Poll & Prediction: Autonomous Car Equipment at 5k by 2019

[DizRotus]

1 minute ago, vasubandu said:

It is a very scary glimpse into the future.

 

I respectfully disagree.  To me, it's a very encouraging glimpse into the future.

[Travis In Austin]

43 minutes ago, Mallette said:

You may be right, but this is so much more profound than airbags or seat belts and I suspect they'll speed it up once the massive savings in lives, property, and tax dollars starts to materialize.  Even simply reserving the inside lane for AVs would change things dramatically.  Everyone will want to be there...well, the vast majority anyway.  Took a while to pry the reins out from a few stubborn cowboys, but resistance is futile sayeth the Borg.

Dave

It's the money.  A significant portion of society can only affordable used vehicles.

 

Most importantly,  the most important voting block has to be "grandfathered" in, seniors, retirees.   People who are on social security are not going to be able to replace their cars at the drop of a hat.  

 

They vote, and they will determine, to a large extent, how this is phased in.  If there is an incentive to switch, it will happen sooner.  This was the case of HD TV.  

 

General Aviation has had some major technological advancements over the years that save money and resulted in huge increases in safety.  Just one example is a transponder with altitude encoding.  This is a retrofit, new antenna , cable, power hookup, and new panel instrument in radio stack, if there was room.

 

That was just starting when I was learning to fly in '75, and it was over 30 years to phase that in.  They did it by giving long, long advance warning where it would initially be implemented.  BOS, JFK, LAX, DFW, SFO, and then slowly started shrinking where you could fly without that installed and under what conditions.  Everyone one agreed that it was a good thing, and was necessary,  but it cost between 3 and 10K to put one in.

 

There are a lot less General Aviation owners than there are car owners, but they were able to get a realistic phase in period

 

 

 

 

[DizRotus]

Uh oh!

 

Three (now 4) posts in a row by  lawyers.  Is that like 3 on a match?

[vasubandu]

45 minutes ago, dwilawyer said:

It will be a 10 to 20 year transition just like everything else

 

The difference between the examples you game and autonomous vehicles is that cars without seat belts do not interfere with the cars that have them. If you say only AV on the freeway, then other cars become useless because they cannot go anywhere.  Your point makes complete sense, but in this situation, it is hard to see how it will work.  We have about 250 million vehicles in the U.S.  Lots of them are old.  So lets say an average value of $8,000.  That is only $2 trillion.  Yeah, it is going to be a mess no matter how it goes.

[Travis In Austin]

9 minutes ago, dwilawyer said:

Even simply reserving the inside lane for AVs would change things dramatically.  Everyone will want to be there...well, the vast majority anyway. 

That is the model I think we will see, they can use diamond Lane for free to start.  

 

Not sure what will happen out in rural area.  Like Hope AR is a good example.  Will interstate become restricted to AV only, or maybe locals can use it from 10 am to 2 pm,  (daylight, non prime time?) AND have to use real roads at other times.  Will small towns be required to adopt an AV only model?

 

It's all going to be very interesting.

 

I though it was fascinating that someone actually applied with DOT for a true AV, (Level 4 or above) and not advanced cruise, AND it will be available in some form in 2019

[Travis In Austin]

8 minutes ago, vasubandu said:

 

The difference between the examples you game and autonomous vehicles is that cars without seat belts do not interfere with the cars that have them. If you say only AV on the freeway, then other cars become useless because they cannot go anywhere.  Your point makes complete sense, but in this situation, it is hard to see how it will work.  We have about 250 million vehicles in the U.S.  Lots of them are old.  So lets say an average value of $8,000.  That is only $2 trillion.  Yeah, it is going to be a mess no matter how it goes.

It's not that complex in my estimation.

 

They will do what they always do.  Special interests will be at the table, voters with control as a block (AARP et al) will determine how willing you are going to make them give up their car and go out and purchase a new one.

 

There was a program to get old polluting vehicles off road.  Cash for Clunkers.

 

I don't know how it worked out, it might be a path to expedite transition.

[vasubandu]

1 hour ago, richieb said:

has the economics of "safe" driving been discussed?

 

It has been discussed a lot by the people making it happen.  The numbers I saw ranges from 1-5 million direct lost jobs.  I don't recall if that included truck drivers or not, but that is another, as are taxi drivers and now uber.  It is all part of the wave of artificial intelligence and automation that will render organic life useless.  A scary number of people believe that were are on a course towards inorganic life, and some say that the evolution from what we are to that could take place in 300 years.  

 

https://www.vox.com/2017/3/27/14780114/yuval-harari-ai-vr-consciousness-sapiens-homo-deus-podcast

[vasubandu]

1 hour ago, muel said:

They've got a long way to go before I'd trust them on the snow and ice I see out there now. 

 

You would not believe how common this statement is.  And how dead wrong.  On snow and ice is where you would want AV the most.  People say the same thing about trucks, and it is just as wrong there.  No matter who you are, you cannot beat an AV.

[Travis In Austin]

2 hours ago, Mallette said:

By the time driving is predominately outright banned, the public will have seen the enormous benefits that AV's bring and will be all for it, IMHO.  Further, bans will begin just on inner lanes and progress outward on freeways before being extended to principle roads and streets.  You can't replace the entire fleet overnight...though I would not be surprised to find the government putting serious money into this change as the benefits of ending the majority of road construction will bring such massive savings to the public to make it a no brainer.

 

Dave

Roadway funding in budgeted as much as 10 years out, so you won't see savings in near term.  Nor will you see savings in repairs and rebuilding, which will stay the same and then increase because the theory is that instead of having to build new roads, or expand them, you can get more cars on the same road without compromising speed with AV cars.  However that assumes that a majority of vehicles on a particular freeway are all true AV.

 

Once you are running more vehicles over same road because of efficiency than repair and maintenance will go up.  But certainly cheaper than new construction or expansion of roads.

[vasubandu]

22 minutes ago, DizRotus said:

Three (now 4) posts in a row by  lawyers.  Is that like 3 on a match?

 

Actually, @DizRotus, it is called the trinity.  You may have heard of it.

[DizRotus]

Look around at the morons allowed to drive now.  The technology exists right now to do a better job of observing, analyzing, and reacting than any human.  Now add those “driving” while on the phone;  many lives will be saved.

 

People will need to grasp the paradigm shift involved.  Your classic ‘57 Chevy will not be fitted with AV hardware.

[vasubandu]

I am not sure that people really understand just how different this is going to be.  This article talks about going through intersections at 150 miles per hour.

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/innovation/self-driving-cars-will-turn-intersections-high-speed-ballet-n731511

 

I usually heard 90, but what difference does it make?  They won't play nicely with people cars.

[richieb]

42 minutes ago, vasubandu said:

 

You are dead right, but the people I talked to did not want any erratic people driven cars in the arena period.  Some research apparently suggests that they cannot be far enough away. Bear in mind that I collected and reported information with a legal perspective, so I am not at all an expert.  But the people I consulted with are at the heart of this. As for people seeing the benefits, tell that to a guy with a McLaren.  Tell him to take a shared car, which is the future.  This is all going to be very interesting.  And those amazing safety records you read about were accomplished with processors that are so obsolete they are worthless.  It is a very scary glimpse into the future.

 

++1

"tell that to the guy with a McLaren". Now Dave don't come back with well if he can afford a McLaren then he can afford the $$$$ driving license fees. BS. What about those of us who while not in the McLaren class still saved and paid dearly for our dream, fun car? I alread pay dearly for government mandated fuel tax and insurance. Yeah lets stack on other frivolous taxes/fees in the name of the "large" at the expense of the "few". Sounds democratic to me. This may well go the way of an organization similar to the NRA - NDA (national drivers association). There will be drivers by the millions that will fight  this government mandated "takeover" tooth and nail. Guaranteed - 

[vasubandu]

3 minutes ago, richieb said:

There will be drivers by the millions that will fight  this government mandated "takeover" tooth and nail.

 

And you are free to go down to the track and drive to your heart's content.  But you will need an AV truck to haul it there.  The point you make is entirely valid, but people with money run the show and don't live by the same rules as others.  I drive a Mazda, so don't look at me.  My client actually wondered about buying thousands of acres in Wyoming to improve with roads so people could pay to do "real" driving, but it did not seem to pencil out.  Roads are expensive, especially through mountains.  Then again, he drives an Aston Martin that costs more than the average house, so maybe he was looking out for himself.  

 

I really do not know how this will shake out, but the benefits are so huge and the business opportunities so enticing that I think it will happen one way or another.  I really do worry about what is going to happen to ordinary people through all of this.  We have more people than we need already, and before long, a few hundred qualified people will be able to run the world.

[richieb]

"A few hundred people qualified to run the world". I'd venture that is already happening, qualified or not. Those with hands on The Button", the Facebook, Google, Apple, Amazon, Goldman, etc. CEO's are already calling economic shots and FB and Google turning millions into screen staring zombies. I really don't like what I'm seeing or will have forced upon me. Luckily, I guess, I'll be 65 in a month so my time to process, deal with this crap is somewhat limited. I guess one Huge advantage is the multiple hours of additional screen starring time to be made available. So we save lives on the hiway while we kill minds with our smart devices. Enjoy yourselves --

[muel]

51 minutes ago, vasubandu said:

 

You would not believe how common this statement is.  And how dead wrong.  On snow and ice is where you would want AV the most.  People say the same thing about trucks, and it is just as wrong there.  No matter who you are, you cannot beat an AV.

Statistically speaking I believe you.  But I also believe that it is a fact that AV's will end up killing some people along the way.  Maybe millions more will be saved sure.  I just want people to stop selling it as 100% safe. 

 

In the future, from their safe insulated cocoons, people might look back on our risky lives in horror just as we might (if we could peer into the future) be disgusted by the lives that they have come to accept.  I'm sure my forebears would ask a few questions of me... "what's your hurry?" "why do you waste your time on THAT?"  "I gave you my good looks... why did you get so fat?"

[Mallette]

1 hour ago, vasubandu said:

It is a very scary glimpse into the future.

Not at all scared.  Should be an interesting thing to experience.  

 

Dave

[vasubandu]

13 minutes ago, richieb said:

Luckily, I guess, I'll be 65 in a month so my time to process, deal with this crap is somewhat limited.

 

No way are we letting you out that easy.  You made this mess, you clean it up.

[vasubandu]

6 minutes ago, muel said:

I just want people to stop selling it as 100% safe.

 

Haven't you heard?  If someone is hurt or dies, it must be their fault.  The machines never make mistakes.

[Mallette]

1 hour ago, dwilawyer said:

If there is an incentive to switch, it will happen sooner.

There will be incentives.  Heck, the incentive for a Tesla S3 just in income tax rebates makes it very compelling and competitive.  As I've said, I believe government at all levels will return a LOT of incentives in order to save billions and billions in infrastructure expansion.  US 71 from Texarkana to Fort Smith is slated to become I-49...but I don't believe it will ever be built, at least anything like the cost and complexity of today's Interstate.  All that is needed is an old fashioned 4 lane road with a lane for AVs and one for trucks.  Even the existing two lane would be fine with turnouts so AV trucks can let others pass if need be.  Without enumerating all the other savings that will come with this technology I believe that even I will have one.  I am considering going back to work full time just to save money towards a Tesla.  It would be a good investment and likely the last car I'd ever need.

Dave