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 HemiEd:
Just a thought, but you might want to read the article in the post just above yours.
I probably should have started a new thread but this one had popped up in my search.
I was just saying I'm tired of the airlines bullying people around...the whole "hidden city" ticketing thing has me annoyed as hell - I don't do it but why shouldn't people be allowed to do it? [Reply]
Originally Posted by DenverChief:
I was just saying I'm tired of the airlines bullying people around...the whole "hidden city" ticketing thing has me annoyed as hell - I don't do it but why shouldn't people be allowed to do it?
I see, and understand. I pretty much quit flying years ago due to lack of control. They treat you like a herd of cattle and it is understandable.
We did recently fly to the east coast and the cashless airports were just another reason not to do it for me, damn I was pissed.
I have been driving long distance for years, but now my daily limit has gone down to 600 miles. Our family is spread out all over the country, so I get a lot of practice. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Couch-Potato:
Automatic cars are still the future. The only reason this accident made the news is because it was between an automated vehicle & a manual one. How many manual cars crashed that day across the country?
Consider how much better a calculator performs simple functions relative to a human, and that the AI in this collective swarm of cars is learning at an exponential rate over time while a human's ability to drive deteriorates with experience.
Do you think they will ever be able to teach one the difference between wet and dry concrete?
Your calculator comparison is flawed. Math does not change, it is what it is.
Driving conditions? Not so much, too many variables.
So the cab company cut it's fleet in half, just maybe they are getting the picture? [Reply]
Originally Posted by HemiEd:
A bad week for driverless cars. Maybe the AI needs to learn more?
Self-driving car company Cruise cuts its fleet in San Francisco by 50% after a Thursday night accident involving a firetruck; city voted two weeks ago to allow Cruise and Waymo to operate autonomous cars around the clock
San Francisco Robotaxi Expansion: Cruise Crash Injures 1 and Other Mishaps
At least three traffic incidents involving robotaxis occurred in San Francisco this week, according to multiple news and social media reports, shortly after the state granted approval for autonomous vehicle companies to expand their operations throughout the city and start charging money for rides.
One crash Thursday night injured a passenger inside a Cruise driverless car at Polk and Turk streets. The robotaxi was hit by a fire engine as it entered the intersection on a green light at around 10 p.m. Thursday, according to a tweet from Cruise early Friday. The fire engine was on its way to an emergency scene. Cruise's tweet said the injuries were not severe, but the robotaxi passenger was taken to a local hospital.
In a separate blog post, Cruise said their car detected that an emergency vehicle was approaching and began to brake, but was unable to stop before the fire truck crashed into it.
The San Francisco Fire Department declined to comment.
A second crash happened in the Mission at 26th and Mission streets early Friday, according to Cruise and San Francisco police.
In response to the crash, a Cruise spokesperson said, “Last night one of our vehicles was proceeding through a green light at 26th and Mission in San Francisco when it was struck by another vehicle running a red light at a high rate of speed. The AV detected the vehicle and braked, but the other vehicle made contact with our AV. There were no passengers in our AV and the driver of the other vehicle was treated and released at the scene.”
San Francisco police also confirmed the crash and said that they responded to a report of a crash at 26th and Mission at 12:19 a.m. Friday. There, they found an adult male driver, a passenger, and their car as well as an autonomous vehicle. The driver was treated for non-life-threatening injuries by medics, police said.
Police said there was significant damage to both vehicles after the crash and said that the male driver was at fault, but that drugs or alcohol did not appear to be a factor.
Separately, another Cruise vehicle also drove into wet concrete in a construction area and got stuck on Golden Gate Avenue between Fillmore and Steiner streets in the Western Addition on Tuesday, according to SFGATE.
Cruise acknowledged the incident in a tweet Thursday.
There have been other high-profile incidents with Cruise robotaxis prior to this week.
Just a day after the state approved the expansion of robotaxi services in the city, nearly a dozen Cruise vehicles stalled and snarled traffic in San Francisco's North Beach and near Outside Lands music festival. Cruise blamed the music festival for the snafu.
Cant expect perfection. What we are looking for is safer across the board. Accidents will always happen. The rate of accidents, especially fatal ones is what we are trying to prevent. [Reply]
Originally Posted by HemiEd:
Do you think they will ever be able to teach one the difference between wet and dry concrete?
yes. already smart transmissions can do a better job of sensing slipping and shifting into all-wheel drive than humans. And, shifting back into 2wd for fuel efficiency.
it's not a matter of IF it is a matter of WHEN. [Reply]
Originally Posted by HemiEd:
I see, and understand. I pretty much quit flying years ago due to lack of control. They treat you like a herd of cattle and it is understandable.
We did recently fly to the east coast and the cashless airports were just another reason not to do it for me, damn I was pissed.
I have been driving long distance for years, but now my daily limit has gone down to 600 miles. Our family is spread out all over the country, so I get a lot of practice.
I don't mind driving but 800 miles is about my limit. Denver to Vegas and Denver to KC. I have driven all the way to Fresno once - that took a couple of us to complete. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DenverChief:
I don't mind driving but 800 miles is about my limit. Denver to Vegas and Denver to KC. I have driven all the way to Fresno once - that took a couple of us to complete.
I get it. Drove from San Jose to Wichita in my 30s non stop, over 1600 then Virginia Beach to Chicago non stop 1000 in my 50s but now 600 is pushing it.
I doubt if I would have been able to relax for 60 seconds in a driverless car on any of these trips.
Do you think you would trust them enough to relax and enjoy the trip like in airplane or bus? [Reply]
With human-driven cars we have accidents and crashes that are caused by human error one way or another. With network driverless cars I can wreck all the cars at once [Reply]
Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco:
With human-driven cars we have accidents and crashes that are caused by human error one way or another. With network driverless cars I can wreck all the cars at once
You make a great point, just another step towards nefarious control.
It would be interesting to see the percentage of driverless car issues in relation to the number on the road compared to human operated cars with that number on the road.
Driverless cars will eventually be the norm, and of course many people who grew up with manually-driven cars will be skeptical and fearful even after such fear is unwarranted. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BWillie:
Cant expect perfection. What we are looking for is safer across the board. Accidents will always happen. The rate of accidents, especially fatal ones is what we are trying to prevent.
Originally Posted by AdolfOliverBush:
Driverless cars will eventually be the norm, and of course many people who grew up with manually-driven cars will be skeptical and fearful even after such fear is unwarranted.
Instead of bumping this old thread, I actually considered starting a new one in D.C. :-) [Reply]
