With automated cars, taxis will become much less expensive
Yes, that is the Uber business plan (except they won't be calling them taxis).
I'm not so sure. They will lose the taxi driver's wages, of course, but they're going to have to invest in a very large fleet to provide a decent service. If people start using their Uber automated car for commuting then you aren't going to be able to get away with a massive "surge" every morning at 8 o'clock and every afternoon at 5 (or whatever).
>> I can go to the bar by myself and get hammered, and not worry about driving home.
And yet people on SlashDot wonder why many of us would still want our OWN cars in the age of automated driving.
What? It's drunks driving themselves that is the problem. This is one of the most compelling arguments for autonomous cars: they wouldn't have people who wre drunk, drugged, exhausted, emotionally upset, psychotic or teenage in control of them.
Do a search for google car can't drive in rain and you will see that they haven't even been tested in heavy rain because of safety concerns.
That just means they haven't gotten to that yet, not that they expect it to be very hard.
Yeah it's like that whole cold-fusion- powered- AI thing, it just happens to be a bit further down their To Do list, but it's purely a scheduling issue.
Mandated insurance makes no sense. It's not sufficient to cover anything but the most trivial accident. Compared to the costs and risks involved it's a completely token gesture.
So it should be mandated third party liability insurance then.
It's also quite likely that if the autonomous cars didn't handle it well, people might just end up not caring and not drive/ride around during those times.
Yes, I think google has proved that autonomous cars work fine as long as you limit your driving to sunny days on freeways.
This whole topic seems silly though. Driving is way too complicated for cars to be driving themselves anytime soon. This is going to be one of those things that's always ten years away.
But apparently Uber are valued at twenty nine gazillion dollars because of their expected autonomous car monopoly in five or so years time.
Mind you, if you opt to not get insurance, you are still on the hook for costs of bodily injury or property damage resulting from a car accident you caused.
Exactly, what happens if you hospitalise someone for life and they sue you for fifty years of hospital bills and lost earnings? I don't see how this could possibly work, which is why in places like the UK third party liability is compulsory.
as well as whatever profits the company can get away with
Insurance companies are regulated by the states which cap their profits. It isn't about what they can get away with, they get what they are allowed. That is the devil's bargain they make for being the provider of a product required by law.
Interesting, as it doesn't work that way here in the UK. You are legally required to have third party liability insurance, but the premiums are not capped or controlled. An eighteen year old in a Ferrari will pay a lot, lot more than someone who has a clean twenty year driving record and drives a Fiat Panda.
It need not even reduce your flexibility, if you could summon anybody's car on five minutes' notice. It's easy to see how that could happen, if large fleets were deployed strategically, even in the suburbs.
Farily big "ifs" there.
In reality, companies like Uber aren't going to provide anything like a universally good service. They'll probably be ok in cities (if you don't mind paying their surge prices just when you and everybody else most want to use them), but elsewhere the service will be much patchier.
Even here in suburbia we've bicycled for our groceries, three baskets per bicycle, allowing for at least six bags, possibly more depending on how we pack the bikes, to be transported the less-than-a-mile home.
If it's really less than a mile, why would you cycle? I'd rather just take a decent rucksack and walk. You can't carry all that much safely on a bike.
I suppose you'd save ten minutes each way travel time, but by the time you get the bike out, lock it up at the shops then put it away when you get home, it probably isn't any quicker over all.
No. I don't want a self-driving car. First, because I'm one of those weirdos that actually enjoys driving. Second, because I suffer from motion sickness if I'm in a vehicle that I'm not controlling. And third, I'm a software developer and therefore have no faith in software.:-b
No, I really want a self driving car, I just don't want one on the Uber plan.
Car ownership is a form of freedom from those who control other forms of transportation, and I'd hate to see that go away.
So putting yourself into debt and/or signing an onerous lease agreement is a form of freedom?
I'm sure glad that your monthly car payments give you freedom from those who espouse walking and bicycling.
It depends where you live. If you have to commute thirty miles a day, and there is no nearby train service, then you're going to waste a lot of time doing it by bike.
At least that is my hope. The concept of car ownership is archaic. I look forward to the offloading all the associated penalty costs of car ownership in favour of a service model.
Slashdot Mirror
Driving is one of the pleasures in life!
Maybe, but commuting is not a pleasure for anyone.
Personally, I would love to be able to read/nap on the way to work and have a few beers on the way back home.
I just can't see it happening soon.
With automated cars, taxis will become much less expensive
Yes, that is the Uber business plan (except they won't be calling them taxis).
I'm not so sure. They will lose the taxi driver's wages, of course, but they're going to have to invest in a very large fleet to provide a decent service. If people start using their Uber automated car for commuting then you aren't going to be able to get away with a massive "surge" every morning at 8 o'clock and every afternoon at 5 (or whatever).
>> I can go to the bar by myself and get hammered, and not worry about driving home.
And yet people on SlashDot wonder why many of us would still want our OWN cars in the age of automated driving.
What? It's drunks driving themselves that is the problem. This is one of the most compelling arguments for autonomous cars: they wouldn't have people who wre drunk, drugged, exhausted, emotionally upset, psychotic or teenage in control of them.
Moding something down isn't supposed to mean "I disagree."
Mod parent up.
Do a search for google car can't drive in rain and you will see that they haven't even been tested in heavy rain because of safety concerns.
That just means they haven't gotten to that yet, not that they expect it to be very hard.
Yeah it's like that whole cold-fusion- powered- AI thing, it just happens to be a bit further down their To Do list, but it's purely a scheduling issue.
Mandated insurance makes no sense. It's not sufficient to cover anything but the most trivial accident. Compared to the costs and risks involved it's a completely token gesture.
So it should be mandated third party liability insurance then.
Statistically (you know, how insurance actually works) a driver gets in an accident every 6 years. You are due for one.
I think you need to take a statistics course.
It's also quite likely that if the autonomous cars didn't handle it well, people might just end up not caring and not drive/ride around during those times.
Yes, I think google has proved that autonomous cars work fine as long as you limit your driving to sunny days on freeways.
You don't need to be riding your brakes on ice: don't accelerate and you won't gain speed.
Until you start to go down a hill, of course.
This whole topic seems silly though. Driving is way too complicated for cars to be driving themselves anytime soon. This is going to be one of those things that's always ten years away.
But apparently Uber are valued at twenty nine gazillion dollars because of their expected autonomous car monopoly in five or so years time.
Mind you, if you opt to not get insurance, you are still on the hook for costs of bodily injury or property damage resulting from a car accident you caused.
Exactly, what happens if you hospitalise someone for life and they sue you for fifty years of hospital bills and lost earnings? I don't see how this could possibly work, which is why in places like the UK third party liability is compulsory.
It's nothing to do with damage to your own car.
as well as whatever profits the company can get away with
Insurance companies are regulated by the states which cap their profits. It isn't about what they can get away with, they get what they are allowed. That is the devil's bargain they make for being the provider of a product required by law.
Interesting, as it doesn't work that way here in the UK. You are legally required to have third party liability insurance, but the premiums are not capped or controlled. An eighteen year old in a Ferrari will pay a lot, lot more than someone who has a clean twenty year driving record and drives a Fiat Panda.
. But i find it disingenuous that no one has sarcasm and derision when people spend stupid money on cars, parts, components, etc.
Speak for yourself.
2 seconds?! Utter rubbish. My Linux machine boots 10 seconds BEFORE I press the power button.
I never need to reboot my Free BSD box.
I can't even remember which BeeGee's song to use for the rhythm
It's "Staying Alive." How fucking hard can that be to remember?
Hint: you're helping someone stay alive.
Four out of five elderly people given CPR end up dying [theguardian.com] within days
So one in five survives.
Even assuming your figures are correct, I'd rather end up bed-ridden or in a wheelchair than dead.
This guy did not "invent" CPR.
There really should be a "-1 douchebag" mod option.
It need not even reduce your flexibility, if you could summon anybody's car on five minutes' notice. It's easy to see how that could happen, if large fleets were deployed strategically, even in the suburbs.
Farily big "ifs" there.
In reality, companies like Uber aren't going to provide anything like a universally good service. They'll probably be ok in cities (if you don't mind paying their surge prices just when you and everybody else most want to use them), but elsewhere the service will be much patchier.
Even here in suburbia we've bicycled for our groceries, three baskets per bicycle, allowing for at least six bags, possibly more depending on how we pack the bikes, to be transported the less-than-a-mile home.
If it's really less than a mile, why would you cycle? I'd rather just take a decent rucksack and walk. You can't carry all that much safely on a bike.
I suppose you'd save ten minutes each way travel time, but by the time you get the bike out, lock it up at the shops then put it away when you get home, it probably isn't any quicker over all.
No. I don't want a self-driving car. First, because I'm one of those weirdos that actually enjoys driving. Second, because I suffer from motion sickness if I'm in a vehicle that I'm not controlling. And third, I'm a software developer and therefore have no faith in software. :-b
No, I really want a self driving car, I just don't want one on the Uber plan.
The future will be driverless cars, mass transit and bicycles in urban/suburban areas.
You forgot personal jetpacks.
Car ownership is a form of freedom from those who control other forms of transportation, and I'd hate to see that go away.
So putting yourself into debt and/or signing an onerous lease agreement is a form of freedom?
I'm sure glad that your monthly car payments give you freedom from those who espouse walking and bicycling.
It depends where you live. If you have to commute thirty miles a day, and there is no nearby train service, then you're going to waste a lot of time doing it by bike.
Anyplace where axes were the minimum requirement, I think I'd be carrying a chainsaw.
Anyplace where axes were the minimum requirement, I think I'd be avoiding.
At least that is my hope. The concept of car ownership is archaic. I look forward to the offloading all the associated penalty costs of car ownership in favour of a service model.
This service announcement brought to you by Uber.