specific areas (like test tracks) for their kids.
Autonomous vehicles will be more like taxis. You get in and they take you somewhere. You're interaction is limited to stating your preferred destination and route.
Liability will be covered by insurance against possible mistakes or mechanical problems.
Possibly some cars may allow you to control the vehicle yourself IFF you have a valid drivers license AND your own insurance. Most people won't bother having either as there will be no need for the additional expense.
New plant varieties can be and are patented REGARDLESS of how they are developed. If you develop a new strain of something with unique characteristics you get a patent on it. This is nothing new for GMO versions.
You mean like where the next IPCC draft has quietly cut the 30-year project of how much the world will warm from 0.4-1.0C (previous draft) to 0.3-0.7C in the final draft, also saying that warming is more likely to be at the lower end of the range over the next 30 years.
Interesting conundrum. The left wing environmentalists want us to scale back on energy use, which effectively means we cannot support as many people on the earth as we have now. The alternative, they claim, is that doing nothing means we'll have problems growing enough food (due to climate change side-effects) to support the number of people we now have on the earth.
So do something that condemns people to die of starvation NOW to prevent the possibility that people will die of starvation in the FUTURE, maybe.
Of course the latter course does mean that attempts at mitigation (of possible side effects) will be successful and nobody will die of starvation after all but that would not fit with their ideas of an ideal world that has far fewer people in it.
No, ONE of the alternatives to Keystone XL is one (or more) pipelines West (to the coast) or East to the (other) coast...
But realistically given the amount of oil in the ground its not a question of which pipeline but how many and on what schedule. Keystone was promoted as an early contender because of the additional oil in the ground in (for example) North Dakota and because of the existing infra-structure in the southern US (refineries and shipping.)
The net result is that Keystone --XL will be built, basically the parts up to North Dakota, because there is and will be close to sufficient need for that anyway. Rail will be used to bridge the 49th parallel until such time as the State Department OK's the crossing. And all of the parts up to the 49th have the required approvals (from the states) to be built. At some point in the future a State Department WILL OK the crossing. Just have to wait.
I had thought they might just implement a short hop. But currently the plan is to use the existing (building in progress) rail terminal in Hardisty Alberta to ship to somewhere in (i think, name escapes me) in Nebraska. This is much longer (close to 2000 km) but utilizes existing infrastructure sooner.
The reason that this is all moving to rail is simple. It is cost effective. It exists. It does not need (new and/or changed) regulatory approval. You just arrange to have your product delivered to one railhead, the railroad will arrange everything else and get it to the destination for you. The cost is higher than rail but still lower than the differential in pricing.
The analogy is there but you have not got it right.
MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Drivers) have campaigned for years to reduce the number of deaths from drunk driving with reasonably success. The point is that they number of deaths was in the range of about 20,000 a year.
That still leaves about 30,000 deaths a year from other causes which mostly are due to human drivers. I.e. some number greater than the problem that drunk drivers presented.
Once autonomous vehicles are available the focus will move quickly from Drunk Drivers to simply Drivers. Think MAHD (Mothers Against Human Drivers). And that will move with Internet Social Media speed. It will simply become socially unacceptable to drive yourself (just like driving drunk) within five years at that point.
And the net benefit to society is similar. Probably in excess of 20,000 people a year who won't die.
At some point the tradeoff becomes continue to allow autonomous vehicles with present speed limits or eliminate them and raise speed limits by X %. Since the vast majority of people will benefit they will vote to get rid of human drivers and make their own commutes faster and more efficient.
Slashdot Mirror
10 million downloads and counting (Classic Shell). Not sure if that hits 5% of Win8 install base.
It will end up being cheaper cars designed to only be automated are built. You can also build lighter and simpler vehicles as the number of human drivers drops.
The lobbyist driven aspects will be the people trying to keep their jobs driving (truck, bus, taxi.)
Except....
If the above scenario takes place it will mean that other jurisdictions (Singapore, Korea, China, Taiwan) will end up as the chief source of expertise for these vehicles and end up with the largest portion of the profits.
The current trend of some states (e.g. Michigan) to enact robotic car testing friendly rules show that some politicians really want the business to be built locally. So its unlikely they will stand by and let the courts (well litigants in the courts) play games.
At least in places with law derived from the British Courts, the default is precedent unless there is a specific law.
More specifically laws are strictly interpreted to see if they cover a specific situation. But if there is no specific law then the closest precedents are used to determine which is closest.
Skytrain may be on a separate track (mostly two, one for each direction.)
But you still need very careful traffic management to ensure that any train does not run into another one stopped at a station or anywhere else. I.e. a planned (station) or unplanned (random) stop.
These things go fast and hitting a stopped train would generate headlines. And if you where around Vancouver in the mid eighties when Skytrain was first built there where numerous naysayers predicting catastrophe if there was not an operator in each train to be able to "hit the brakes" if needed.
Trains are on rails but that does NOT stop them from killing people when they crash. Typical causes are trains going too fast around corners (recent news, driver was "inattentive") or going through warning signals to hit another train.
Sort of. But you (or the owner) will still be responsible for making sure the proper maintenance schedule is followed. And in some situations even though the vehicle didn't manage to avoid a crash it may still be that something else is liable.
Think plane landing on freeway (in the news yesterday).
Or animal control fence damaged and elk or cows wandering across the road. The car should have avoided them, but the underlying cause is STILL the owner of the fence not doing HIS maintenance.
It is rarely that you can simply point the finger at a single entity and say its ALL your fault.
Huh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_driverless_car
San Francisco's Lombard Street and Golden Gate Bridge are a fair distance from Arizona. As is Lake Tahoe.
Yes. But.
The human drivers are there to satisfy legal and insurance requirements.
To date the number of times that they (humans) have taken over the vehicle is limited (last I heard was three) and in those cases a review of the data after the fact showed that the computer would done the same thing.
As deployed the Google solution is getting pretty close based on the data sets they are using. In other words they don't need any new magical algorithms. They do need better and cheaper sensors with improved ways of recognizing things in real time. Most of these requirements will be solved by higher manufacturing volumes and Moores Law (in general if not specifically.)
To a certain extent, assuming the cost of accidents will drop, the total $ value of required insurance will drop, so the profit participation of the insurance companies will also drop.
But that is seen as a global effect, while the immediate reaction of most insurance companies will be to accept increased profits on a short term basis by over charging for insurance that doesn't reflect probable pay outs.
Not much different from now. Car manufacturers already have insurance (or do self-insurance) against law suits for faulty goods. Again the incidence of successful lawsuits will cause their premiums to rise or fall providing a good incentive to make safe fault free vehicles.
Nothing to see here.
If you own the vehicle you will pay the insurance.
If you don't own the vehicle the owner of the vehicle will pay the insurance.
Think taxi or limousine service. Their insurance costs are simply bundled into the fee you pay for hiring them.
When you own the vehicle you are responsible for its operation and maintenance. So as with everything else the reputation of the builder of the vehicle will be a guide to the cost of the insurance (lots of accidents will mean higher premiums.) So you will want to compare cost of insurance as part of your purchase decision. Nothing new, we already do that (although its about the cost of repair mostly).
Don't forget that a large volume (i.e. > 50%) of traffic will end up being both driver less and passenger less. Think delivery vehicles. Think cars taking themselves somewhere to park or pick up another passenger or charge their batteries.
So you need to have the car be reliable without a human in the vicinity.
This also means that you reduce the cost of the vehicles because you remove the redundant and now unused and unneeded controls. More room for people and cargo.
Drivers licenses will be optional for today's pre-school aged kids. And only available after special training for specific areas (like test tracks) for their kids.
Autonomous vehicles will be more like taxis. You get in and they take you somewhere. You're interaction is limited to stating your preferred destination and route.
Liability will be covered by insurance against possible mistakes or mechanical problems.
Possibly some cars may allow you to control the vehicle yourself IFF you have a valid drivers license AND your own insurance. Most people won't bother having either as there will be no need for the additional expense.
Almost all of the damage to the Hawaiian ecosystems can be traced to two species. Rats and Humans.
New plant varieties can be and are patented REGARDLESS of how they are developed. If you develop a new strain of something with unique characteristics you get a patent on it. This is nothing new for GMO versions.
You mean like where the next IPCC draft has quietly cut the 30-year project of how much the world will warm from 0.4-1.0C (previous draft) to 0.3-0.7C in the final draft, also saying that warming is more likely to be at the lower end of the range over the next 30 years.
Interesting conundrum. The left wing environmentalists want us to scale back on energy use, which effectively means we cannot support as many people on the earth as we have now. The alternative, they claim, is that doing nothing means we'll have problems growing enough food (due to climate change side-effects) to support the number of people we now have on the earth.
So do something that condemns people to die of starvation NOW to prevent the possibility that people will die of starvation in the FUTURE, maybe.
Of course the latter course does mean that attempts at mitigation (of possible side effects) will be successful and nobody will die of starvation after all but that would not fit with their ideas of an ideal world that has far fewer people in it.
No, ONE of the alternatives to Keystone XL is one (or more) pipelines West (to the coast) or East to the (other) coast...
But realistically given the amount of oil in the ground its not a question of which pipeline but how many and on what schedule. Keystone was promoted as an early contender because of the additional oil in the ground in (for example) North Dakota and because of the existing infra-structure in the southern US (refineries and shipping.)
The net result is that Keystone --XL will be built, basically the parts up to North Dakota, because there is and will be close to sufficient need for that anyway. Rail will be used to bridge the 49th parallel until such time as the State Department OK's the crossing. And all of the parts up to the 49th have the required approvals (from the states) to be built. At some point in the future a State Department WILL OK the crossing. Just have to wait.
I had thought they might just implement a short hop. But currently the plan is to use the existing (building in progress) rail terminal in Hardisty Alberta to ship to somewhere in (i think, name escapes me) in Nebraska. This is much longer (close to 2000 km) but utilizes existing infrastructure sooner.
The reason that this is all moving to rail is simple. It is cost effective. It exists. It does not need (new and/or changed) regulatory approval. You just arrange to have your product delivered to one railhead, the railroad will arrange everything else and get it to the destination for you. The cost is higher than rail but still lower than the differential in pricing.
It is called Superstorm because it was not actually a hurricane (based on wind speed) when it landed....
The media needed a new term to convey how bad it was even though it was not a hurricane.
The analogy is there but you have not got it right.
MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Drivers) have campaigned for years to reduce the number of deaths from drunk driving with reasonably success. The point is that they number of deaths was in the range of about 20,000 a year.
That still leaves about 30,000 deaths a year from other causes which mostly are due to human drivers. I.e. some number greater than the problem that drunk drivers presented.
Once autonomous vehicles are available the focus will move quickly from Drunk Drivers to simply Drivers. Think MAHD (Mothers Against Human Drivers). And that will move with Internet Social Media speed. It will simply become socially unacceptable to drive yourself (just like driving drunk) within five years at that point.
And the net benefit to society is similar. Probably in excess of 20,000 people a year who won't die.
At some point the tradeoff becomes continue to allow autonomous vehicles with present speed limits or eliminate them and raise speed limits by X %. Since the vast majority of people will benefit they will vote to get rid of human drivers and make their own commutes faster and more efficient.
And like horse riding driving your pet car will be confined to places where other people remain safe while you are doing it.
I.e. anywhere but on public roads.
Ok, how many times do we have to repeat that it was IN RACING..
Please tell us you have been racing your car and not had any injuries ...