backtop


Print 112 comment(s) - last by Schrag4.. on Jul 22 at 2:57 PM

“We’ve created an entire culture and economy based on the notion that transportation is cheap."

In recent years, when a promising new technology comes along in the automotive world, Toyota – true to its conservative nature -- has a habit of taking a more measured approach instead of jumping in with both feet. When vehicle manufacturers started moving towards Li-ion batteries for their hybrids, Toyota threw a wet blanket on the efforts and stuck to NiMH battery chemistry.
 
Toyota’s strategy has for the most part worked, as its hybrids using “inferior” NiMH battery chemistry have had no troubling trouncing newer competition with Li-ion battery packs.
 
And while many manufactures are currently looking towards all-electric vehicles as the “next logical step” in automotive transportation, Toyota is instead forging ahead with hydrogen fuel cell power – a technology that it has been finessing for years and sees as a superior option.
 
Now, with auto manufacturers and technology companies — like Google — looking to embrace autonomous vehicles in the near future, one Toyota researcher is pointing us to the downsides of such a move. Ken Laberteaux, Sr. Principal Research Scientist at Toyota Research Institute-North America, explained this week at the Automated Vehicles Symposium that autonomous vehicles could actually lead to increased pollution and fuel use.


Toyota's Ken Laberteaux
 
According to Laberteaux, the primary reason for the increases are due to urban sprawl. If a driver doesn’t have to deal with the everyday monotony of plodding through bumper-to-bumper traffic or stare at the white lines separating lanes on the highway, that he or she would be more likely to live further away from city centers or their workplace.
 
“U.S. history shows that anytime you make driving easier, there seems to be this inexhaustible desire to live further from things,” said Laberteaux. “The pattern we’ve seen for a century is people turn more speed into more travel, rather than maybe saying ‘I’m going to use my reduced travel time by spending more time with my family.’”


Google's autonomous vehicle prototype
 
Toyota’s corporate philosophy is to provide plenty of driver aids (i.e., blind spot monitoring, adaptive cruise control systems, lane departure warnings, etc.) versus taking full control of a vehicle.
 
While Toyota and Laberteaux are concerned that autonomous vehicles will cause us to become even bigger consumers of resources, the FBI is more concerned that the vehicles could be turned into rolling weapons platforms.
 
However, one thing that almost everyone can agree on is that autonomous vehicles along with vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications technology would help to reduce traffic accidents and deaths on American roads.

Source: Bloomberg



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

He makes a good point
By aurareturn on 7/18/2014 2:53:21 PM , Rating: 5
He makes a good point. If I won't mind living an hour away from work if I don't have to drive. I can be productive in my car while my car drives.

However, this shouldn't be a reason we don't go full-speed away for autonomous vehicles.




RE: He makes a good point
By FITCamaro on 7/18/2014 3:28:08 PM , Rating: 1
I'd prefer full speed away from autonomous vehicles. I don't want or need my car driving itself. How about we educate people to be better drivers? Right...that requires responsibility and paying attention.....very evil words today.


RE: He makes a good point
By Etsp on 7/18/2014 3:36:15 PM , Rating: 2
There are many other benefits to autonomous vehicles besides safety.


RE: He makes a good point
By tng on 7/19/2014 9:34:52 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
...other benefits to autonomous vehicles besides safety.

Yes, but that is what they will use to push that every vehicle has the capability to do this at first, then it will be mandated using the same reasons.


RE: He makes a good point
By Rukkian on 7/18/2014 3:44:14 PM , Rating: 2
No matter how much training is given, there are still many, many stupid people that can't/won't drive in a way conducive to traffic flow. Things like stopping at the end of an entrance ramp, following too closely, weaving in and out of traffic for no reason, and distractions of all types.

If there were a way to keep bad drivers off the roads, I think everybody (except the bad drivers) would be all for it, but I feel there is no way that could ever happen.


RE: He makes a good point
By FITCamaro on 7/18/2014 3:58:59 PM , Rating: 3
And that's why life is not a utopia. There is risk to life. Accidents and bad drivers aren't good things. But they're the necessary evil that comes with being free. Some of us don't want to be drones shuttled around by computerized drones, devoid of a world where spirited driving is a possibility in the name of supposedly absolute safety.

And when things go wrong and there are accidents, who will be at fault? The automaker? The city? The passenger/owner? Are these cars going to maintain themselves too? Because you know people are still going to be stupid and ignorant about making sure their brakes work. Or replacing their tires or suspension on time.


RE: He makes a good point
By sgw2n5 on 7/18/2014 4:07:23 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Accidents and bad drivers aren't good things. But they're the necessary evil that comes with being free.
.

You do realize how many innocent families die each year in automobile accidents through absolutely no fault of their own?

I like driving and the feeling of freedom on the road just as much as the next guy, but I would be completely OK with competent self driving vehicles taking over my transportation needs if it means that travel is damn near 100% safe.

Full disclaimer-- a buddy of mine recently lost is wife, his 3 year old daughter, and his infant daughter when a driver fell asleep and crossed the center line. With this tech, that accident and thousands like it could be prevented each year.


RE: He makes a good point
By Reclaimer77 on 7/18/2014 4:32:15 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You do realize how many innocent families die each year in automobile accidents through absolutely no fault of their own?


Way to make his point.

The belief that we can save all "wrongful" deaths through legislation of safety technologies is inherently Liberal and wrongheaded.


RE: He makes a good point
By sgw2n5 on 7/18/2014 5:06:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The belief that we can save all "wrongful" deaths through legislation of safety technologies is inherently Liberal and wrongheaded.


Never said that we can save ALL wrongful deaths. This isn't a black and white issue... but there are about ~30-40k automobile fatalities each year (just in the US), the majority of which probably could have been avoided. On top of that, many lives were lost through no fault of their own.

This isn't the same as someone who knows that smoking is unhealthy, but continues to do it anyway, then dies of lung cancer. This isn't a personal responsibility issue on the part of the victim. Don't you see that?

If you and FIT had it your way, seeing as how you have a problem with "legislation of safety technologies," should we do away with stop signs? Should we do away with the legislation that mandates that we drive on the right side of the road in the US?


RE: He makes a good point
By FITCamaro on 7/18/2014 5:17:53 PM , Rating: 2
Stop signs are not a "technology". They are a road sign meant to signify right of way. Neither is which side of the road you drive on. Your examples are poor and don't even come close to matching this.

A better example would be seat belts. Which I don't think should be mandatory. To have in the car or wear. Because it should be your choice whether or not to take the risk. I personally will always wear one. But I respect people's right to choose.

And you' realize you're talking about less than 1% of the population right? While every one is tragic, do you mandate something that would cost that much money and takes away other people's freedom to do things they like and enjoy. I guess we should ban all the other dangerous things out there too. Skateboard, roller blades, motorcycles, bikes, etc. Hundreds or thousands die on those too each year.


RE: He makes a good point
By Etsp on 7/18/2014 6:04:16 PM , Rating: 2
Who said anything about taking away manually driven cars??


RE: He makes a good point
By Schrag4 on 7/21/2014 9:25:25 AM , Rating: 1
This question is either purposefully deceitful or it demonstrates what a useful idiot you are. Of course those that would squash all personal freedom and responsibility would claim that they "would never take away your ability to manually drive a car!" Once autonomous driving has become mandatory, though, it's the next logical step. Ask anyone pushing hard for this - if they're honest they'll admit that's the end goal here. They'll say that unless you remove ALL human element, a bad driver can still kill others, so freedom must be completely stamped out.


RE: He makes a good point
By bsd228 on 7/18/2014 6:23:56 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
A better example would be seat belts. Which I don't think should be mandatory. To have in the car or wear. Because it should be your choice whether or not to take the risk. I personally will always wear one. But I respect people's right to choose.


That choice makes one a menace to the rest of us. If you are in a collision and belted, you're still in position to control the running car. If you're not, where will you be in (or out of) the car? My grandmother ran a stop sign (or didn't yield), got broadsided, and then drove into a near by house. Fortunately at a low enough speed it didn't lead to a serious result. But it could have.

quote:
And you' realize you're talking about less than 1% of the population right? While every one is tragic, do you mandate something that would cost that much money and takes away other people's freedom to do things they like and enjoy.


Your opposition seems predicated on the belief that it would be mandated, and for that reason you've eliminated in your mind any positives of this progress. In reality, most people don't really enjoy their commute experience. Some don't really care for driving at all. These are exactly the people we want to have this other option. Well, drinkers are the ones we want first. They're the ones killing 20k/year. Or 6 9/11s per year. Don't try to tell us this is 'less than 1% of the population,' so it doesn't mean much.

OTOH, if what you think is "freedom" is the right to drive a camaro like a jackass, then yeah, you'll need to get with the times. Race tracks are where you go to speed. But I would expect the manual driving experience to remain the norm on backcountry two lane roads, and that there would still be motorcycles and convertibles out there for the rest of our lives.

Right now your arguments sound hardly different than those railing against vaccinations. I know you and reclaimer love playing that contrarian role, dressing it under the guise of freedom, but it often looks so very silly.


RE: He makes a good point
By FITCamaro on 7/19/2014 9:28:23 AM , Rating: 2
First of all, I don't even own a Camaro anymore. I own an Altima. Growing up has a way of changing people. And even when I did own the ones I owned, I never got a ticket in them nor drove like a jackass. In 15 years of driving I've gotten 3 tickets. 2 were for speeding and neither were when I was driving stupid, just following the rest of traffic.

And if the accident wasn't such that the car wasn't stopped by the accident, chances are, you'd still be right there in the seat. You can slip out of seat belts in a crash too. I've also talked to people who are alive only because they weren't wearing a seatbelt since the car was crushed on the side they were on and being held there by the belt would have meant they'd have been crushed too. Again, I believe in choice of risk.

And it will be mandated. If you don't believe it will, you ignore history. Tire pressure sensors are now mandatory, what makes you think this won't be? Soon backup sensors/cameras and inter-vehicle communication will likely be next on the ever growing list of luxury features that will be mandated.

It's not that it doesn't mean much. It's the issue of the slippery slope. At what point do we say things are safe enough for people to be free to make choices and live with the consequences? I think we reached it long ago. As I said before, every tragedy is just that, a tragedy. It doesn't mean a law needs to be passed to prevent it. A friend of my wife back in Cleveland just lost their 5 year old son tragically because he somehow drowned in a small pond behind their house during a family reunion. Do we need a law saying letting your kids play in the backyard is illegal? Or to ban ponds? No.


RE: He makes a good point
By therealnickdanger on 7/22/2014 8:55:52 AM , Rating: 2
Liberty is dangerous.

That being said, autonomous vehicles are necessary. While you have the privilege to drive, you don't have the right to impose your poor decisions upon the rest of society, which all incur the costs of said decisions through emergency services, lost wages (taxes), and other costs associated with crashes. If technology gives us the means to eradicate car crashes altogether, then I can see no reason to avoid it. Personally, I would like to drink too much and have my car drive me home while I pass out.

If the fear is that one will no longer be able to choose where or when to go somewhere due to some government-mandated control chip, that's a different discussion.


RE: He makes a good point
By Schrag4 on 7/22/2014 2:57:13 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Liberty is dangerous.

That being said, autonomous vehicles are necessary. While you have the privilege to drive, you don't have the right to impose your poor decisions upon the rest of society, which all incur the costs of said decisions through emergency services, lost wages (taxes), and other costs associated with crashes.


So the answer is to stamp out as much liberty as possible? You sound like V.I.K.I. from I, Robot. Humans are the greatest threat to humans so the best way to protect humans is to effectively enslave them? We're talking about cars here, but you'd obviously extend this same logic to all aspects of human life, right? People can accidentally (or purposely) hurt themselves or others with a knife, so only a special robot should be allowed access to knives in your kitchen, right?

quote:
If technology gives us the means to eradicate car crashes altogether, then I can see no reason to avoid it....If the fear is that one will no longer be able to choose where or when to go somewhere due to some government-mandated control chip, that's a different discussion.

You see no reason but you offer up a potential reason. The reason you gave IS THE REASON. Many of us don't want to live in country where the govt can essentially control all of its citizens' movement by pressing a button on a computer. It's a bit paranoid, perhaps, but the alternative position is pretty naive, IMO.

quote:
Personally, I would like to drink too much and have my car drive me home while I pass out.


That's a darn petty and selfish reason to want to take away my freedom, IMO.


RE: He makes a good point
By sgw2n5 on 7/18/2014 8:55:11 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, duh, stop signs and traffic regulations are indeed progressive innovations that have saved many lives. You have a very poor understanding of general safety and common good. Typical right wing selfishness... It's not like there aren't 7 billion people on this planet all trying live here too in relatively safer conditions than back in the good ol' days of republican yore.

Are you against vaccinations too?


RE: He makes a good point
By Reclaimer77 on 7/19/2014 7:27:45 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
If you and FIT had it your way, seeing as how you have a problem with "legislation of safety technologies," should we do away with stop signs?


How in the hell do you think that analogy is even on-topic? That's so far from the core of this debate it's like you're making a joke. Be serious.

You act like I'm saying we have a "right" to get in a car and kill people. Wtf?

I enjoy driving, and I've also never killed anybody while driving. I've never even HURT another person while driving. And I don't get behind the wheel thinking "oh boy, maybe today I'll use my right to drive to murder someone".

You say this isn't a black and white issue, then categorize drivers in these absurd one-dimensional terms!

You want to vilify driving because there's the potential to have an accident and hurt someone else. Well no sh*t Sherlock, we make decisions every day that have the potential to impact others. It's called responsibility.


RE: He makes a good point
By atechfan on 7/19/2014 8:21:22 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Driving gives us freedom to go where we want when we want. I don't want that taken away. If autonomous cars eliminated every single traffic death, which would never happen, but even if it did, it still would not be worth the loss of freedom.

I do, however, agree that there are lots of people out there who should not be driving. A driver's license should require more skill to acquire than it does, and should require periodic re-testing, like any other license to operate potentially dangerous machinery does. With rights come responsibilities, and only people responsible enough deserve to keep these rights.


RE: He makes a good point
By Reclaimer77 on 7/19/2014 9:16:24 AM , Rating: 1
Defensive driving IS taught, then it's completely ignored.

We have a responsibility to drive defensively as well. Not to blame the victims, but a lot of accidents are caused by people putting themselves in high-risk situations in the first place. Or just flat out not paying attention to what's going on around them. It's easy to get complacent and not think about just how fast things can go to sh*t at 70+mph.


RE: He makes a good point
By Sonicmerlin on 7/20/2014 1:28:49 AM , Rating: 2
So saving 40,000 lives a year isn't worth Thomas of your "freedom" to ... Do what exactly? Move a multi ton metal object down a road?

How selfish can you be?


RE: He makes a good point
By atechfan on 7/20/2014 6:22:38 PM , Rating: 2
First you have to prove to me that autonomous cars are going to save 40k lives per year.


RE: He makes a good point
By Sonicmerlin on 7/20/2014 1:27:05 AM , Rating: 2
You're not taking responsibility by whine about a technology that could saves tens of thousands of lives a year because it would take away your "freedom" to press a pedal and rotate a wheel.


RE: He makes a good point
By NovoRei on 7/18/2014 6:30:39 PM , Rating: 3
Yet another Reclaimer's pearl.

What about seat belts, ABS, ESP, airbags? What about recall legislation? What about crash test? And so on at different levels.

It doesn't even require statistics. Why would vehicle insurers charge less if you have all these safety devices?

But hey, our "freedom" is being drained. It's preferable to die or kill others in name of "freedom"...

You have your real freedom, you can drink how much you want and drive and assume the consequences. That's freedom.
Being idiot is a choice.



RE: He makes a good point
By atechfan on 7/19/2014 8:20:39 PM , Rating: 2
Seatbelts are a no-brainer. Only an idiot would not use them. Airbags are pretty much useless if you are wearing your belt, plus they actually can cause injury and death. Crash testing is done without the government mandating it. Nothing you are saying really makes government forcing autonomous cars on us a good idea. If there is a demand for self-driving vehicles, they will sell. Otherwise, they will die in the market. That is the way it should be.

You are right about one thing, even though you are trying to be ironic. It IS better to die than to lose freedom.


RE: He makes a good point
By Sonicmerlin on 7/20/2014 1:36:48 AM , Rating: 2
Uh... Airbags are not useless if you have your seatbelt on. as for crash testing, are you aware of the myriad safety relations enforced by the NHTSA? They developed the test protocol. They created the standardized rating program that people can easily access.


RE: He makes a good point
By atechfan on 7/20/2014 6:25:01 PM , Rating: 2
If you are properly belted, you wouldn't need an airbag. The only reason they are there is because manufacturers were forced to put them there. Unlike real safety features, the consumer wasn't convinced of their value.


RE: He makes a good point
By Samus on 7/18/2014 11:57:06 PM , Rating: 2
First, driving is not a right. I know this is heavily debated but it simply is not.

If you pay taxes, usage of roadways is a limited right. But operating vehicles is not a "right" or freedom. It is a privilege you earn and one that can and should be taken away much more often than it is. Bad drivers with suspensions constantly cry foul that they need their car to get to work or pickup the kids from school, and their first DUI will be their last, and so on...so the system is seemingly built around operating a vehicle being a right.

There is no perfect solution to fixing the cultural problem this country has with driving cars. But it needs a fix because the roads are overloaded, pollution is too high, and oil is too expensive.

The environmental benefits of autonomous vehicles through increased driving efficiency will indeed be outweighed by peoples inevitably greater reliance on a vehicle they wont have to operate. I can say this for a fact because even myself, someone who has worked in the auto industry and has a number of classic vehicles, would give up my "freedom to operate" to have the vehicle drive itself. To say otherwise is ridiculous. It's a small amount of "freedom" for a huge amount of safety, convenience, financial savings, and reduced stress.

Toyota as a company hasn't had a single innovative contribution to the auto industry in decades, so of course they're pointing out the obvious. That's always easy.


RE: He makes a good point
By Reclaimer77 on 7/19/14, Rating: 0
RE: He makes a good point
By Piiman on 7/19/2014 12:57:33 PM , Rating: 2
"First off driving is absolutely a right, that's been upheld in hundreds of court decisions over the years. "

Name one case.

"The right to free travel is guaranteed by our Constitution."

Feel free to walk all you want.


RE: He makes a good point
By Reclaimer77 on 7/19/2014 1:09:46 PM , Rating: 2
I just named two. There were zillions to choose from.

Can you show me ANYWHERE, in a law or the Constitution, where driving or travel was ever given "privilege" status? No. It's a RIGHT.


RE: He makes a good point
By ritualm on 7/19/2014 1:42:45 PM , Rating: 2
Driving is not a right, it's a privilege. Nowhere in the US Constitution mentions driving as an inalienable right.

Tell me, if you believe driving is indeed a right, how do newborn babies drive a car?


RE: He makes a good point
By Reclaimer77 on 7/19/2014 2:58:33 PM , Rating: 1
Idiot fallacy number 1.

Our only "rights" are those specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Well that's wrong, go back to school and study the 10'th Amendment.

Idiot fallacy number 2.

Whatever your newborn baby angle was trying to prove. Stupid beyond stupidity.


RE: He makes a good point
By ritualm on 7/19/2014 10:14:31 PM , Rating: 3
Idiot fallacy number 3.

Every one of your posts.

Driving is not a right, it's a privilege. You are wrong.


RE: He makes a good point
By someguy123 on 7/19/2014 6:37:02 PM , Rating: 2
Like Samus said, there are plenty of semantic and legal arguments over whether or not driving is a "right", but with our current system it is very clearly not a right and instead a privilege given and regulated by the state. I don't understand how anyone can view something that requires arbitrary age restrictions, constant registration renewal, background checks, testing, medical clearance, and lack of certain convictions that vary by state. Even when compared to the right to bear arms there is actually more limitations and government control (many states do not require licenses for purchase of guns nor gun registration).

Marriage licensing has also been under scrutiny ever since states began denying common-law marriages as legal marriages. Not to mention the whole homosexual marriage issue where these people are denied their "right" without causing any harm to the public. Very odd choice of comparison since it reinforces the fact that, regardless of precedent or the constitution, these "rights" have become privileges issued by the state.

I find this argument similar to the capitalist vs socialist argument. You would not have the "right" to travel upon highways if not for the socialist mechanisms within the US economy, but I'll be damned if you or americans in general would accept the idea of adopting an entirely socialist system. Much like how google "spying" on your bath towel browsing habits does not confirm a google controlled Orwellian dystopia, instances of automatic driving does not confirm the loss of manual driving privileges.

Regarding increased traffic, I'd assume traffic flow would improve, if any changes are seen at all. Automatic travel would open up additional travel windows that were not practical due to sleep cycles. MIT's traffic congestion study showed that a small percentage of drivers where causing huge amounts of traffic congestion and that roads were frequently below peak capacity, suggesting that poor driving habits cause more problems than actual traffic. Fact is that most people are awful drivers so I can't see automated driving harming traffic flow and destination arrival times overall even if it causes problems in a case by case basis.


RE: He makes a good point
By Sonicmerlin on 7/20/2014 1:42:36 AM , Rating: 2
Your first case says :"though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience"

Did you ignore that or something?


RE: He makes a good point
By Reclaimer77 on 7/20/2014 10:02:08 AM , Rating: 2
No I didn't ignore that. Right's can be regulated. They don't suddenly become a privilege because states can regulate them.

Marriage
Gun Ownership
Property rights
Business ownership

The list goes on and one. According to you people, ALL of those things and more, are just privileges handed down by the Government.

I mean..wow, if everyone really believes what you people do, we can just give up on America now and be done with it.


RE: He makes a good point
By inighthawki on 7/20/2014 4:38:04 AM , Rating: 2
Your two examples are not driving, they are about transportation. You are given the right to not be denied transportation along public roadways. Driving, on the other hand, IS a privilege that you must earn. We all already do this by taking tests to earn a driver's license, which gives a citizen the PRIVILEGE of driving a vehicle on public roadways.

quote:
Marriage is a right too, yet married couples have to apply for a marriage license from the state. Driving is NO different.

How are these two things even remotely related? Did you just pick something that was a right to compare it to? I have a right to bear arms as well, should we just throw that in the pile of unrelated examples?

quote:
The environmental "benefits" will be outweighed by massively increased travel. If self-driving technology becomes so robust that you can actually sleep in your car while it drives you places, travel will INCREASE. Massively! Why wouldn't it? You car can take you anywhere with zero effort from you. You really don't think people would drive MORE?

Pure speculation and you fail to take into account the many advantages as well, such as the fact that a fully automated system could provide vastly superior traffic flow, massively reducing congestion (especially during rush hours) and thus drastically reducing the commute time per vehicle. Less congestion with no need for things such as traffic lights and stop signs (since the vehicles would all communicate to coordinate this information) would allow for increase speed limits and generally better fuel efficiency in many urban errors.

quote:
Hell why take a plane if you can just go to sleep in your car, and arrive at your destination 4 or 5 hours later?

Because a plane can get you there a lot faster? I take cross-country trips a couple times a year. By plane it's typically about 5 hours, give or take. I've had friends who have driven cross country, and with nonstop driving except for sleeping, it takes about 3-4 days. Assuming the person can sleep in an automated vehicle, and let's even assume you didn't have to get gas at any point, Google still shows a cross country trip is between 35-40 hours. That's over 7 times as long.

But truthfully I don't really see your point, because I don't know a lot of people who choose to fly for trips of such a short duration.


RE: He makes a good point
By Reclaimer77 on 7/20/2014 9:51:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Driving, on the other hand, IS a privilege that you must earn. We all already do this by taking tests to earn a driver's license, which gives a citizen the PRIVILEGE of driving a vehicle on public roadways.


That's exactly why I used marriage as an example. Both "rights" have requirements dictated by the state to exercise that right in the form of a license and other requirements (some states require blood tests etc etc).

Yet we view one as a right, and one as a privilege. How convenient! What's the difference?

quote:
I have a right to bear arms as well, should we just throw that in the pile of unrelated examples?


Unrelated? That's EXTREMELY related! The right to bear arms is Constitutionally guaranteed. NOBODY can argue that it is not a right. And there's a mountain of court decisions affirming this right.

And yet, JUST LIKE DRIVING , States and the Federal Government have heavily regulated this right. Applying your logic, one might say we are privileged to own firearms at all! But that's not correct, it's a RIGHT.

Can you seriously be this close minded? I think you are seriously confused about what "rights" mean. We have a basic right to free travel in this country, and stop being cute, that MEANS driving vehicles. Just because the States can regulate this right to some degree, doesn't change the fact that this is a right.

I've provided at least some evidence to back my position. You and your socialist cohorts here have provided NONE. Show me where travel is a "Privilege" in our Constitution. Show me the Supreme Court rulings, or any court rulings, stating your case!

"Undoubtedly the "RIGHT" of locomotion, the "RIGHT" to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the "RIGHT," ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a "RIGHT" secured by the Fourteenth Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution."

-Williams v. Fears, 343 U.S. 270, 274

quote:
because I don't know a lot of people who choose to fly for trips of such a short duration.


I don't expect you to "know" millions of people who fly short routes DAILY for business and other reasons. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Really now, step outside of your own bubble.

My point was simple, a LOT of air travel is done because it's faster and more convenient than driving a car there yourself. You cannot tell me that self-driving technology wouldn't incentiveze people to take car trips they otherwise may have chosen to fly to avoid.

quote:
Pure speculation and you fail to take into account the many advantages as well, such as the fact that a fully automated system could provide vastly superior traffic flow, massively reducing congestion (especially during rush hours) and thus drastically reducing the commute time per vehicle. Less congestion with no need for things such as traffic lights and stop signs (since the vehicles would all communicate to coordinate this information) would allow for increase speed limits and generally better fuel efficiency in many urban errors.


This is a fantasy that could only be true in a world where ALL vehicles are self-driving. From motorcycles on up to big rigs and everything in between. And also where EVERY vehicle is V2V equipped. Removing stop lights and road signs? Ahhahah, good luck!

Maybe in 100 years we'll even get to that level of technology and ubiquitous saturation. But you can just forget that ever happening in our lifetimes.


RE: He makes a good point
By inighthawki on 7/20/2014 2:42:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yet we view one as a right, and one as a privilege. How convenient! What's the difference?

A privilege is nothing more than a right that is regulated. If you want to be stubborn, we can arguably consider it closer to a legal right, not a natural right as you imply. A person must obtain a valid driver's license and prove that they are capable of operating a motor vehicle in order to drive it on a public road. This is why a driver's license, and thus their driving *privilege*, can be revoked by a court of law for a duration of time.

Nonetheless, I actually hate politics so I really don't want to spend time on this discussion, so I'm not really going to keep debating. You've brought up some excellent points and I appreciate the debate. Politics just bores the sh*t out of me :(

quote:
This is a fantasy that could only be true in a world where ALL vehicles are self-driving. From motorcycles on up to big rigs and everything in between. And also where EVERY vehicle is V2V equipped. Removing stop lights and road signs? Ahhahah, good luck! Maybe in 100 years we'll even get to that level of technology and ubiquitous saturation. But you can just forget that ever happening in our lifetimes.

I did not mean to imply it's something I would ever see, but it's absolutely a possibility in the future if everything becomes automated. It was really more of my counter example to the claim that it's guaranteed to increase polution, as that would only be true in the short term.


RE: He makes a good point
By Reclaimer77 on 7/20/2014 5:48:20 PM , Rating: 2
I don't remember ever saying driving was a "natural" right. Anyway I'm not sure what to say now..I guess sorry for boring you? You didn't HAVE to engage me on this.

Believe it or not, I hate politics too. Yet I constantly see people calling for actions and decisions that affect me or potentially will, so I feel compelled to give my opinion. I want to be left alone! Drive whatever you want, great. The second some Collectivist ass*ole starts telling us what we should and shouldn't do, THAT'S when I'm going to come out swinging for his face.

quote:
It was really more of my counter example to the claim that it's guaranteed to increase polution, as that would only be true in the short term.


I understand that, and you make great points too. But here is where I'm coming from - I cannot think of a single example where something becoming more convenient didn't lead to a massive increase in that thing, if not outright abuse, and other parallel unintended consequences.

I believe it's more likely, if not an utter certainty, that self driving technology will lead to massive increases in traffic, pollution, and oil consumption. To the point that any potential gains of adopting the technology, will simply be a wash.

I love to drive. But there's been tons of times I just didn't "feel" like getting behind the wheel and going somewhere. If all I had to do was get in the car, and have it do the rest, I would probably BE in my car a lot more than I am now.

And I don't think I'm alone on this.


RE: He makes a good point
By inighthawki on 7/21/2014 11:10:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't remember ever saying driving was a "natural" right. Anyway I'm not sure what to say now..I guess sorry for boring you? You didn't HAVE to engage me on this.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, then. And it's not you personally that's boring me :)


RE: He makes a good point
By inighthawki on 7/18/2014 6:32:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But they're the necessary evil that comes with being free. Some of us don't want to be drones shuttled around by computerized drones, devoid of a world where spirited driving is a possibility in the name of supposedly absolute safety.

1) Uhm, I can have a self driving car and still be free...
2) Self driving cars can co-exist with regular cars. Feel free to keep driving your car yourself. Those of us that don't care for making a daily commute to and from work can have a computer do it while we do something more productive.

I respect your desire to be in control of the vehicle you're driving, but to ignore all the benefits of self driving cars for people who do not want to is complete ignorance.


RE: He makes a good point
By Sundervine on 7/18/2014 6:57:49 PM , Rating: 2
1) Uhm, I can have a self driving car and still be free...
2) Self driving cars can co-exist with regular cars. Feel free to keep driving your car yourself.

That is sadly not how the government works. You are being short sighted sadly. When something like say seat belts is seen as better and safer what does the government do in the long run? Make it Mandatory.

In the long run, if they are deemed safer, free driving will be illegal. Like all other things. Government wants control. You say it is for safety. So will they. You do not even know freedoms you have lost since you never had them.

Good example, my grandmother, who still is alive and telling me these stories, used to live on a farm. They could grow whatever they wanted. Then the government came along and told them what they HAD to grow. Now all farms are regulated. They even want in your home garden.

That is what government wants. Control, they are all power hungry. You do not even know what you have lost, because you never had true freedom.


RE: He makes a good point
By inighthawki on 7/18/2014 7:18:32 PM , Rating: 2
Public roads are government property, and it is a privilege (not a right) to use them. If 100 years from now self driving cars are common and eventually deemed mandatory, then that's that. You aren't losing any freedoms. If you want to continue driving cars manually, then you just need take your car to a private track and you can do whatever you want.

This would be no different than other road restricted vehicles not being allowed to drive on public streets.


RE: He makes a good point
By M'n'M on 7/18/2014 8:09:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Public roads are government property, and it is a privilege (not a right) to use them.

Rest easy lil sheeple, TPTB would never interfere w/your 1'st Amendment right to peaceably "assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". Your car will still allow you to go to your designated protest pen.


RE: He makes a good point
By Sundervine on 7/18/2014 8:41:01 PM , Rating: 2
So how would you have my manual vehicle in the auto driven utopia get to said track? What if I do not have the money for the support vehicle to get my manual vehicle to the track?

What if I want to drive a motorcycle? I mean that will by no means be the same on automatic. What if I am going to a new area before the GPS coordinates are input into my auto car? What about the millions of people who do not properly maintain their vehicles? What if someone hacks the drivers grid? changes all locations to in the river?

I can go a long way with what if. Sure auto vehicles can save lives, however I would prefer the government who DOES not have my well being in mind no matter what they say, out of as many things as i can. They have taken enough away already. Lets not let them take more.


RE: He makes a good point
By inighthawki on 7/18/2014 11:24:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So how would you have my manual vehicle in the auto driven utopia get to said track? What if I do not have the money for the support vehicle to get my manual vehicle to the track?

The same way people transport other luxury transportation vehicles like boats. You have to bring it with you.

quote:
What if I want to drive a motorcycle? I mean that will by no means be the same on automatic. What if I am going to a new area before the GPS coordinates are input into my auto car? What about the millions of people who do not properly maintain their vehicles? What if someone hacks the drivers grid? changes all locations to in the river?

Considering I was merely speculating a possibility in the future, I can't answer these.

quote:
I can go a long way with what if. Sure auto vehicles can save lives, however I would prefer the government who DOES not have my well being in mind no matter what they say, out of as many things as i can. They have taken enough away already. Lets not let them take more.

My take isn't even simply on safety, but a convenience. I think you'll find that people who enjoy driving are a minority. Most people would love to use the time to relax, prepare for work, get stuff done. Especially in long commutes. Imagine taking a family vacation where the parents could actually play with their kids on the 4 hour drive to Disney World, instead of hearing them whine, cry, kick the seat, complain, and ask "are we there yet" 100 times.

You're thinking way to small about the possibilities. You're so worried about not being able to drive a car that you're blinding yourself to the enormous advantages that everyone else in the world could get.


RE: He makes a good point
By Reclaimer77 on 7/19/2014 7:06:15 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Public roads are government property, and it is a privilege (not a right) to use them.


WOW!!!!

First off the roads are public, they belong to the PEOPLE. We fund them. Government property??? Just...wow!

Secondly, as I've debunked several times, driving is NOT a Government-granted privilege. But a right, that's been upheld in countless court decisions by judges.

You show me where free travel is "privileged" to us in the Constitution. No I'm being serious, I'm waiting.

Collectivist piece of sh*t....


RE: He makes a good point
By Fujikoma on 7/19/2014 8:28:23 AM , Rating: 2
Driving, like everything else, is a privilege that is granted by whoever has the power to take it away.
There is no such things as rights, as society and individuals determine what 'rights' a person has. You have rights as far as you can enforce them. That's why you don't see dead/murdered people argue for their right to life in a courtroom.
Roads are government property. There are rules for their use and the government can detain you for violating those rules. Aside from a pure Democracy, which doesn't exist, 'the people' do not own government property. They only own the government to which they participate in.
The courts have upheld the right to EQUAL access to driving... if you're competent/physically able to drive. There's a reason why 5 years olds, the blind, epileptics with a recent siezure, the paralyzed and other categories of people aren't allowed to drive. Their ability to travel freely isn't restricted, only their METHOD. At 14, I could bike my candy ass anywhere I could pedal but I had no RIGHT to drive a car anywhere I wanted (with the possible exception of someone's very large private property). At 15, I had to have a parent/guardian in the car and a PERMIT. At 16, I needed a license which meant I had to PASS a written/road/vision test to obtain. I also am not allowed to drive without insurance (which includes self-insurance that some larger organizations use). I can be prevented from driving if my vehicle is not up to code because it is a hazard to others, like impaired driving. Even the Amish are required to meet certain criteria in order to use public roads with their horse and buggies (reflectors/lights).
Drops mic.


RE: He makes a good point
By ATX22 on 7/19/2014 12:14:48 PM , Rating: 2
"Driving, like everything else, is a privilege that is granted by whoever has the power to take it away."

And government has no more power than what the people are willing to give up. This power does not originate from government, but from the people... and while too many of us are complacent and willing to give up said freedoms for a little slice of safety and piece of mind, everyone suffers.. no matter how you rationalize it.

Automated cars? There are lots of unintended consequences that are going to crop up. Legal and practical application. What happens when an automated vehicle fails, and like any complex piece of machinery, they WILL FAIL. How are they going to handle maintenance? Are people who don't maintain their vehicles per the manufacturer requirements going to be stuck in a DEF-idle-like mode? Is the vehicle going to shutdown if it thinks you've overloaded it? These things going to be able to avoid bikers and pedestrians who won't be V2V enabled or computer controlled? How about dogs? Cats? Squirrels? Are they going to make sure these don't become mobile mugging boxes where people can walk in front of you to stop you EVERY TIME to rob you or worse?

Too far fetched? How about when a road is washed out? Remember that the driver isn't going to be attentive.. so is the vehicle going to be able to sense that something is wrong and stop? What happens when people have to use these things on roads that have frozen over with black ice that you can't see using a camera and doesn't hide the lines and reflectors on the road? What about really long country driveways that won't exist on the vehicle's map? Parking the vehicle? If people can't be bothered to drive these things, why should they park them or really ever have to use that evil steering wheel?

If automated cars become as common place as our overlords in washington want, the old, blind, and generally un-fit for driving will get rid off their rascals and gladly adopt these things... and you can bet this will be another future benefit/selling point and in the event of a system failure, if there is an emergency manual mode, you'll have people who can't or (far enough into the future) don't know HOW to drive trying to pilot one of these idiot-boxes on wheels to a stop.


RE: He makes a good point
By Cheesew1z69 on 7/20/2014 10:31:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Public roads are government property,
Pretty sure OUR taxes pay for those roads... not the government.


RE: He makes a good point
By Reclaimer77 on 7/19/2014 7:39:13 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
1) Uhm, I can have a self driving car and still be free...


Yup we're free, sure. The Government tells us what and where we can drive. They dictate our health coverage. They own about 60% of the land mass in America. They oversee all banking, loan practices, and stock market activity. They tell us what we can put in our bodies and where we can do it.

Other than all that, and probably some big ones I've left out, we're TOTALLY moving toward a free population with an extremely limited Government...

/S


RE: He makes a good point
By Reclaimer77 on 7/19/2014 7:41:19 AM , Rating: 2
Edits: *they spy on EVERY citizen and collect data on us. And they also have the largest most powerful and well funded military on Earth.

But other than that, why worry! Am I right?


RE: He makes a good point
By Jeffk464 on 7/18/2014 5:12:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If there were a way to keep bad drivers off the roads


Everybody is a potential bad driver say a typically good driver:

didn't get enough sleep
just got fired
just had an argument with the wife
daydreams after driving for four straight hours
etc.


RE: He makes a good point
By integr8d on 7/18/2014 3:48:19 PM , Rating: 2
I have a Prius with radar cruise and lane assist. It took a little while to learn how those systems worked, what their strengths and weaknesses were and to eventually trust them... I can now be in moderate-to-high-speed LA traffic and rely on them, knowing exactly how they'll respond.

It's hard to describe. But when you get dialed into a system like that, you become keenly aware of the fact that the only random, unpredictable variables on the road... are other drivers.

PS, responsibility and attention are bad arguments to make. Autonomous cars no more take away your responsibility of 'driving the car' than does a microwave of 'cooking your food'. Of course, that won't stop a select group of chefs who trash anything that comes out of a microwave because it wasn't 'cooked'.


RE: He makes a good point
By FITCamaro on 7/18/2014 3:54:41 PM , Rating: 2
How does a computer driving your car for you NOT take away your responsibility of driving the car? You won't have any way to control it. Google's autonomous car doesn't have a steering wheel or pedals.


RE: He makes a good point
By Avatar28 on 7/18/2014 6:01:11 PM , Rating: 3
Because when most people talk about self-driving cars they're thinking of a normal car with normal controls but that you can hit a button and put it in autopilot mode.


RE: He makes a good point
By wordsworm on 7/19/2014 2:17:01 PM , Rating: 2
If on American roads no one was getting into accidents, people getting hurt or dying, then I'd agree with you, Cam. But the fact is that more Americans die on the road from accidents than they have from shooting themselves and each other. If autonomous driving vehicles can save 30,000 lives every year, then it needs to become mandatory. Driving ought not to be a right if it's so dangerous and there is an alternative.


RE: He makes a good point
By Reclaimer77 on 7/19/2014 2:53:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If autonomous driving vehicles can save 30,000 lives every year, then it needs to become mandatory.


Scary...

How many lives could we save by banning fatty foods? How about alcohol? Cigarettes?

Seriously your logic leads to straight up tyranny, tyranny that makes you warm and cuddly, but still tyranny.


RE: He makes a good point
By wordsworm on 7/20/2014 1:38:26 AM , Rating: 2
You drinking your cola and eating your barf burger, boozing with your wife from your trailer porch, and smoking some nasty Camels, are all things that you do to yourself. When you get behind the wheel, your bad judgment can cost someone their lives. You fail to see the vast difference between these two things.

It's not about tyranny. Tyranny would be disenabling people from travel. It's about making travel safe. Responsible drivers in Canada/USA+ drive on the right side of the road and stop at red lights, go on green. Is that tyranny? No, of course not. These are laws in place to make driving safer. 30,000 deaths a year, millions around the world, is too high a price to pay if there is at last a viable alternative.


RE: He makes a good point
By marvdmartian on 7/21/2014 7:56:11 AM , Rating: 2
Envisioning a "Douglas Quaid" moment?? LOL

quote:
[Quaid enters a Johnnycab to escape from killers]

Johnnycab: Please state the street and number.

Douglas Quaid: Drive! drive!

Johnnycab: I'm not familiar with that address. Would you please repeat the destination?

Douglas Quaid: Anywhere just go! Go!

Johnnycab: I'm not familiar with that address. Would you please repeat the destination?

Douglas Quaid: Shit! shit!

Johnnycab: Would you please repeat the destination?

Douglas Quaid: [Quaid rips the Johnnycab out and starts to drive himself] Aaahhh!


RE: He makes a good point
By djc208 on 7/21/2014 8:36:28 AM , Rating: 2
My concern would be when would vehicles without this technology become illegal? What happens to my antique car? A manual transmission can't be automated, not to mention the detriment to originality.
How long till you're not allowed to drive a non-automated car on certain roads, like the interstate? This is also one of the things that will make this hardest to implement. I can barely use cruise-control today and most people have it, they just don't use it for a veriety of reasons.

Luckily there will be a long road till there is enough turnover in the automotive space where this is a common thing though.


RE: He makes a good point
By NellyFromMA on 7/21/2014 9:19:21 AM , Rating: 2
There are too many idiots, and not enough time.

Autonomous vehicles hopefully won't take the drive away from those who are capable of handling it, but simply take the idiot out of the driver's seat when the realize they are bad drivers in the first place.

Of course, they have to realize they are bad drivers for that to pan out.

Hmm, actually, here's a thought.. what if autonomous vehicles actually enabled our culture to have more stringent requirements to obtain a driver's license?

I think the reason it is so easy to get a driver's license today is because its so critical to have a means of transportation in our culture for those of us who don't have public transportation options (there are MANY, and when you do have the means, sometimes they are not very reasonable (3 hour commutes for 45 minute distances for example).

The vast majority of people who would end up unable to commute would likely just end up exploiting food and housing (welfare) programs otherwise.

See, it took me all of 2 minutes to turn the negative outlook into something that might enable what you are actually after in the first place: You still want to drive, and you want bad driver's not to.

I'm on a roll today.


RE: He makes a good point
By hughlle on 7/18/2014 6:26:56 PM , Rating: 3
Its called public transport :-P


RE: He makes a good point
By ebakke on 7/19/2014 3:53:30 AM , Rating: 4
Ahh public transit. The armpit of the transportation options. The Kmart of moving your ass from point A to point B (neither of which are where you are, or where you're going), at the slowest rate possible. The redheaded step child of relocating yourself on someone else's schedule. The Windows ME of having someone else subsidize your transportation needs.


RE: He makes a good point
By Fujikoma on 7/19/2014 8:39:58 AM , Rating: 2
Because everyone in a mega-ciy (Tokyo/NYC) would be better off driving a car during the day than using the subway or walking.
There's a place for public transit (not including train/ocean liner/aircraft which move large groups over larger distances)... densely populated areas where individual vehicle use would be impractical.


RE: He makes a good point
By ritualm on 7/19/2014 1:47:57 PM , Rating: 1
That's true only in America, where the car is mightier than public mass transit, where the prevalence of suburbia effectively requires more cars for the sake of "more personal space".

Shrink that personal space to near-zero and you'll wonder why you even needed a huge 5000 square feet mansion in the first place.


RE: He makes a good point
By atechfan on 7/19/2014 8:32:44 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe I don't need 5000 square feet. But I sure as hell enjoy it, and fuck you if you tell me I can't have it. Same with my 4WD pickup, I have it mainly because I can, although there are plenty of times it is actually useful to me as well.

Personal space is something I value highly. I didn't buy 200+ acres just to have somebody tell me I don't need that space.


RE: He makes a good point
By Exterous on 7/21/2014 9:25:06 AM , Rating: 2
This is hardly true for 'only' America. There are plenty of areas of the world where decentralization of the population base renders public transportation grossly inefficient or even non-existent. That doesn't even cover issues with service consistency or reliability for many non-decentralized population areas. Perhaps you should expand your horizons before replying next time


RE: He makes a good point
By Reclaimer77 on 7/21/2014 4:13:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Shrink that personal space to near-zero and you'll wonder why you even needed a huge 5000 square feet mansion in the first place.


lol okay.

You first.


RE: He makes a good point
By tayb on 7/21/2014 9:52:08 AM , Rating: 1
He doesn't make a good point. Millions of people live near large cities with mass transportation that would allow them to live an hour or more away. People don't want to spend 2+ hours a day on transportation.

Autonomous vehicles isn't going to suddenly spell an exodus from large city centers. What a preposterous idea.


Fuel Effecient Cars lead to more usage too
By foxalopex on 7/18/2014 3:32:35 PM , Rating: 2
I own a Volt so what I've discovered is that I actually drive a lot more rather then less since it costs me so little to charge up my car. I would have for example never gone to the store to get a jug of milk alone because normally the gas would cost more than the milk! So in way he's correct, make it cheaper and easier for folks to travel and they will. On the other-hand the potential trade-offs and benefits of self-driving cars are too much to ignore. Preventing accidents and allowing long distance drivers the ability to nap and take a break would be a huge win.

Personally I think this is a sour grapes response. We don't have this tech and we don't want to invest in it so we'll make it look as bad as possible so hopefully no one wants it. I don't think anyone who's done a lot of driving wouldn't dream of having a magic chauffeur that could get you there safely and easily while you did something else at times.




RE: Fuel Effecient Cars lead to more usage too
By FITCamaro on 7/18/14, Rating: 0
RE: Fuel Effecient Cars lead to more usage too
By sgw2n5 on 7/18/2014 4:11:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hence why a lot of liberals want the American people to be less mobile.


??


By brshoemak on 7/18/2014 4:42:16 PM , Rating: 2
^^Yeah I have no idea what he's talking about either.

Also, FITCamaro mentioned that you'd have no control since the car doesn't have a wheel or pedals, but it's not like Google is going to drop that car off at a dealership - it's merely an exaggerated proof of concept. My guess is that this would be treated more like an "auto-pilot" of sorts for normal cars. Drive your car as you want, but if you don't feel like driving it or want to do something else (productive or not), just let the car get you to your destination.

The balance may shift in the future, where more people would use the auto-pilot than not as they become accustomed to it, but nothing is happening tomorrow.


RE: Fuel Effecient Cars lead to more usage too
By Jeffk464 on 7/18/2014 5:15:40 PM , Rating: 2
Same with conservatives, they want to slash everybody's pay and then they can't afford to leave the house.


RE: Fuel Effecient Cars lead to more usage too
By atechfan on 7/19/2014 8:22:07 AM , Rating: 2
Conservatives want to cut taxes, thereby increasing your take-home pay.


RE: Fuel Effecient Cars lead to more usage too
By Reclaimer77 on 7/19/2014 9:03:28 AM , Rating: 2
Yes because remember, not wanting to increase minimum wage to 15+ an hour, is the same as "slashing pay".


RE: Fuel Effecient Cars lead to more usage too
By twhittet on 7/19/2014 10:31:46 AM , Rating: 2
Yes because remember, wanting to get rid of the minimum wage has NOTHING to do with "slashing pay". Breaking unions so they can't negotiate for higher pay has NOTHING to do with "slashing pay".


By Reclaimer77 on 7/19/2014 11:08:34 AM , Rating: 2
What "Conservatives" are trying to get minimum wage "rid of"?

As far as I know the only discussion is how much it should or shouldn't be RAISED.


By atechfan on 7/20/2014 6:32:04 PM , Rating: 2
Non-union positions doing the same job as union positions actually tend to pay more. The inherent inefficiencies caused by unions make companies less profitable, and less able to pay bonuses.


By tayb on 7/21/2014 1:53:09 PM , Rating: 2
How do you even function and remain alive day to day with such a low IQ? Please tell me that you have a caretaker.


By marvdmartian on 7/21/2014 8:06:01 AM , Rating: 3
Well, it could just be the "more pollution" thing comes from the times when 4 autonomous vehicles all hit the 4-way stop at the same time.

[A.V.1] "Oh, my apologies! You have the right of way! Please, go ahead of me."
[A.V.2] "No, I'm quite certain this fellow to my right has the right of way. Please, go ahead of me."
[A.V.3] "No, no, no, no, this fellow to my right was surely here before I. Please, go ahead of me."
[A.V.4] "Absurd! This fellow was most assuredly here first, HE should go!"

Just like 4 humans (many of which, too, cannot handle 4-way stops), the autonomous vehicles will sit there for 5 minutes, trying to decide who has the right of way, hesitantly starting forward at the same time, jerking to a stop, and finally just going for it!


By Ktracho on 7/18/2014 3:37:11 PM , Rating: 1
What I would like to see happen is a number of transit hubs close to where people live. Instead of going to a parking lot and waiting for my carpool buddies to show up, I would go to a kiosk, punch in where I work (probably just swipe a card), and the kiosk would direct me and 3 others to an autonomous car, with all of us going to work nearby. If autonomous vehicles were initially only available for public transportation, this would reduce pollution instead of creating more. I would save time and gain flexibility, because I wouldn't have to wait for my carpool buddies every day.




By Reclaimer77 on 7/18/2014 4:21:59 PM , Rating: 3
You actually want to lose your independence and be herded about like cattle...

wow.


By MoneyisaScam on 7/18/2014 4:34:31 PM , Rating: 1
Why would you want independence? Are you being oppressed?


By Guspaz on 7/18/2014 5:08:11 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see how automated cars reduce independence. In fact, they dramatically increase it.

I don't have a car, or a drivers license. I live in an urban core, so a car and license would be both hideously expensive, and largely unnecessary. The problem is that public transit is generally not all that fast. Taxis are faster (typically taking about half the time that the bus and/or subway do), but also cost a lot more.

Enter an automated taxi service. The speed of a taxi, but costs closer to public transit. This would actually give me more mobility, because I could waste less time travelling places and more time doing things. I'd be more likely to travel farther, too. Right now, my parents live 20 minutes away by car, but an hour away by public transit: I'd be far more likely to drop by to visit if it didn't take two hours out of my day to do so.


By Cheesew1z69 on 7/18/2014 6:00:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
license would be both hideously expensive
Um, I don't even know what to say to this. Wrong on so many levels.


By Spuke on 7/18/2014 6:04:41 PM , Rating: 2
I'm ok with self-driving cars given a few caveats. Self-driving can't be mandated everywhere. I'd have a big problem with not ever being able to drive my own car. Self-driving only "zones" or even times of day would be ok with me. In reality, any self-driving car mandate is at least 30 years off because most of the driving public will need to own a car with this technology and given that people are keeping their cars longer, it would be idiotic to issue a mandate anytime soon.

Side note, can the gov tell you what car to buy or drive? Because if self-driving zones or times are created, you're effectively banning certain vehicles during those times and in those zones.


By inighthawki on 7/18/2014 6:23:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Side note, can the gov tell you what car to buy or drive? Because if self-driving zones or times are created, you're effectively banning certain vehicles during those times and in those zones.

I would suspect self driving cars would be able to drive alongside regular human driven cars, so there would be no need for special roadways or zones in order to make them work.

As for whether or not cities decide to implement special privileges to self driving cars (special highway lanes, etc), then yes I would expect there would be limitations, and only specific cars can use it. I don't see this much different than existing carpool lanes, and can even operate under similar restrictions (e.g. certain time-of-day restrictions)

Either way, I don't see it being very detrimental to regular human driven cars.


By Spuke on 7/18/2014 7:07:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I would suspect self driving cars would be able to drive alongside regular human driven cars, so there would be no need for special roadways or zones in order to make them work.
Guess I was looking a bit further out. Coexistence will be the norm for a few decades but once "everyone" has one, what will happen then? I'm certain there will always be areas that will not be conducive to self-driving cars but I just don't want to be mandated to BFE Montana just so I can drive my car on public roads. That all said, I will be owning a self-driving car. I'm already wanting a car with lane departure assist and adaptive cruise but it will be a ways out as I only buy used and I'm waiting for the 2nd gen of this tech before I jump in.


By ritualm on 7/18/2014 8:53:58 PM , Rating: 2
I much prefer the Minority Report version: self-driving mode in urban areas and major cities, but as soon as I go out to the countryside, I'm taking control of the steering wheel, and I'm gonna floor it like O.J. Simpson on the freeway.


Consuming more energy maybe but...
By Nightbird321 on 7/18/2014 3:08:47 PM , Rating: 2
Not necessary a bad thing. Most advancements are about improving QoL, not reducing resource usage. If Toyota can make hydrogen cars a success, that would be wonderful, however autonomous cars means a major QoL improvement for people who can't drive or don't want to drive: elderly, disabled, tired etc... giving them mobility and independence.




RE: Consuming more energy maybe but...
By FITCamaro on 7/18/2014 3:28:46 PM , Rating: 2
Hydrogen cars will never happen without a massive buildup in nuclear power to produce the hydrogen. Not that I'm against that.


By inighthawki on 7/18/2014 6:24:53 PM , Rating: 2
That's why his comment was hypothetical and said "if" ;)


LOL..
By zodiacfml on 7/20/2014 9:58:26 AM , Rating: 2
I can't believe with what he said. It doesn't make sense. Autonomous vehicles could drastically improve fuel consumption since cars would be traveling at a constant, most efficient mode, and less braking. People would save more money with the better fuel efficiency, lower costs of living, and a person can multitask while in the car.

Fuel efficiency would skyrocket and all the money for hybrid and technology they have invested would be less effective.

I could see the technology work for countries with ample space to add more lanes dedicated for autonomous vehicles.




RE: LOL..
By jdre on 7/21/2014 11:58:57 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly. He speculated without any data to support his claim, when alternative theories are abundant and just as logical.


RE: LOL..
By jdre on 7/21/2014 12:00:24 PM , Rating: 2
And, I don't know why it's posed as an either/or. We could have hybrid, efficient autonomous vehicles. Double the environmental benefit.


Could just as easily reduce fuel consumption
By jdre on 7/21/2014 11:50:35 AM , Rating: 2
Come on, Laberteaux, show some data, or you're just wildly speculating.

It could VERY easily be the case (in fact, I think it's an anticipated case) that autonomous cars should reduce congestion and gridlock, thus REDUCING fuel consumption pollution from idling on the interstates.

Autonomous cars can and will self-separate, merge in a more equitable manner, maintain a traffic flow, and take alternative routes to relieve congestion.

I don't know how much big oil paid him, but I hope it was a lot.




By jdre on 7/21/2014 11:58:06 AM , Rating: 2
AND - it could just as easily make more people move into the cities again. People who "hate driving in the city, it's so frustrating" may be fine with it once the car does the work for us.


By jdre on 7/21/2014 12:05:00 PM , Rating: 2
Also - I took a train from Baltimore to DC for work for a year, ended up being two hours door to door. It was effectively "autonomous", but I moved closer because I DIDN'T LIKE A LONG COMMUTE EVEN WHEN IT WAS AUTOMATED. I'd rather live closer, and spend that time with my family, or just on my couch. I think there's an upper limit on how far someone will live. More people (who can afford the demand-inflated rents) live closer into the city because it's a shorter Metro Rail trip... and that involves zero driving.


I say
By cruisin3style on 7/19/2014 4:25:51 AM , Rating: 2
this just shows, or at least supports the idea that, people enjoy driving for the most part

and that they want to keep their specific length/level/time of commuting




RE: I say
By The Von Matrices on 7/19/2014 10:53:21 PM , Rating: 2
You're neglecting the silent majority. The arguments posted in this thread over-represent the few people who love to drive. There are an order of magnitude more people who don't care about whether they drive or not as long as the car gets them to the place they want to go. They don't post comments not because they don't exist but because because the introduction of self driving cars poses no threat to their values. As long as you can pick the destination, then I don't see how a self driving car limits you, and the majority will agree when they see that self driving cars are cheaper to own and operate.

On another note, I think the commenters who expect that most people will still be commuting to work in 20 years are short-sighted. I don't disagree that blue collar workers will still need to travel, but white collar workers have little reason to commute even now. Why should white collar office workers needs to travel to his/her office to complete his/her work when it can be done on any computer at home? The idea of meeting every day in a centralized office is becoming increasingly outdated.


Urban sprawl of the future
By twhittet on 7/19/2014 11:27:00 AM , Rating: 2
I have been discussing this for years now. There will be those people who would gladly live an hour or farther in the country, and just take a nap while their car drives them to and from work. That would be fine, except the easier it is, the more people will do it (as long as fuel is affordable - for them). Those who already commute 2 hours a day may gladly commute 6 hours a day in a van equipped with a bed. Those who work 2 weeks on 2 weeks off could now easily have their family home 1,000+ miles away and have no reason to relocate closer.

Urban sprawl will spill over into country sprawl, there will be more roads/waterlines/electrical lines to maintain. Those living in country suburbs will still demand the same public access and utilities, most likely leading to increase in taxes to support those utilities/roads/etc. Farmland will be further decreased, raising food prices.

Fuel/electricity prices will inevitably go up and more miles than ever are driven. Prices could drop a bit at first, as self-driven cars could get better mpg, but the drop will be short lived. And for those who care, it will almost certainly cause more pollution in the long run.

There can also be countless benefits that I am looking forward to, but there will be many pros and cons to weigh. The next 100 years of transportation, population growth, city planning, infrastructure and the taxes to support said infrastructure will be interesting.




RE: Urban sprawl of the future
By atechfan on 7/19/2014 8:41:34 PM , Rating: 2
You seriously think most people will move 3+ hours away from work just because their car now drives itself? That they will be able to sleep 3 hours right before work, and arrive ready for work, then be able to fall asleep right after work for another 3 hours. You think the wife will be happy with husband being gone 14 or 15 straight hours every day, then stay up while she is sleeping because he slept in the car? What about the kids who never see their dad because he is either working or sleeping in the car all day?

Sure, a few people might take this option, but you are on crack if you think most will. People who work long periods with long periods off in between already usually live a long way from work, such as miners up north or people on oil platforms. Guess what? They already travel back home during their off times, by flying, usually paid for by the employer.


solve the work problem instead
By surt on 7/20/2014 4:57:29 PM , Rating: 2
Stop trying to make everyone live in cities. Cities are horrible. Instead, find ways to make remote work more productive. Stop making everyone come to the office. We could drop transportation and its resource consumption by a vast amount (at least 20%) by just not forcing everyone to come to the office one day per week.




RE: solve the work problem instead
By atechfan on 7/20/2014 6:34:21 PM , Rating: 2
Working from home is the best quality of life change I have ever made, I think.


By Guspaz on 7/18/2014 4:48:29 PM , Rating: 2
Sign me up, especially because the increase fuel consumption only applies if the automated cars use gasoline. The automated taxi services like what Google proposes are likely to use electric.




it's a good point
By Murloc on 7/18/2014 7:45:43 PM , Rating: 2
but ultimately something that can be countered by increasing fuel taxes, removing free parking spots in cities and doing proper urban planning and promoting mass public transport. All stuff that is being done already.

So it's ultimately not a reason to give up on the other advantages of automous vehicles (huge reduction in medical costs and time wasted in traffic).




Elderly
By btc909 on 7/20/2014 2:23:41 AM , Rating: 2
The elderly will never be home. If you can punch in a destination and go wherever you want that's what they will do.




Drafting?
By titanmiller on 7/21/2014 9:00:31 PM , Rating: 2
What about drafting? When the tech is mature I see no reason why cars couldn't draft each other at a very close distance. This would drastically reduce fuel consumption.




"Well, we didn't have anyone in line that got shot waiting for our system." -- Nintendo of America Vice President Perrin Kaplan














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki