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]
Originally Posted by Clyde Frog:
I’m glad they got blocked, even if it was temporary. Those cars became a nuisance. They were everywhere and with how congested SF streets are w Hipster Lance Armstrongs and double parked delivery trucks/ dashers /Ubers etc. they would block streets for minutes at a time trying to figure out safe passage through minor hazards.
It was ok when there were a few of them here and there but that shit got out of hand.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sounds like first hand experience, thank you for sharing.
Hopefully they will get this problem figured out soon before they release too many more of these vehicles.
I wonder if these vehicles stop and gawk at homeless people shitting in the streets? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Chief Pagan:
One of the big problems that I've been predicting for years, is the standard for driverless cars.
As a society, I figured driverless cars would have to be vastly superior to human drivers before they were accepted.
If driverless cars had one-tenth the accident and fatality rate, they would still be prohibited or sued out of existence.
Now I'm not claiming they are even that good yet.
But I still expect to see widespread adoption in other countries before the US.
Agreed, I think one of the biggest hurdles for driverless cars will be cars with drivers, because people can be unpredictable and stupid, for lack of better words. Human drivers aren't going to mesh well with autonomous vehicles. [Reply]
For urban environments, you have to add in bikes and jaywalking pedestrians.
And really dense urban environments like SF and NYC have additional issues.
On 'side streets', there are so many double parked delivery trucks, for instance, you sometimes have use the oncoming lane of traffic to go around them.
So there is no way to follow the letter of the law, and sometimes it's not clear if the oncoming traffic is going to wait for you.
If you want to wait for a huge gap in oncoming traffic, you can wait a long time.
If it was all driverless, it would be easier.
If people's Bluetooth, smartphones broadcast their location as a pedestrian, bicyclist, that would help a little bit. [Reply]
That the DMV will be the final word about some technological fix for these myriad issues is somewhat worrisome. Not an organization that I would turn to for technological knowledge or progress. Ever.
Originally Posted by HemiEd:
Sounds like first hand experience, thank you for sharing.
Hopefully they will get this problem figured out soon before they release too many more of these vehicles.
I wonder if these vehicles stop and gawk at homeless people shitting in the streets?
Unfortunately for me it is first hand experience.
The problem for Cruise is the only way for them to get it figured out is running them “in the wild”.
Lol. Shit, used needles, tranq zombies, sidewalk tent suburbs with full on living room set ups including a couch and lamps on night tables all plugged into the city grid. The homeless rule entire swaths of the city now. It’s going to take something major to ever stop this place from being a extreme, far left liberal shithole. It’s so far gone.
Originally Posted by Clyde Frog:
Unfortunately for me it is first hand experience.
The problem for Cruise is the only way for them to get it figured out is running them “in the wild”.
Lol. Shit, used needles, tranq zombies, sidewalk tent suburbs with full on living room set ups including a couch and lamps on night tables all plugged into the city grid. The homeless rule entire swaths of the city now. It’s going to take something major to ever stop this place from being a extreme, far left liberal shithole. It’s so far gone.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Such a sad deal, I was shocked at walking up on a guy shitting between two cars when I was there at a convention a long time ago, sounds like it has just gotten worse. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Kiimo:
Let's be honest the driving age at 14 is an absolute joke it should probably be 18 at the youngest and probably more like 21
they never should have given me a license at 15 I was a danger to everyone around me
Speak for yourself, we weren’t all no driving dipshits like you. I grew up in the country where we had to drive at 14 yrs old [Reply]
Just have to share: After spending a few days this last week with my PHd, 50 year old, Scientist daughter, she told me she hopes to able to purchase a self driving car for her next vehicle. :-) Change is going to happen whether I like it or not. [Reply]
Originally Posted by HemiEd:
Just have to share: After spending a few days this last week with my PHd, 50 year old, Scientist daughter, she told me she hopes to able to purchase a self driving car for her next vehicle. :-) Change is going to happen whether I like it or not.
At this point, I don't really even think that's a straightforward statement. We've learned in the past 10 years or so that "self-driving" is a spectrum, not a definition. I would imagine that a majority of mid-tier or higher cars sold today have at least adaptive cruise control and/or lane control. That's all my 2021 Rav4 Prime has, but it certainly can drive itself on the highway if the rules are "stay in lane and don't hit the car in front of you."
Teslas add a few additional steps to that - more advanced versions of the above, change lanes with just the push of the turn signal, stopping at stop lights/signs, etc.
Beyond that, there really aren't any options that are truly ready for prime time, and it seems like the growth curve has been flattening out in terms of tangible progress. Everything that's out there is really only able to adapt to a specific geographic area, and the ones that can do more than that (Tesla's FSD) still can't handle a lot of fringe scenarios (weird road construction markings, for example).
I do think things will get there, but it's going to take longer than everyone was thinking a few years ago. So for the forseeable future, the question is going to be what self-driving features a car has rather than whether it is "self-driving." [Reply]
Originally Posted by Kiimo:
Let's be honest the driving age at 14 is an absolute joke it should probably be 18 at the youngest and probably more like 21
they never should have given me a license at 15 I was a danger to everyone around me
I started driving at 8. My parents made me drive all the way across the state and into KC at 14. I was good to go. [Reply]
The problem driverless cars ran into is the limits of AI. Yes, AI can do a good job emulating human decision-making, but when you run into a weakness it hits a quandry and can't come up with reasonable work-arounds on the fly. Instead, it brick walls and as in the above OP, will created congestion trying to deal with minor hazards that aren't in its programming. [Reply]
