Travis In Austin

Same way we mandate at least two people in an HOV lane. Lots of grousing about that, but it's still enforced. Dave That isn't how they would mandate automated vehicles, buy them and pay a fine. They would be mandated by federal law the same way that 3 point seat belts are required for every seat position, the same way that air bags are mandated, and at least a 100 other safety items that are federally mandated to be on a vehicle. Now they could start allowing a single occupant to use an HOV lane to provide an incentive for people to purchase them and a fine if they were not using it in AV mode while in the lane. I think what they are going to need if they go with that model is separate distinctive plates for models that meet that requirement and/or a TxTag on the front windshield, PLUS, there will have to be some sort of a light on the front and back of the vehicle, or the hood like a cab, and indicates that the vehicle is in AV mode. They could put up sensors like on toll roads that reads every vehicle that passes, if it doesn't have the tag, or had the tag but it is not in AV mode, you get an automatic ticket (like red lights). There would be significant legal impediments from trying to switch an HOV lane to purely an AV lane. In other words, it would initially have to be for both for some period of time. Three states have legislation allowing the limited testing and use of AV currently. CA, NV (where google developed their AV) and FL. Texas considered legislation last session, passed in the House, and was killed. Last time I checked, there has been no bill submitted in this current session regarding AVs, but of court there is plenty of time left before the deadline. Technology in transportation/vehicles is different than technology in general. Faster chips, memory, etc. moves at the pace that technology allows and it ultimately becomes the subject of market forces. Technology in transportation, specifically in passenger vehicles, is regulated by the DOT, and they of course have to answer to Congress. Cruise control, stability control, ABS, windshields, tires, pretty much everything you can think of has to be submitted, reviewed, and approved by DOT before it can be installed on a vehicle. In some cases Congress gets involved, like with airbags, and mandates them to be installed in every vehicle by a certain date (airbags was a seven year window). The federal government regulates vehicles, state governments regulate drivers. There is a considerable amount up in the air on how that is going to be sorted out. Will a separate license and test be required to operate an AV? Do state's have to approve AV use before the federal government approves a vehicle? That of course will take time to sort out. The technology is here, and affordable productions models might be right around the corner, but the regulatory and legal scheme need to keep pace as well. Travis

The ground is wet, Therefore it is raining and TS is throwing out snark bait. I think I got that right from the article.

Top of the line Ford Fusion is what, 36K MSRP? Add 5K and you are at 41K, wash the discount off of MSRP with increase in car prices of 3 percent per year, lets be generous and call it 40K, twice what average worker in Houston can afford per the article I linked. I would say that 5 percent of new Ford Fusions sold in 2017 at that price will be AV. They sold about 300K units last year, just over 10 percent of those were hybrids. So if they offer it in 2017, which Ford has committed to doing, and it adds 5K to price, I predict 15,000 units will be AVs. They get that price with an AV option down to 25K and Honda and Toyota don't have it available, they could sell 150,000 AV units. Your fleet vehicle raises a good point, Fleet purchases. Government purchases of vehicles required airbags before they were required because of the savings in insurance costs, this drove supply. If there is a cost motive to employers (outside of tax breaks), to insist on AV, a big IF, I believe the numbers on the road will be far greater than I originally anticipated. So I guess in addition to price, if big fleet owners jump on board you will see a big jump, just like they did with Hybrids. I will be getting the Tesla, or other electric equivalent, when they have a little track record of reliable safety at least at a Level 3. So hopefully next year. AVs raise a lot of interesting questions for the eventual consideration of police departments, which is the vast majority of what I do now, represent officers and the associations/unions they belong to. There are squad cars (cruisers) of course which have to be able to run Code 3 and that would obviously be in manual mode, but there are a significant number of vehicles assigned to detectives, administration, etc. that could easily handle their functions in AV mode. City will probably want it so reports can be prepared on the way back to the station, type while you drive, and the associations will probably not be in favor of it. It will be interesting to see how that all sorts out. T

No source. I provided the source for the 5k cost. I am not a rich man or a spendthrift but I assure you 5k is my price point. Right now I drive a company provided Ford Fusion, 2014. My book describes the top model as well and it has adaptive cruise, automatic braking, etc. No idea where you are getting your facts but I can afford a top of the line Fusion and I suspect it will be pretty thoroughly automated and able to drive autonomously at least on roads like the Infinity Q50 video by the time I retire in 5 years...and I would bet more. Not my ideal car, but I'll buy 5k less room and other stuff to get the comfort and safety of the most automation available. And I really think I am hardly alone. Dave The source? Economics 101. Airbag history and legislation, seat belt history and legislation AND about 20 posts ago I linked to an article that said that the average worker in the US can afford a 30K car in today's dollors, I also posted an article where they interviewed the head guy from Delphi who said autonomus vehicles will most likely be a slow transition. I believe he stated 20 years for one half the vehicles but I might be mistaken. I cited an article from Volvo that HOPES they can lease less than 100 AVs by 2017, their 70K vehicle. If they offer a 25,000 vehicle in 2 years with a 5k option I think you are going to get a fair number of folks to bite, they will live in the big cities and have a terrible commute. You get Congress to offer a 5K tax credit in 2 years and you have a 30K AV car available, I think the vast majority of new car buyers are going to buy AV. If AVs are available as an option on vehicles in the 60 to 80K range, than very few. The law of supply and demand in a free mkt is pretty well established, and it all centers around price. Believe it or not the median wage in the US is 26K. Two thirds earn less than 42k. Here is that article on what the average wage earner can afford. Oh, in Houston it is 20K. So if you are looking forward to the day in Houston when the average vehicle on the road is an AV they need to cost 20K. (They will also need to offer it in a pickup for it to have anu hope in Texas). http://www.autoblog.com/2014/03/12/who-can-afford-the-average-car-price-only-folks-in-washington/ What that probably means is that folks are going to have to wait and buy used AV vehicles to afford them. So assuming the USA remains a relatively free market system, simple economics dictates that if the average person is going to have an AV then it has to cost at or below what the average person can afford. Apparently someone somewhere said a 5K option in 2 years. So in Houston that is a 15K car with the option, assuming they just have to have an AV and wouldn't rather get a used sports car or full size pickup like 90 percent of American males between 18 and 30. Policymakers can increase demand with tax credits, providing AV only lanes, reduced or free tolls for AVs etc. If we go socialist and everyone gets a free or subsidized AV car then, and only then, does price not become an issue. Totally unlikely. The other alternatives is for Congress or States to mandate it (Interstates by Congress, State Highways by the States). While that is certainly conceivable, there is no way to predict what will happen and nothing quickly, any legislation would have a lengthy phase in. So what you are left with is price. People who are safety conscious, willing to pay extra for the greater good of urban traffic, and can afford it, will buy it. People who have different priorities will not, like saving for a house, paying for a child's college, starting a family, or even eating. What is the price including the 5K option? If someone can tell me that you don't need to be a Nobel prize winning economist to know how many are going to sell. After all, we know there will be about 50 Volvos in Sweden in 2017. They are not afraid to talk about what there goals are. I haven't been able to locate anything on the cost other than the article I posted that talked about 200,000K of equipment in the Infinity and no one really wanting to talk about price yet. Source? I keep looking for a source on price and the only I could find is the Volvo article that even mentioned sales goals. Technology hasn't figured out a way to get around price as the principal factor in determining demand, so the big question still remains in my mind, what's it going to cost in 2017?

Those light speakers were interesting.

I think Mark is saying that the history of safety Inovation on automobiles available in the US has never been driven by normal market forces. Ford offered a safety package option in the late 50s (Lifeguard) but it didn't sell. Airbags were a consumer option for a decade before legislation was passed to mandate them, and even then the automakers were given 7 years to comply. Cruise control became more common because of cost, oil crisis of '73 got people more concerned with MPG and cruise control helped increase mpg and started selling. Autonomous technology, based on past experience, will only occur if legislation mandates it, or it is affordable to the masses and results in a savings of some type. Dave's early posts stated, While those lamenting the loss of old technology are always around us I am frankly surprised at the vociferous resistance to reducing the 60,000 deaths, 200,000 injuries, untold billions in health care cost, trillions in infrastructure investments, and billions of man hours lost to the total chaos that is our road system. I suppose it is conditioning. Even combat soldiers eventually get used to the idea of constant danger. We could virtually eliminate uninsured driving and drunk driving for less than 100 per vehicle, and we don't. Why would we think that we would require autonomous vehicles or that there will be a big rush at 5K per vehicle in two years? It will be a matter of price. When they can make an autonomous vehicle that the average person can afford, it will sell like gang busters, and not until then. The fact that none of the experts are talking about cost yet tells me it is a ways off.

Sorry to hear about this, all of you are in our thoughts and prayers. Travis

Well without getting into the whole gun control debate, the LEGAL reason is that driving is a privilege, not a right.

Been watching Craig Ross perform for over 30 years, he never ceases to amaze me, what a talent, you could see it in PPage's expression.

Kennedy Center Honors 2012 - Led Zeppelin: https://youtu.be/Ta0gDfGb9u0

We are a way off from remote control passenger flights, but getting your Domino's pizza delivered by drone may be just around the corner. http://www.wsj.com/articles/google-reveals-delivery-drone-project-1409274480 On C-span today Google was testifying before Congress, complaining that the approval process for commercial drones is too slow, apparently the waiver they finally obtained is for a drone that is already obsolete because of their new and improved drone.

Immigrant Song by Trent Reznor and Karen O. https://youtu.be/ljbBayiWglg

C-band can still travel 120 miles. Also, typically this stuff comes up well in advance of the landing. All you'd have to do is remote pilot the thing with the 2 second delay until you can get a local controller ready at an airport, or even halfway remotely close to one.Think about flight 93 on 9/11. Even with it being rushed we still had time to try to scramble jets to it and it was still full of fuel. All you'd have to do is hit a button and we instantly have control. Set up a local pilot at an airport and let him take over when you get close. With this latest example, they dove for 8 minutes straight. Just take control then set up a local pilot for landing. I don't see what the big deal is. It's not like they were running on fumes. They had plenty of time to set up a local link for landing. I don't see why that would be necessary. Well you don't adress any of the real world problems of remote control overide of an airliner. Just two quick comments: First, as I said, currently there is no airliner capable of remote control flight. Who is going to pay for the cost of new airliners to be equipped for remote contro? It isn't financially feasible. To retrofit would be even more cost prohibitive. An airliner, even a 737, is about 100x more complex than the most advanced drone. This is because drones are unmanned and airliners are not and their design and systems reflect that. Your plan, apparently, is for an ATC to take over the flight. Our ATC system has no capability to remotely control an aircraft. So aside from no system to control the plane, and no planes that are capable of being remotely flown I suppose it is feasible, in about 20 years after a congressional mandate. (We cannot even get collision avoidance systems on passenger trains done on time). Flight 93, hmmmm. Two F 16s were in fact scrambled, but they never made contact with flight 93. Why? NORAD wasn't notified of flight 93 until after it crashed. Newark to Cleveland, turns around and gets all the way to PA and passengers have to take matters in their own hands. While it might seem simple to do, it isn't because of the simple fact that airliners are not designed or built to fly remotely. Just because the military has designed and built aircraft to fly remotely doesn't change that simple fact. I think your idea will become a reality if, and when, we see commercial flight go from a piloted to an automated model, and to my knowledge, that isn't even on the radar screen.

I'm just wondering why, if we are on the relative verge of ubiquitous Level 3 or 4 automation, why we don't, in the meantime, mandate interlocks that prevent someone from starting a vehicle that has a certain level of alcohol, and the same thing for insurance, no paid insurance, it will not start.

Predictions that come up short in the face of reliable polling. Has a familar ring to it. That team should be quite happy with what they achieved. A tremendous amount of pressure on these kids, too much in my opinion. http://mweb.cbssports.com/ncaab/eye-on-college-basketball/25124806/what-west-virginia-guarantee-kentucky-easily-improves-to-37-0?v=1&vc=1

Hope you have dual alternators! Edit: You have a twin so you have another. Why? Are they having troubles with the ones they are using on the -10 engines on the Predator drone? Ours are technically starter generators which are 24 volt, and 300 amps I believe which we upgraded to along with glass cockpit upgrade and power inverter system. I can't remember if they are Bendix or APC. I remember they were about 6,500 each so I don't look forward to them having any problems anytime soon. Travis

We can control and land drones halfway around the world in almost real time. I don't believe this for a second, especially when the alternative isn't even to try at all while 150 people plunge to their deaths for 8 minutes straight while everybody just sit there and watches. Give the keys to the remote control to the same people who already have the ability to blow us out of the sky at any given time anyway. Well that is the problem, our drones are not operated halfway around the world for take off and landing. They take off and land with line of sight C band data link, they are controled locally for 20 minutes after takeoff before they are handed off to Creach, and then they are handed back to local control 20 minutes before landing. A 2 second lag time is too long for them to land them without crashing them. One armed one wouldn't respond to satellite comm over Afghanistan, they had to scramble an F-15 to shoot it down. 8 have reportedly crashed on take off or landing, and at least 38 have crashed total. Even assuming it was reliable enough to use to land an airliner with 100 to 500 passengers, there are too many ways to disable and crash a commercial airliner independent of a remote controlled autopilot capable of locking out manual control. Then there is the cost issue, who is going to pay for the satellites, control stations, retrofitting the planes, and having a remote control pilot ready in place 24/7/365 for every airliner? Or is Boeing going to do it, Airbus, FAA? Then you have air traffic control you have to update so that it can respond when it sees a loss of altitude with sufficient time to be able to notify the airline to take over. The retrofitting of the planes would cost a significant amount. Boeings do not have landing gear capable of being remotely extended, and I doubt Airbus does either. The only way to prevent the crash of an aircraft by a pilot hell bent on suicide is to have another pilot in the cockpit to prevent it from happening. I wish there was better news about something being able to come to the rescue for such a senseless act, but aircraft pretty much have to be one way or the other, manned or unmanned. Our drones, Viper and Predator, are relatively simple machines. The technology is in the Hellfire missiles and other guided weaponry they carry. The Predator uses the exact same engine as I have in my twin. Very simple, very reliable, but remote controlled flight is a long way off from being able to fly passengers.

That is pretty much it, very close anyway.

That is technically possible right now, an interlock device that would require an access code, just like a cable box, that would allow the car to be started for the length of time insurance is purchased for. 15/30/5 is incredibly low, but they keep low limits to try and keep more people insured, you bump the minimums less people can afford to pay for it, more become uninsured, which requires the rest of us to make sure we have maximum limits on UM/UIM, med pay and/or PIP if your state/insurer offers it. It is also possible today to have devices instaled in vehicles, for less than $100, that will not allow you to start a car with alcohol in your system. The threshold could be selected by whomever, DOT, legislature, etc. It could be .04, .07, .08, etc. It requires a breath sample before you start the vehicle. For more money it can be done by skin sensor. We could very easily automate insurance compliance and DUI/DWI prevention. Why don't we?

Remote piloting has significant lag times that make it unsuitable for commercial passenger flight. The main problem is that you still have the problem of the remote pilot having a meltdown, or being coerced into a terrible act. A three person flight crew with a mandatory two people present at all times would avoid some of this. In the Egypt Air crash, the captain was able to return to the cockpit and his seat but the copilot kept pushing down on the yoke as the captain tried to pull up which resulted in a split elevator, one side trying to dive, the other the opposite. I think the captain didn't even consider that his copilot was trying to kill everyone. He kept asking questions about power, etc. all the way down. There are protocols to avoid this, you simply say "my aircraft" and if he won't let go you smash his head in with a flashlight.

That might be Egypt Air (990?), in which one pilot who was alone in the cockpit began Islamist chanting and dove the plane into the Atlantic, in a horrifying similarity to German Wings. I was thinking of LAM Flight 470 in 2013 which crashed in Namibia. That investigagation determined it to be intentional. I don't know if they ever were able to determine the motive as to why. Travis

I am pretty familar with AF 447 crash and can say that was pretty much stupidity, arrogance and the problems with digital fly by wire and side stick,instead of dual, controls. A transcript of that VCR is set forth in this article http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a3115/what-really-happened-aboard-air-france-447-6611877/ I don't know about conspiracies, but there has been studies and discussions about cockpit communications and dynamics for years about how the human mind can get in a closed loop that ignors training and experience. It is the field of cognitive science and here is an excellent article/chaptet as that field relates specifically to commercial aviation safety. The studies Dr Norman cites date back as far as the 80s and 90s. Thirty seconds to realize the pilot is dead, best case, as long as never realizing and crashing because you are afraid to question your boss. That is why these investigations and things to be learned are crucial. http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/chapter_16_coffee_c.html It seems like we had a flight a year or two ago where the pilot went crazy or suicidal?

Brings up an interesting question, because technically you're supposed to pay royalties when you play covers, and you're supposed to have a mechanical license when recording. Curious as to if she does this. Also curious as to how bad Prince would flip out if she did one of his songs. For a video, like YouTube, you don't need a mechnical license, you need a synchronization license. Most publishers have entered into agreements with Youtube by agreeing to share a portion of advertising revenues. That is why you are not supposed to be able put your own ads on a copyrighted song, Youtube automatically puts an ad on any copyrighted song and splits that money with publisher at a prearranged rate.

15 year old Desiree Bassett playing on stage with Barry Goudreau. https://youtu.be/d4QsW7MgMkc

Market share. So is there money in that? For some there is. http://www.wikihow.com/Earn-Money-on-YouTube http://www.businessinsider.com/richest-youtube-stars-2014-3 I looked at the wikihow, which confirmed my understanding, you make money by allowing ads. But you cannot use ads on material which is copyrighted.