Driverless cars

[Takumi]

I am not.  Being a passenger does not excite me.  I love cars, namely OLD cars (mine are 23 and 29 years old) -and I love DRIVING.  In order for driverless cars to work as intended (improve traffic flow, reduce accidents, blah blah) they will HAVE to be driverless, constantly communicating with each other.  Meaning - I won't be allowed to drive anymore.  I'd quite frankly rather off myself.  I can't say the "DRIVERLESS!!!!1!1!111" attitude surprises me, though, given the nearly society-wide mindless obsession with media consumption these days.

But I don't know that it will ever happen.  Technological advancement suggests it will, but seeing how it would be the signature of the death warrant for the traffic enforcement business and industry, I suspect those folks will fight it tooth and nail.  And some of them - namely the insurance companies - have the cash behind them to get what they want.

I just see it as another bit of mindless progress (i.e. "progress for the sake of progress") personally, that alone is enough for me to find it utterly repulsive.  The way I see it?  If you want to be a passenger so badly, so you can consume your media/alcohol/etc, lobby for more transit services, then get your tail on those transit services and leave the roads for those of us who like driving and/or who know how to drive like we mean it, and/or who would at least like to be able to drive down any road we like.  Don't lobby for driverless cars that will ultimately cause the demise of even being able to do something the rest of us enjoy.

THIS. All of this. I'm starting to find that, at least in our generation and younger, driving isn't seen as something to be enjoyed, and people like you and I who do enjoy driving and older cars (mine are 16, 20, and 22) are in the minority these days. I went out with a girl a few years younger than me yesterday, and whenever I mentioned driving for fun she looked at me like I was crazy. If driverless cars ever become mandatory, I hope it's after my time.

[realjd]

Can't happen soon enough IMO. I'm excited for the day I can tell my car to drive me to Key West, turn on my ipad, and open a beer. Or tell it to drive me to DC after work and then sleep all night arriving in the morning.

I am not.  Being a passenger does not excite me.  I love cars, namely OLD cars (mine are 23 and 29 years old) -and I love DRIVING.  In order for driverless cars to work as intended (improve traffic flow, reduce accidents, blah blah) they will HAVE to be driverless, constantly communicating with each other.  Meaning - I won't be allowed to drive anymore.  I'd quite frankly rather off myself.  I can't say the "OMFG DRIVERLESS!!!!1!1!111" attitude surprises me, though, given the nearly society-wide mindless obsession with media consumption these days.

But I don't know that it will ever happen.  Technological advancement suggests it will, but seeing how it would be the signature of the death warrant for the traffic enforcement business and industry, I suspect those folks will fight it tooth and nail.  And some of them - namely the insurance companies - have the cash behind them to get what they want.

I just see it as another bit of mindless progress (i.e. "progress for the sake of progress") personally, that alone is enough for me to find it utterly repulsive.  The way I see it?  If you want to be a passenger so badly, so you can consume your media/alcohol/etc, lobby for more transit services, then get your tail on those transit services and leave the roads for those of us who like driving and/or who know how to drive like we mean it, and/or who would at least like to be able to drive down any road we like.  Don't lobby for driverless cars that will ultimately cause the demise of even being able to do something the rest of us enjoy.

Where did I say I want to ban manually operated cars? Plenty of people still ride horses even though society has moved on to more modern modes of transport. Also, you're completely ignoring the safety aspect of automated cars which is IMO one of its most compelling arguments.

[ET21]

Going I-Robot Autopilot haha

[vdeane]

In order to see the safety benefits of driverless cars, though, ALL cars need to be driverless.  The safety lobby will probably move to ban manual driving if driverless cars catch on.  Just look at how services such as OnStar are becoming MANDATORY in new cars.

[Crazy Volvo Guy]

Where did I say I want to ban manually operated cars? Plenty of people still ride horses even though society has moved on to more modern modes of transport. Also, you're completely ignoring the safety aspect of automated cars which is IMO one of its most compelling arguments.

You didn't.  It's one of those things that will end up being inevitable.  You also obviously didn't read my post; I did not ignore the safety aspect, I acknowledged it and pointed out that for safety to actually be a benefit to driverless cars, they'd all have to be driverless.

And as for that 'safety' thing, let's be serious for a minute here.

As pointed out, there are a great many of us who actually enjoy the experience of driving.  It isn't a rudimentary routine for me, it is my life. (Why the hell else do you think I became a truck driver?  The money?  HA!)

Now, there are SEVEN BILLION people on this planet, and that number is rapidly increasing... we are on the cusp of a serious overpopulation crisis.  Yet, we are pushing safety so hard that it will end up destroying the enjoyability of life for perhaps millions of people.  I think we need to take a serious look at ourselves.  Some things are just silly, this mindless 'safety at any cost' mentality that dominates everything these days is most certainly one of those silly things.

[NE2]

Now, there are SEVEN BILLION people on this planet, and that number is rapidly increasing... we are on the cusp of a serious overpopulation crisis.  Yet, we are pushing safety so hard that it will end up destroying the enjoyability of life for perhaps millions of people.  I think we need to take a serious look at ourselves.  Some things are just silly, this mindless 'safety at any cost' mentality that dominates everything these days is most certainly one of those silly things.

Do you realize that safer sex can help with the problem?

[Crazy Volvo Guy]

Do you realize that safer sex can help with the problem?

That's a "duh" thing.  I still maintain my position on the mindless "safety at any cost" mentality.  It's gone beyond ridiculous.

[Molandfreak]

Where did I say I want to ban manually operated cars? Plenty of people still ride horses even though society has moved on to more modern modes of transport. Also, you're completely ignoring the safety aspect of automated cars which is IMO one of its most compelling arguments.

You didn't.  It's one of those things that will end up being inevitable.  You also obviously didn't read my post; I did not ignore the safety aspect, I acknowledged it and pointed out that for safety to actually be a benefit to driverless cars, they'd all have to be driverless.

And as for that 'safety' thing, let's be serious for a minute here.

As pointed out, there are a great many of us who actually enjoy the experience of driving.  It isn't a rudimentary routine for me, it is my life. (Why the hell else do you think I became a truck driver?  The money?  HA!)

Now, there are SEVEN BILLION people on this planet, and that number is rapidly increasing... we are on the cusp of a serious overpopulation crisis.  Yet, we are pushing safety so hard that it will end up destroying the enjoyability of life for perhaps millions of people.  I think we need to take a serious look at ourselves.  Some things are just silly, this mindless 'safety at any cost' mentality that dominates everything these days is most certainly one of those silly things.

Even if driverless cars aren't mandated, it still will put an ever-increasing dent in the market for self-driving cars. We can compare it to today's equivalent, the people who actually can drive a car with a manual transmission to the people who cannot. It's inevitable that if driverless cars ever catch on, the people who can drive real cars will dwindle, causing a self-mandated market. Eventually, a manually driven car will dwindle to become a novelty item, something that isn't viewed as practical in the world. Today it's rare to see a young person driving stick, when in the future it may be rare to see a young person driving at all (we're already heading that way). To be clear, I'm one of the few young people who hates driving in an automatic transmission car. Driverless cars will be one more irritating market-dwindler for me; a few years after they're introduced, I'll probably either have to go with an automatic or get a used because the day I go driverless will be the day after I die, when there are no more hearse drivers.

[realjd]

Where did I say I want to ban manually operated cars? Plenty of people still ride horses even though society has moved on to more modern modes of transport. Also, you're completely ignoring the safety aspect of automated cars which is IMO one of its most compelling arguments.

You didn't.  It's one of those things that will end up being inevitable.  You also obviously didn't read my post; I did not ignore the safety aspect, I acknowledged it and pointed out that for safety to actually be a benefit to driverless cars, they'd all have to be driverless.

And as for that 'safety' thing, let's be serious for a minute here.

As pointed out, there are a great many of us who actually enjoy the experience of driving.  It isn't a rudimentary routine for me, it is my life. (Why the hell else do you think I became a truck driver?  The money?  HA!)

Now, there are SEVEN BILLION people on this planet, and that number is rapidly increasing... we are on the cusp of a serious overpopulation crisis.  Yet, we are pushing safety so hard that it will end up destroying the enjoyability of life for perhaps millions of people.  I think we need to take a serious look at ourselves.  Some things are just silly, this mindless 'safety at any cost' mentality that dominates everything these days is most certainly one of those silly things.

You made no mention of safety in your original post.

Intercar communication is not a requirement for self driving cars, nor is it required to get many of the safety benefits. Yes, the case where all cars communicate with each other is ideal from a safety and efficiency standpoint, but it is not mandatory. Self driving cars that don't communicate will still remove drunk drivers and tired drivers from the road. It will remove people talking on cell phones and people texting.

It's not safety at any cost. Safety at any cost would be banning cars completely. This is the natural progression of automotive technology, and since there's clearly a market for it, it's just a matter of time before it's a common feature on new cars.

I fail to see how the total population of the Earth is relevant to the discussion. If you're suggesting we avoid improving product safety as a method of controlling overpopulation, I hope you've already removed the seat belts and airbags from your car. We all have to do our part, right?

[Crazy Volvo Guy]

I made no mention of the word "safety" in my original post, but I guess you didn't see that "reduce accidents" bit in my original post.  That is a direct acknowledgement of the safety aspect, since by reducing accidents, you obviously increase safety.

But yes, it is a matter of time before it's a common feature on new cars.  Then only a matter of time before it becomes mandatory, as has happened with every other bit of of new automotive technology.  Seat belts, airbags, OBD-II, traction/stability control, throttle-by-wire, etc.

And I'm not suggesting we avoid product safety, just that we stop being so obsessed with it.

[Crazy Volvo Guy]

And the mention of throttle-by-wire brings up the whole other side of my issue with the idea of a driverless car, even if it never becomes mandatory; all of the car's control systems (throttle, brakes, steering) will have to be electronic, i.e. by-wire.

I'm bitter about throttle-by-wire.  Brake-by-wire and steer-by-wire?  Not just No, but HELL NO.  If I wanted to feel as if I were playing a video game, I'd probably just play a video game...but I actually want the feel of the car and the feel of the road.  Kiss that goodbye with steer-by-wire.

[NE2]

Why not get out of that cage and on two wheels if you want the "feel of the road"?

[triplemultiplex]

Bring on the driverless car, I say!  By removing the weakest link on the road, the entire highway system gets so much more efficient, it is so worth it.  Vehicles controlled by computer can run mere inches apart front to back and side to side, so the capacity of a typical urban freeway has just been jacked up like 7 fold.  And because they are computer controlled, everything can move fast.  I foresee a future where a single lane of motor vehicles streams into a city at rush hour doing 85 mph while individual cars pop in and out of the stream at various exits.  More efficient use of space, more efficient use of fuel, more efficient use of time.

And then there's the safety.  If you're scared of computers killing you, you need to remember that over 40,000 people are killed every single year in the United States in motor vehicle collisions.  40,000  And that's just the US.  Nearly 100% of that is human freaking error.  Statistically speaking, commuting by automobile is the single most dangerous thing most people do every single day (well, except for the combination of eating and not moving). No car computer glitch is going get anywhere near that many people killed.  This isn't some stupid warning label on a bottle of Coke telling you not to point it at your face while opening it.  It's the population of a typical suburb dead and gone and we are on the verge of achieving the technology to end this slaughter. 

I don't want my future stuck in traffic just to appease the ever decreasing amount of people who fetishize driving a stupid car.  It's the same reason we don't want to have Amish buggies on the damn interstate.  Don't worry, there will always be places for people to take their old-mobiles and play race car driver or splash through mud puddles or waste tire tread or whatever else motor sports enthusiasts get off on.  The rest will be happy to not have to risk their frickin' lives just to get to work.

"Computer, take me to 123 Fake Street and use River Drive.  I feel like looking at the water today."

[agentsteel53]

"Computer, take me to 123 Fake Street and use River Drive.  I feel like looking at the water today."

"computer, take a left right now.  seriously, right now.  that's the old alignment.  even if it's not on your map, we're taking it.  continue driving straight.  ooh, a bit to the left.  this road - of which you are not aware, as it is covered in grass - is slightly curving.  perhaps it would be more efficient if, instead of attempting to give commands verbally, I might use some kind of a wheel-like device which I manipulate with my hands?"

[Brandon]

And then there's the safety.  If you're scared of computers killing you, you need to remember that over 40,000 people are killed every single year in the United States in motor vehicle collisions.  40,000  And that's just the US.  Nearly 100% of that is human freaking error.  Statistically speaking, commuting by automobile is the single most dangerous thing most people do every single day (well, except for the combination of eating and not moving). No car computer glitch is going get anywhere near that many people killed.  This isn't some stupid warning label on a bottle of Coke telling you not to point it at your face while opening it.  It's the population of a typical suburb dead and gone and we are on the verge of achieving the technology to end this slaughter. 

Actually, the estimate of over 40,000 is old.  The current one is well under 40,000 total, and last year (2012) did not even break 30,000 for the first nine months of the year.  The real number to use for highway fatalities is not total fatalities, but fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled.  That number is extremely low at 1.10 for 2011, from a high of 24.09 in 1921.  It's fallen just about every year since 1921.  In addition, per 100,000 of US population, the number is also very low at 10.3876 per 100,000 in population in 2011, down from 29.357 per 100,000 in population in 1937.

There really is no slaughter by these numbers, and you are far more likely to die from cancer or heart disease than a motor vehicle accident.  You are also far, far more likely to die from old age than a motor vehicle accident.  Last I looked, life expectancy is over 70 years for both men and women in the US.

[Molandfreak]

I don't want my future stuck in traffic just to appease the ever decreasing amount of people who fetishize driving a stupid car.  It's the same reason we don't want to have Amish buggies on the damn interstate.  Don't worry, there will always be places for people to take their old-mobiles and play race car driver or splash through mud puddles or waste tire tread or whatever else motor sports enthusiasts get off on.  The rest will be happy to not have to risk their frickin' lives just to get to work.

Don't assume that driverless cars will improve lives everywhere. Rural areas of the country rely on roads to get farm implements, tractors, and yields from place to place. Driverless tractors you say? Ha. The erosive quality of some dirt more than requires anything that is driven in the field to have a competent person driving any farm vehicle.

[NE2]

Driverless tractors you say? Ha.

[english si]

we are on the cusp of a serious overpopulation crisis.

We not - in fact, the crisis we are heading for (if demographic trends continue as they are now) is, while not the opposite problem to overpopulation, a falling off the other side of the goat.

That said, that other problem (a top-heavy demographic pyramid caused by people living longer and not being replaced at the bottom of the pyramid with babies) is also fixed by your suggestion to lower life expectancy by making life more dangerous.

Do you realize that safer sex can help with the problem?

It has.

The main reason for western population increases (even the much-more-fertile-than-Europe USA isn't breeding at replacement rate) currently is increased life expectancy.

When the boomers die off in a decade or two, population in the west will be in decline unless something changes re: birth rate. And breed-like-rabbits countries in sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East (esp the Middle East) will go the same way about 50 years time when the generation being born now starts reaching life expectancy (as their birth rates are declining quite quickly).

Top heavy demographic pyramids are a different kind of bad thing to overpopulation and Crazy Volvo Guy's solution of making life less safe deals with both, unlike your making sex more 'safe' which causes the former.

[realjd]

I don't want my future stuck in traffic just to appease the ever decreasing amount of people who fetishize driving a stupid car.  It's the same reason we don't want to have Amish buggies on the damn interstate.  Don't worry, there will always be places for people to take their old-mobiles and play race car driver or splash through mud puddles or waste tire tread or whatever else motor sports enthusiasts get off on.  The rest will be happy to not have to risk their frickin' lives just to get to work.

Don't assume that driverless cars will improve lives everywhere. Rural areas of the country rely on roads to get farm implements, tractors, and yields from place to place. Driverless tractors you say? Ha. The erosive quality of some dirt more than requires anything that is driven in the field to have a competent person driving any farm vehicle.

How are tractors related to the discussion? Is it that they drive on roads to get around? Nobody wants to ban non-automatic vehicles from the roads. There will still be pedestrians, bicycles, motorcycles, trucks, and non-automatic cars.

[Molandfreak]

I don't want my future stuck in traffic just to appease the ever decreasing amount of people who fetishize driving a stupid car.  It's the same reason we don't want to have Amish buggies on the damn interstate.  Don't worry, there will always be places for people to take their old-mobiles and play race car driver or splash through mud puddles or waste tire tread or whatever else motor sports enthusiasts get off on.  The rest will be happy to not have to risk their frickin' lives just to get to work.

Don't assume that driverless cars will improve lives everywhere. Rural areas of the country rely on roads to get farm implements, tractors, and yields from place to place. Driverless tractors you say? Ha. The erosive quality of some dirt more than requires anything that is driven in the field to have a competent person driving any farm vehicle.

How are tractors related to the discussion? Is it that they drive on roads to get around? Nobody wants to ban non-automatic vehicles from the roads. There will still be pedestrians, bicycles, motorcycles, trucks, and non-automatic cars.

Triplemultiplex implied that he wanted to see manually driven cars banned, at least from freeways. And yes, to be 100% effective with reducing accidents, manually driven cars do have to be banned from the roadways.

[NE2]

And yes, to be 100% effective with reducing accidents, manually driven cars do have to be banned from the roadways.

And goats have to be implanted with microchips to keep them from wandering onto the freeway.

[Alps]

Also, you're completely ignoring the safety aspect of automated cars which is IMO one of its most compelling arguments.

Fact: With the reduced headways being touted as part of the automatic car programs, all it takes is one deer in the road to initiate massive calamity.

[NE2]

Fact: With the reduced headways being touted as part of the automatic car programs, all it takes is one deer in the road to initiate massive calamity.

Fact: Driverless cars will have frickin laser beams to eliminate deer.

[realjd]

Fact: With the reduced headways being touted as part of the automatic car programs, all it takes is one deer in the road to initiate massive calamity.

Fact: Driverless cars will have frickin laser beams to eliminate deer.

Also: cyclists and pedestrians. In the name of safety.

[Crazy Volvo Guy]

Why not get out of that cage and on two wheels if you want the "feel of the road"?

Because a car is more than just a cage to me.  If I didn't feel that way, I wouldn't keep two 20+ year old RWD Turbo Volvos around.  There are plenty of vehicles that get much better fuel economy that I'd probably have.

And in case anyone is wondering why my tone in this thread is so bitter and hostile:

I don't want my future stuck in traffic just to appease the ever decreasing amount of people who fetishize driving a stupid car.

It's that kind of fucking attitude, right there.  Marginalization due to a gross lack of understanding of anyone's preferences other than his own.

I have a better idea to increase efficiency and safety, while still being able to appease people like me: massive expansion of public transit in all its forms, followed by a massive increase in the skill and competency requirements for getting a basic driver's license.  That gets most of the mindless masses (hey, look, I can play the selfish marginalization game too!!) out of the cars they hate driving so much and into vastly safer and more efficient means of transport to and from work, which will in turn reduce traffic counts and congestion, and with the increase in the competency and skill levels of those still licensed, the roads will be safer and faster, and myself and like-minded people will still get to actually drive our cars.

Oh, but that's crazy talk!!!!

I guess now might be a good time for me to just bow out, eh?