For now, it seems like a novelty - cars that can operate independently of human control, safely cruising down streets thanks to an array of sensors and pinpoint GPS navigation.
But if the technology avoids getting crushed by government regulators and product liability lawsuits, writes the Federalist's Dan McLaughlin, it could prompt a cultural shift similar to the early 20th century move away from horses as the primary means of transportation.
First and foremost, he writes, the spread of driverless cars will likely greatly reduce the number of traffic accidents - which currently cost Americans $871b (£510b) a year.
"A truly driverless road would not be accident-free, given the number of accidents that would still be caused by mechanical and computer errors, weather conditions, pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists and sheer random chance," he says. "But it would make the now-routine loss of life and limb on the roads far rarer."
Computer-operated cars would eventually reshape car design, he says, as things like windshields - "a large and vulnerable piece of glass" - become less necessary. Drivers will be able to sit wherever they'd like in their cars, which could make car interiors more like mobile lounges than like cockpits.
The age required to operate a driverless car is likely to drop, he says. There could be an impact on the legal drinking age, as well, as preventing drunk driving was one of the prime justifications for the US-wide setting minimum age to purchase alcohol at 21 years old.
There's other possible economic fallout, McLaughlin contends, such as a restructuring of the auto insurance industry, the obsolescence of taxi drivers and lower ratings for drive-time radio programmes.
The high-tech security state will also get boost, he writes, as GPS-tagged cars will be easier to track, making life difficult for fugitives and car thieves. Police will also be able to move resources away from operations like traffic enforcement.
Of course, he writes, the towns that rely on speed traps to fund their government services will be facing budget shortfalls. Privacy advocates could also get an unexpected boost, he notes, since traffic stops are one of the main justifications for police vehicle searches.
Finally, there's the prospect of the as-yet-unrealised futurist dream of flying cars. With computer-controlled vehicles that strictly follow traffic rules, McLaughlin says, "the potential for three-dimensional roads becomes a lot less scary and more a matter of simply solving the technological challenge".
Where we're going, we may not need roads after all. [Reply]
Not having to drive would be a dream. Literally life changing.
I have come to dislike it in the past 5 or so years. So many chances for bad and annoying things to happen that can cause people to get hurt or a ton of money come out of my pocket.
I would not need to drive a whole lot of my work commute was not 30-45 mins one day I can get away with most stuff being walkable or public transit adjacent during stretches off of days. [Reply]
Originally Posted by HemiEd:
Correct me if I am wrong, but I am pretty certain these driverless cars are networked (blue toothed, internet, whatever you want to call it), especially the cab company referenced in post 56 from San Francisco. I can not imagine any possibility of them turning a fleet of driverless cars loose without a central dispatch control.
Can you?
However, your normal consumer owned car, has a self contained, non networked computer. You would need to plug into it to hack it, similar to the service code reader.
Thus, the possibility of hacking driverless cars would be a very real possibility.
I generally think that some point in the future driverless cars will be an improvement over human drivers. But yes, if there are millions of Waymo Google cars or Uber driverless cars or any on demand driverless car service...
Yes, the network being hacked is one of those unlikely, but high risk scenarios that need to be taken seriously.
Having millions of cars being ordered to crash simultaneously is the Hollywood movie scenario.
But even just a situation where a hack shuts down tens of millions of cars that commuters count on every day would be serious.
The idea that any network that is online is 100 percent secure is laughable. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
I bet it is. As I think about it, the umbrella policy isn't part of my homeowner coverage. It's a separate thing that's just billed on the same invoice each year.
Originally Posted by |Zach|:
Not having to drive would be a dream. Literally life changing.
I have come to dislike it in the past 5 or so years. So many chances for bad and annoying things to happen that can cause people to get hurt or a ton of money come out of my pocket.
I would not need to drive a whole lot of my work commute was not 30-45 mins one day I can get away with most stuff being walkable or public transit adjacent during stretches off of days.
Up in the Chicago suberb I lived in for 18 years, I would ride my bicycle when the weather permitted, then just wheel it right into my office. It was kind of nice and only a little over a half a mile so I wouldn't get all sweaty on the way.
Then there is the other extreme like China, if I remember correctly, where you basically live at the factory, almost like a prison.
I guess it is the choice you make on where you want to live. [Reply]
I prefer to drive myself. I enjoy making good time and beating the clock on long trips and I think there are times I can do things in my car that a computer wouldn't let me do. A self-driving feature that gives me a choice would make sense for me maybe but in the end I probably wouldn't use it much. Maybe when I'm 75 years old. Driving equals freedom and somehow I think a self driving car would take away from that.
I think it's weird that some people(men) don't like to drive. Driving is such a man thing to do. [Reply]
Originally Posted by philfree:
I prefer to drive myself. I enjoy making good time and beating the clock on long trips and I think there are times I can do things in my car that a computer wouldn't let me do. A self-driving feature that gives me a choice would make sense for me maybe but in the end I probably wouldn't use it much. Maybe when I'm 75 years old. Driving equals freedom and somehow I think a self driving car would take away from that.
I think it's weird that some people(men) don't like to drive. Driving is such a man thing to do.
You have an animated gif with a busty female who has the face of a child in your signature. Nobody is taking man lessons from you. [Reply]
Originally Posted by philfree:
I prefer to drive myself. I enjoy making good time and beating the clock on long trips and I think there are times I can do things in my car that a computer wouldn't let me do. A self-driving feature that gives me a choice would make sense for me maybe but in the end I probably wouldn't use it much. Maybe when I'm 75 years old. Driving equals freedom and somehow I think a self driving car would take away from that.
I think it's weird that some people(men) don't like to drive. Driving is such a man thing to do.
I work from home, but even so...
Spend enough time on California highways where 70 mph traffic is 4 or more lanes wide, only a couple of car lengths apart, and then moments later, you're stuck in grid lock.
Yes, I'd rather just be on my phone/tablet than behind the wheel. [Reply]
Originally Posted by |Zach|:
You have an animated gif with a busty female who has the face of a child in your signature. Nobody is taking man lessons from you.
That gif is awesome and It's an image of my wife. Blond, green eyes and boobs!
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
I haven't seen a driverless car on the road yet, or a person relaxing with an autopilot. Maybe I've been near them and haven't noticed.
Me neither, I would imagine my reaction would be "what the fuck?!" [Reply]
Instead of driverless cars what we need to invest in is hover cars. That would solve basically every problem. No more wear and tear on infrastructure and accidents would no longer be a big problem. A couple of hover cars hitting each other would just cause a reaction where each bounces or spins in some direction with no real damage besides maybe some dents. [Reply]
Originally Posted by SithCeNtZ:
Two things here. The first is that yes, there will probably always be a bug, or something capable of going wrong. People are going to have to get over it and realise that a random software bug is still far less of a chance of death than a random drunk driver or some idiot who runs a red light. We can't let perfection be the enemy of better than what we have.
The second is that the hacking thing is completely nonsensical and a boogeyman from movies and TV shows. Basically every car today sold is mainly powered by a computer. Most modern safety functions of a car like adaptive cruise control and brake detection warnings are already run by a computer. Is there a massive wave of mysterious deaths due to cars doing random things? Of course not. Why would these magical hackers not be causing mayhem right now when it's certainly easier to do it today than it will be in a likely very highly regulated and monitored system 20 years from now? It's because "hacking" as people think of in the movies doesn't exist in this context. No one can upload a virus to your car and turn it into a death machine or else scorned ex-lovers would clearly resort to that rather than burying a body in a field somewhere with evidence all around.
The comparison you used is not exactly correct. They are making cars now that they can use GPS to track you. Is this a way to hack? Is there another way for someone to hack in and gain control? I don't know but maybe. Your argument still has not convinced me. But I do agree that more driverless cars probably means fewer crashes because some idiot thought their phone was more important than, you know, actually paying attention to the road. [Reply]
I have a Y Tesla and Full Self Driving (FSD) beta. Like lots of cars today, I can get on the interstate and the car will drive itself as long as I stay on the interstate. This is not FSD beta. All Teslas are capable of doing this. It does make long drives a lot more comfortable. It will slow down and pass with whatever speed you want to set and if a Navigation point is set it will drive from entry on Interstates to off ramp from Interstates.
FSD beta tries to put this freedom on regular driving in town and country roads. I do use it on routes I know because I am aware of where it will have troubles. But in city driving it is nice because it stops at stop signs and proceeds with right of way, at stop lights and goes on green and slows or stops for cars in front of me turning or stopping at intersections. Stop and go driving is less stressful.
It does not do as well on country roads or highways with slightly skewed intersection meeting. It will not recognize entry roads to destinations as not part of highways. It has problems with stopped emergency vehicles and associated human directions at such scenes.
But I have seen lots of improvement over the year. I am concerned that my particular car may not have the resolution and cpu power to actually get to a practical level of self driving. It is not GPS dependent at all and the visual and processing power has to be on board for Tesla's implementation. [Reply]
