Self-Driving Cars

[All-American]

New government rules for the "autonomous" automobile.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/30/auto...source=cnn_bin

Three states now legalize self-driving cars for at least testing purposes. More, no doubt, to follow.

This is the future.

[Walter Sobchak]

No, it isn't.

[clackamascoug]

We'll have levitating cars before self driving car. Sooner, if I have anything to do with it.

[Uncle Ted]

No, it isn't.

Skynet apparently isn't driving Walter's car.

[SandYFan]

I can't wait. One aspect of it I read is that you don't need to own a car anymore. Instead of having a car that sits in your garage and your work parking lot 95% of the time, you just order a self-driving car from a service. It arrives at your home, takes you to your destination, and then picks you up again. A super cheap taxi service.

[Non Sequitur]

I can't wait. One aspect of it I read is that you don't need to own a car anymore. Instead of having a car that sits in your garage and your work parking lot 95% of the time, you just order a self-driving car from a service. It arrives at your home, takes you to your destination, and then picks you up again. A super cheap taxi service.

In my line of work, we refer to that as The Cloud.

[il Padrino Ute]

Unless it's a collectable, why own a car if you aren't going to drive it?

[pellegrino]

I can't wait. One aspect of it I read is that you don't need to own a car anymore. Instead of having a car that sits in your garage and your work parking lot 95% of the time, you just order a self-driving car from a service. It arrives at your home, takes you to your destination, and then picks you up again. A super cheap taxi service.

for some reason I doubt it will be cheap.

[All-American]

No, it isn't.

Well, it's not quite the present yet.

[Moliere]

No, it isn't.

[All-American]

for some reason I doubt it will be cheap.

I don't see any reason it needs to be more expensive than a taxi service already is.

[pellegrino]

I don't see any reason it needs to be more expensive than a taxi service already is.

which validates my point.

[wuapinmon]

I don't see any reason it needs to be more expensive than a taxi service already is.

Taxis are exorbitant.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Google buildings surround our humble office, and I see driverless cars from time to time (although there's always a driver in them). I'm curious how these things will handle short-term changes in a street due to construction (where the crew diverts traffic onto the shoulder or into the oncoming lane). I also wonder how/if it will anticipate trouble (e.g., a group of little kids playing ball just to the side of the road). But I'd love to be chauffeured to and from the office and elsewhere.

[pellegrino]

Google buildings surround our humble office, and I see driverless cars from time to time (although there's always a driver in them). I'm curious how these things will handle short-term changes in a street due to construction (where the crew diverts traffic onto the shoulder or into the oncoming lane). I also wonder how/if it will anticipate trouble (e.g., a group of little kids playing ball just to the side of the road). But I'd love to be chauffeured to and from the office and elsewhere.

I love the idea, I just see it happening later rather than sooner. I would not be surprised if it happened sometime during my lifetime, perhaps when I'm an old man, maybe your age.

[Moliere]

I love the idea, I just see it happening later rather than sooner. I would not be surprised if it happened sometime during my lifetime, perhaps when I'm an old man, maybe your age.

The first step will be trains on the freeways where an actual driver leads a train of cars that are "driverless". But actually, I'd prefer to drive my own car.

[LA Ute]

I love the idea, I just see it happening later rather than sooner. I would not be surprised if it happened sometime during my lifetime, perhaps when I'm an old man, maybe your age.

Foul.

[pellegrino]

Foul.

huh?

[All-American]

Taxis are exorbitant.

Sure they are. And for the purposes of this conversation, that fact raises two important questions.

The formula would then be

a=m-w+t

where a is the cost of an automated taxi, m is the cost of a manned taxi, w is the wages of the driver, and t is the cost of technology. In theory, technology should develop to the point where the price of automation approaches zero over time, so there ought not be any reason why the cost of an automated taxi should be more than the cost of a manned taxi.

The two questions thus raised are:

1. What is the eventual price floor for the use of autonomous cars as a substitute for taxi services, and
2. When will the technology advance to the point that an automated taxi is cheaper than a manned taxi?

Right now, it costs me $20 to take a taxi from where I live to downtown. Once the price floor of autonomous taxi services drops below the price of manned taxis (in other words, once technology develops to the point that t is less than w), taxis will be obsolete. That's one industry which autonomous cars has the potential to completely obliterate.

Depending on how low the price floor gets, moreover, there's potential to seriously challenge public transport, as well. One way that could happen over the long run is for autonomous vehicles to encourage production of more one and two seat cars, for which there is not as much demand in the private ownership market. It costs $2.50 to take the bus, and $3.00 to take the train. Either of them gets me downtown in 40 or so minutes. If autonomous smart cars/pods/whatever the analog ends up being can make it so that a twenty-minute ride downtown costs $5, that will siphon off a lot of the customers of public transit. That's two industries that autonomous vehicles have the potential to seriously disrupt.

[All-American]

I love the idea, I just see it happening later rather than sooner. I would not be surprised if it happened sometime during my lifetime, perhaps when I'm an old man, maybe your age.

The most important factor, of course, is safety-- and increasingly, it will be the public perception of safety. Lawmakers will have to be convinced that autonomous driving is safe before they'll let it happen. As a result, most of the truly revolutionary benefits of autonomous vehicles-- driving the blind and disabled, etc.-- will have to wait for the next phase.

That said, we may be approaching the point where computer error is less significant than human error very rapidly. Google's team, according to the Atlantic has reportedly logged 300,000 miles in autonomous vehicles without a single accident as of August 2012. It could even get to the point where you save money by buying an autonomous car, if it proves to be so safe that insurance companies favor their use. (In fact, I foresee a distant day where insurance agents could price manual operation of cars out altogether.)

[PaloAltoCougar]

I love the idea, I just see it happening later rather than sooner. I would not be surprised if it happened sometime during my lifetime, perhaps when I'm an old man, maybe your age.

Prepare for disappointment. As a lad back in the 60's, based on my frequent viewings of 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Jetsons, I was certain that by now I would be driving a hovercar, overnighting in a Hilton orbiting the Earth, and vacationing on Mars. And all I've got is a flat screen TV and the ability to tweet to people I haven't met.

[Moliere]

The most important factor, of course, is safety-- and increasingly, it will be the public perception of safety. Lawmakers will have to be convinced that autonomous driving is safe before they'll let it happen. As a result, most of the truly revolutionary benefits of autonomous vehicles-- driving the blind and disabled, etc.-- will have to wait for the next phase.

That said, we may be approaching the point where computer error is less significant than human error very rapidly. Google's team, according to the Atlantic has reportedly logged 300,000 miles in autonomous vehicles without a single accident as of August 2012. It could even get to the point where you save money by buying an autonomous car, if it proves to be so safe that insurance companies favor their use. (In fact, I foresee a distant day where insurance agents could price manual operation of cars out altogether.)

Makes me wonder which political party will be on which side of the issue. I'm predicting the Dems will be against autonomous cars as people begin to protest the usurping of human jobs. The GOP will be for them as they'll insure more gas/oil is needed into the future.

[pellegrino]

Prepare for disappointment. As a lad back in the 60's, based on my frequent viewings of 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Jetsons, I was certain that by now I would be driving a hovercar, overnighting in a Hilton orbiting the Earth, and vacationing on Mars. And all I've got is a flat screen TV and the ability to tweet to people I haven't met.

I'm already disappointed. LA Ute took the bait and you didn't.

[il Padrino Ute]

The most important factor, of course, is safety-- and increasingly, it will be the public perception of safety. Lawmakers will have to be convinced that autonomous driving is safe before they'll let it happen. As a result, most of the truly revolutionary benefits of autonomous vehicles-- driving the blind and disabled, etc.-- will have to wait for the next phase.

That said, we may be approaching the point where computer error is less significant than human error very rapidly. Google's team, according to the Atlantic has reportedly logged 300,000 miles in autonomous vehicles without a single accident as of August 2012. It could even get to the point where you save money by buying an autonomous car, if it proves to be so safe that insurance companies favor their use. (In fact, I foresee a distant day where insurance agents could price manual operation of cars out altogether.)

You can have my steering wheel when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

[All-American]

Makes me wonder which political party will be on which side of the issue. I'm predicting the Dems will be against autonomous cars as people begin to protest the usurping of human jobs. The GOP will be for them as they'll insure more gas/oil is needed into the future.

I did hear Newt Gingrich at an event where he touted driverless cars as one of the future's next big ideas. For my part, I don't see this as an inherently political issue, but I can imagine democrats having more problems with it than Republicans at the beginning, especially as it would challenge the public transit infrastructure. Depending on the perception of risk, the story could be protecting the interests of wealthy corporations while forcing hapless victims of collisions with driverless vehicles to bear the costs, but if driverless technology proved increasingly safe, it could shift the other way, to showing hostility towards manual operators.

[All-American]

You can have my steering wheel when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

I fully expect that your hands will be dead and cold by the time technology advances so far that lawmakers can no longer tolerate the risk of manual automobile operation. That said, I think that law will be the epilogue to the story of the demise of manual automobile operation, and not the story itself. Manual operation will be the norm as long as it is not significantly less safe or more expensive than autonomous driving. Once data starts showing actuaries at esuarance and Geico that autonomous cars are safer, they'll start charging less to insure autonomous cars. You'll be able to keep driving your car as long as you are willing to pay for the risk of harm to others which you impose by placing a fallible operator in the driver's seat-- provided that you are able to keep up with what autonomous cars will be able to do.

[Uncle Ted]

Heads up, Walter… There are 'Skynet cars' in Sweden!

Volvo’s first self-driving cars now being tested live on public roads in Swedish city

Volvo Car Group’s “Drive Me” project — featuring 100 self-driving Volvos on public roads in everyday driving conditions — is moving forward rapidly, with the first test cars now driving around the Swedish city of Gothenburg.


“The test cars are now able to handle lane following, speed adaption, and merging traffic all by themselves,” says Erik Coelingh, Technical Specialist at Volvo Car Group.


“This is an important step towards our aim that the final ‘Drive Me’ cars will be able to drive the whole test route in highly autonomous mode. The technology, which will be called Autopilot, enables the driver to hand over the driving to the vehicle, which takes care of all driving functions.”
[…]

http://www.kurzweilai.net/volvos-fir...n-swedish-city

[Omaha 680]

Vulnerabilities like this seem like a huge obstacle to approval of fully autonomous vehicles:

Security Experts Hack and Crash Jeep

Hackers took control of a car and crashed it into a ditch by remotely breaking into its dashboard computer from 10 miles away.


In the first breach of its kind, security experts killed the engine and applied the brakes on the Jeep Cherokee, sending it veering off the road – all while sitting on their sofa.


The US hackers said they used just a laptop and mobile phone to access the Jeep's on-board systems via a wireless Internet connection.

I think we will eventually see fully-autonomous vehicles only on the roads, but it may happen later than it seems at the moment.

[falafel]

Vulnerabilities like this seem like a huge obstacle to approval of fully autonomous vehicles:

Security Experts Hack and Crash Jeep

I think we will eventually see fully-autonomous vehicles only on the roads, but it may happen later than it seems at the moment.

This creeps me out, but then I realized that lots of cars have wifi connections now. It doesn't seem that far fetched that hackers could gain control of your car now and shut down some systems, causing a crash.

[Walter Sobchak]

It doesn't seem that far fetched that hackers could gain control of your car now and shut down some systems, causing a crash.

Or an airplane.