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 Hog's Gone Fishin:
On a positive note, I would assume that not a single driverless car has received a DUI.
All joking aside, that is probably one of the main selling points on something like this. But I would argue that distractions such as cell phones present a much bigger danger. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DrunkBassGuitar:
the problem with driverless cars and electric cars is that like they don't really solve any problems. like if your gripe is traffic then just making some cars electric or driverless doesn't change the number of cars on the road. it'd be like outlawing suvs and saying you can only drive compacts, it's still the same number of cars the cars are just different. the only way to really fix that problem is to reduce the number of cars on the road and the only really effective way to do that is basically making biking, walking and public transportation more convenient than driving. And doing that basically requires changing how we've built cities and towns for the last like 70 years in north america.
if the complaint is environmental/climate related then all electric cars do is just move the emissions of a car from the tailpipe to the powergrid, the carbon savings from a tesla from an ICE is about the same as a subcompact to an SUV. plus electric vehicles are massively heavy so that's more wear and tear on roads (the electric hummer weighs like 10,000 lbs lol) and you have to consider the environmental impact of batteries which isn't nothing.
I get your point about the number of cars being the same but I think you're missing one element. Driverless cars would be able to make traffic flow much more smoothly. No idiots who hold up traffic because they don't know how to hit the gas to get up to the flow of traffic. Or no idiots who are afraid to enter the roundabout.
Now, this is all assuming that the software is good and works well. My fear is that there are bugs in the software or that they are able to be hacked. Just think of the havoc one could wreak if all cars were driverless and they could be hacked. That's scary. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BWillie: Wear and tear to roads from leaking oil, gasoline and brake fluid is probably even worse. Its not like a electric sedan is as big of a difference than a car to a semi or even close.
Alos shitty people and bad drivers also cause traffic jam. A driverless society (which I acknowledge will not happen in my lifetime) you would have yo think lower traffic by a ton just due to efficiency.
Uhhh......nope. The wear and tear on the roads (at least here in the midwest) has A LOT to do with salt on the roads in the winter. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Lzen:
All joking aside, that is probably one of the main selling points on something like this. But I would argue that distractions such as cell phones present a much bigger danger.
Human error in general is the cause of 90%+ of car accidents.
Take the human out of the equation, and accidents go down substantially. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Dante84:
Human error in general is the cause of 90%+ of car accidents.
Take the human out of the equation, and accidents go down substantially.
Oh, I know that. I regularly see articles of crashes around the state of Kansas. One thing that stands out is how often someone goes off the road and then overcorrects which in turn causes them to lose control and crash.
I'm open to driverless cars. I really like the idea when it comes to all the idiots on the road these days. Though for me personally, I will probably stick to driving myself for now. :-) [Reply]
Originally Posted by Lzen:
Now, this is all assuming that the software is good and works well. My fear is that there are bugs in the software or that they are able to be hacked. Just think of the havoc one could wreak if all cars were driverless and they could be hacked. That's scary.
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. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
I recognize that I'm not as good a driver as I used to be, too. I'm still fine, and I've never been at fault in an accident, but I can tell that my skills are declining over time. This is a modern paranoia based on late-night ambulance chaser ads, and I recognize that I'm still a fine driver, but I don't want to at some point get in a crash and get sued because I didn't notice a stop light or something.
Sounds like you are on it and I understand your concern. Have you started driving slower? Do you carry an extra umbrella rider for those unforseen possiblities? I have been for years and the peace of mind seems worth it.
Funny thing, when driving our Prius, it just doesn't have the power to fly up the hills like a v8 car and I am not intentionally driving 5mph under the speed limit when ascending the hills, but the guys in their lifted F250 trucks do get a little impatient, to put it mildly. The other three are all v8s and it's never an issue. [Reply]
Originally Posted by HemiEd:
Sounds like you are on it and I understand your concern. Have you started driving slower? Do you carry an extra umbrella rider for those unforseen possiblities? I have been for years and the peace of mind seems worth it.
Funny thing, when driving our Prius, it just doesn't have the power to fly up the hills like a v8 car and I am not intentionally driving 5mph under the speed limit when ascending the hills, but the guys in their lifted F250 trucks do get a little impatient, to put it mildly. The other three are all v8s and it's never an issue.
I actually just don't drive much any more, other than a big annual business trip. But I kind of think about it now and try to be more attentive when I do drive.
I've got an umbrella policy on my homeowner's insurance. Would that cover a driving claim? I hadn't thought about it before, but it seems like it would. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
I actually just don't drive much any more, other than a big annual business trip. But I kind of think about it now and try to be more attentive when I do drive.
I've got an umbrella policy on my homeowner's insurance. Would that cover a driving claim? I hadn't thought about it before, but it seems like it would.
I am fairly confident that it covers you, or at least I hope it does, under any circumstance you may be involved in.
I asked that very question to my agent and he told me ours did.
Might be worth a phone call? [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.
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. [Reply]
Originally Posted by HemiEd:
I am fairly confident that it covers you, or at least I hope it does, under any circumstance you may be involved in.
I asked that very question to my agent and he told me ours did.
Might be worth a phone call?
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. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DrunkBassGuitar:
to reduce the number of cars on the road and the only really effective way to do that is basically making biking, walking and public transportation more convenient than driving. And doing that basically requires changing how we've built cities and towns for the last like 70 years in north america.
It really is a shame that every single civic and city planning decision is made with cars as the first priority. Great cities plagued by surface parking lot after surface parking lot. [Reply]
