Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Living Car Free
Reload this Page >

Self-Driving Car Progress-Free 2019

Living Car Free Do you live car free or car light? Do you prefer to use alternative transportation (bicycles, walking, other human-powered or public transportation) for everyday activities whenever possible? Discuss your lifestyle here.

Self-Driving Car Progress-Free 2019

Reply

Old 01-06-19, 04:01 PM
  #126  
wolfchild
Senior Member
 
wolfchild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Mississauga/Toronto, Ontario canada
Posts: 5,445

Bikes: I have 3 singlespeed/fixed gear bikes

Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1253 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post

As for driverless cars not killing anyone ... as far as I can tell, AVs tend to be over-cautious, not excessively reckless.
.
Over-cautious can be as dangerous as reckless...I can just imagine a self-driving car slamming on brakes and coming to a stop in the middle of a busy road and causing a chain reaction accident, all because of a squirrel or a skunk ran in front of it... After all, self driving cars are supposed to be programmed to save lives of both human and animal, right ??
wolfchild is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-19, 04:07 PM
  #127  
tyrion
Senior Member
 
tyrion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 2,049

Bikes: Breezer Radar

Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1053 Post(s)
Originally Posted by wolfchild View Post
Over-cautious can be as dangerous as reckless...I can just imagine a self-driving car slamming on brakes and coming to a stop in the middle of a busy road and causing a chain reaction accident, all because of a squirrel or a skunk ran in front of it... After all, self driving cars are supposed to be programmed to save lives of both human and animal, right ??
Many humans would slam on their brakes for a squirrel also.
tyrion is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-19, 05:03 PM
  #128  
wolfchild
Senior Member
 
wolfchild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Mississauga/Toronto, Ontario canada
Posts: 5,445

Bikes: I have 3 singlespeed/fixed gear bikes

Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1253 Post(s)
Originally Posted by tyrion View Post
Many humans would slam on their brakes for a squirrel also.
Of course, I would too but only if there is no fast moving traffic close behind me. It's not worth risking a collision just to avoid a squirrel...Self-driving software is not like human brain and can't make split second emergency decisions like human brain can.

Last edited by wolfchild; 01-06-19 at 05:08 PM.
wolfchild is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-19, 05:13 PM
  #129  
Walter S
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Atlanta, GA. USA
Posts: 3,830

Bikes: Surly Long Haul Disc Trucker

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1014 Post(s)
Originally Posted by tyrion View Post
Many humans would slam on their brakes for a squirrel also.
Speed up, slam on the brakes, whatever it takes to kill that varmint....then throw him in the soup of course.
Walter S is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-19, 05:25 PM
  #130  
Walter S
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Atlanta, GA. USA
Posts: 3,830

Bikes: Surly Long Haul Disc Trucker

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1014 Post(s)
Originally Posted by wolfchild View Post
Over-cautious can be as dangerous as reckless...I can just imagine a self-driving car slamming on brakes and coming to a stop in the middle of a busy road and causing a chain reaction accident, all because of a squirrel or a skunk ran in front of it... After all, self driving cars are supposed to be programmed to save lives of both human and animal, right ??
Which human? Which animal? The type of "caution" exercised by the computer is easily mistaken for similar behavior in humans. In the case of the computer some of its algorithms have been specifically designed to be conservative in drawing conclusions from unreliable data. That is nothing that resembles the kind of thinking process you go thru as a person. In some cases this seems human like but that's because the circumstances keep fitting what the engineers that designed the car expect. Give it novel situations that have not been adequately anticipated by the engineering team and you see "irrational" or totally dysfunctional behavior.

Or try throwing mud on a couple sensors. The next tests will continue to operate in very dry clients with good weather. Bad weather is not a small problem when it comes to the sensors. It won't be cheap to solve and not all the technology exists and especially at affordable prices.
Walter S is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-19, 05:40 PM
  #131  
wolfchild
Senior Member
 
wolfchild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Mississauga/Toronto, Ontario canada
Posts: 5,445

Bikes: I have 3 singlespeed/fixed gear bikes

Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1253 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Walter S View Post
Give it novel situations that have not been adequately anticipated by the engineering team and you see "irrational" or totally dysfunctional behavior.
That's the problem right there, novel unexpected situations. You can't program software for every unexpected situation which occurs in real life...Human brain can be trained to deal with unexpected situations.
wolfchild is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-19, 06:04 PM
  #132  
Walter S
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Atlanta, GA. USA
Posts: 3,830

Bikes: Surly Long Haul Disc Trucker

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1014 Post(s)
Originally Posted by wolfchild View Post
That's the problem right there, novel unexpected situations. You can't program software for every unexpected situation which occurs in real life...Human brain can be trained to deal with unexpected situations.
That's true but really over time in a specific domain like driving you can eventually get it all figured out. Not all situations are qualitatively "different". You really do have the same stuff going on over and over with some parameters like speed and weather and timing varying and you build some deep learning code around recognizing patterns in all those parameters and it gets better and better over time. At our expense of course.

I'm glad I'm not a bicyclist in one of these early test markets. Y'all practice on those California guys and get his figured out real good
Walter S is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-19, 06:47 PM
  #133  
Maelochs
Senior Member
 
Maelochs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 10,944

Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE

Mentioned: 122 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5119 Post(s)
The squirrel issue is bogus. You are assuming it would slam on the brakes fior a squirrel, regardless of the situation, and would cause accidents, because you are trying to create a situation where the car would not perform well. Neither you nor I know whether or not the car would or would not react in Any particular way ... so making up fake scenarios to bolster a fake argument is pretty freaking dishonorable.

Look ... we simply do not know where AV tech will be in a year or three years. We can tell lies and invent arguments for ever ... what's the use? Just to fill pages with words?

What is the point of inventing fake scenarios to bolster fake arguments?
Maelochs is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-19, 07:55 PM
  #134  
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 27,468

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
What is the point of inventing fake scenarios to bolster fake arguments?
Ya mean false arguments like describing any of the posters on this thread as being "oppossed to AV", or references to the voices from the graves of 40,000 dead motorists, or perhaps even the spectacularly bogus reference to an alleged 1/2 BILLION U.S. motorists killed in the last decade?

Last edited by I-Like-To-Bike; 01-06-19 at 08:00 PM.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-19, 08:10 PM
  #135  
Maelochs
Senior Member
 
Maelochs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 10,944

Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE

Mentioned: 122 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5119 Post(s)
You are right ... that should have been half a million. thanks for catching that.
Maelochs is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-19, 11:03 PM
  #136  
Rowan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,611
Mentioned: 110 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1366 Post(s)
And of course let us highlight the real reason for driverless vehicles -- it allows the vehicle occupant(s) to use their mobile phones on the move without getting booked by police. Phone users will then be intent on how they can access the computer system of the driverless vehicles to have a bit of fun... or kill someone.
Rowan is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-19, 12:25 PM
  #137  
tandempower
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,201
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7922 Post(s)
Originally Posted by wolfchild View Post
Over-cautious can be as dangerous as reckless...I can just imagine a self-driving car slamming on brakes and coming to a stop in the middle of a busy road and causing a chain reaction accident, all because of a squirrel or a skunk ran in front of it... After all, self driving cars are supposed to be programmed to save lives of both human and animal, right ??
What you are describing represents a perfect example of how human thinking is flawed.

People think it's the fault of a car stopping in front of them or not getting out of the way that causes a crash. In reality, the crash is usually caused by inadequate following distance. Humans take risks that AVs don't where precautionary measures are concerned. When a self-driving vehicle is supposed to drive slower because of conditions or prospective dangers, it will unlike humans who will minimize the risks in their minds because they're biased in favor of speed.

As for squirrels running out in front of the vehicle, it is free to slam on the brakes because whatever vehicle, human-driven or self-driven, should have sufficient following distance to deal with sudden stops, tire blowouts, or any other emergency that could happen in front of them/it on the road.

If progress on self-driving vehicles stalls or slows below what is achievable, it will probably be taken over by the military. It is too critical to not be under control. They will need to iron out all the potential hacks and everything else that could either be used by terrorists to take control of the vehicles on public roads, or to use the vehicles for military operations in various ways. There will also be 'battlefield' vying for control over the OS, though they have probably already dealt with that for drone bombers and the like.

I suspect we'll be seeing a lot of AV applications on military bases, as well as there being many applications we don't see because they are kept secret.
tandempower is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-19, 03:49 PM
  #138  
noisebeam
Al
 
noisebeam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AZ
Posts: 14,587

Bikes: Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex

Mentioned: 45 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3170 Post(s)
I have been enjoying sharing the road with self driving vehicles for over a year now. Consistently predictable, a pleasure to drive with.
noisebeam is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-19, 04:26 PM
  #139  
tandempower
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,201
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7922 Post(s)
Originally Posted by noisebeam View Post
I have been enjoying sharing the road with self driving vehicles for over a year now. Consistently predictable, a pleasure to drive with.
Maybe for you, but what about all those people trying to make some money by getting in a crash in a way that is the other guy's fault so they can collect insurance money? You're only thinking about it from the safety, predictability, and aggression-free driving perspective.
tandempower is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-19, 04:28 PM
  #140  
noisebeam
Al
 
noisebeam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AZ
Posts: 14,587

Bikes: Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex

Mentioned: 45 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3170 Post(s)
'All those people...." Simple. I am not so paranoid.
noisebeam is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-19, 04:46 PM
  #141  
Mobile 155
Senior Member
 
Mobile 155's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: So Cal
Posts: 4,871

Bikes: 72-76 Peugeot, 89 Klein Quantum Road Bike, 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1308 Post(s)
Originally Posted by noisebeam View Post
'All those people...." Simple. I am not so paranoid.
that is a pretty courageous psychological assessment.
Mobile 155 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-19, 04:59 PM
  #142  
350htrr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Canada, PG BC
Posts: 3,642

Bikes: 27 speed oryx with over 39,000Km on it, 11,000Km with a BionX assist on it

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 892 Post(s)
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
Maybe for you, but what about all those people trying to make some money by getting in a crash in a way that is the other guy's fault so they can collect insurance money? You're only thinking about it from the safety, predictability, and aggression-free driving perspective.
Really...??? getting into a crash with a self driving vehicle so that you can collect insurance...??? Seems like stoopid to me with all the cameras and sensors that can prove it was 100% your fault.
350htrr is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-19, 06:01 PM
  #143  
takenreasy
Senior Member
 
takenreasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Falls Church, VA
Posts: 320

Bikes: ’83 Bianchi Special ’96 Specialized Stump Jumper Comp ’09 Gary Fisher Paragon ’09 Surly Cross Check ’11 Surly Long Haul Trucker

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Originally Posted by noisebeam View Post
I have been enjoying sharing the road with self driving vehicles for over a year now. Consistently predictable, a pleasure to drive with.
I can't wait until my city gets there.
takenreasy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-19, 09:23 PM
  #144  
Maelochs
Senior Member
 
Maelochs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 10,944

Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE

Mentioned: 122 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5119 Post(s)
Let me point out here, please----that we have the only Actual Testimony about Actual Experience from a cyclist who has been interacting with AVs.

We have a lot of hype, and hand-wringing and speculation ... and we have a cyclist who has a year's experience sharing the road with AVS.

Also, note one poster's complete inability to accept actual testimony which contravenes his fantasy, and his inability to use logic to defend his fantasy.

When one poster says he has been riding with AVs for A year and appreciates that they are predictable and thus safer to ride with than human-powered cars .... the response is,
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
" ... what about all those people trying to make some money by getting in a crash in a way that is the other guy's fault?"
WHAT?

If AVs are predictable and thus easier for people trying insurance scams ... what is the solution? Make them drive erratically so they will cause their own accidents to make it harder for scammers to sue---and easier for everyone else to sue?
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
You're only thinking about it from the safety, predictability, and aggression-free driving perspective.
Right. Because the last thing we want to achieve with self-driving cars is Safety. What we want is cars that are more dangerous than human-powered cars, less predictable, and which drive more aggressively.

The level to which some people sink to "win" an internet debate makes it clear some people Need to win on the 'net, because with thinking like that, there is no way they could ever succeed in real life.

The basic premise this poster advanced? "Self-driving cars suck because they are safer than human-powered cars."

Even for LCF that has got to be a new low.
Maelochs is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-19, 04:36 PM
  #145  
mtb_addict
Senior Member
 
mtb_addict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,641
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2687 Post(s)
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
This article claims that there won't be any progress in autonomous vehicles in 2019. It seems the reason all the big car companies jumped into the autonomous car game was to slow its progress.
I have said all along the self-driving car as advertised is a fraud. They duped people into pouring millions and billions into a research that is decades away from any return for investment.

The fact is they did made great progress the past few years...but they fraudulantly use their past success to project the future success.

The past few years was all about "getting the easy low hanging fruit." Now all the easy hurdles have been overcome.

The hard part is still ahead. In order to make it work in a way to make a real difference to the world, they have to "get all the fruit off the tree." They still have no idea how to get the fruit higher up. The fruit near the top seems impossible.

What is really happening is that the advances in technology is being used to make driving easier and safer. This will not get us anywhere near the driverless utopia where it will be super safe for pedestrians and cyclists. Instead, this is about reducing the labor costs.

Like trucking companies welcome new technology that make truck driving easy. So they can hire less skilled drivers. The salary for drivers keep decrease while the advances in technology increase. In the future, you might have minimum wage workers driving trucks. That is the realistic goal.

Last edited by mtb_addict; 01-08-19 at 04:50 PM.
mtb_addict is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-19, 06:12 PM
  #146  
tandempower
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,201
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7922 Post(s)
Originally Posted by 350htrr View Post
Really...??? getting into a crash with a self driving vehicle so that you can collect insurance...??? Seems like stoopid to me with all the cameras and sensors that can prove it was 100% your fault.
No, it was a joke that people don't like the predictability and safe driving of self-driving cars because they want to have human drivers on the road they can trick into getting into an accident with them so they can collect the insurance money.

My point is if you're trying to scam money by getting into crashes, you wouldn't like self-driving cars.
tandempower is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-19, 06:20 PM
  #147  
tandempower
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,201
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7922 Post(s)
Originally Posted by mtb_addict View Post
I have said all along the self-driving car as advertised is a fraud. They duped people into pouring millions and billions into a research that is decades away from any return for investment.

The fact is they did made great progress the past few years...but they fraudulantly use their past success to project the future success.

The past few years was all about "getting the easy low hanging fruit." Now all the easy hurdles have been overcome.

The hard part is still ahead. In order to make it work in a way to make a real difference to the world, they have to "get all the fruit off the tree." They still have no idea how to get the fruit higher up. The fruit near the top seems impossible.

What is really happening is that the advances in technology is being used to make driving easier and safer. This will not get us anywhere near the driverless utopia where it will be super safe for pedestrians and cyclists. Instead, this is about reducing the labor costs.

Like trucking companies welcome new technology that make truck driving easy. So they can hire less skilled drivers. The salary for drivers keep decrease while the advances in technology increase. In the future, you might have minimum wage workers driving trucks. That is the realistic goal.
I think they have actually made such great advances that they could operate within parameters that would ensure total safety. The problem is that economists have calculated the difference between the economic effects of widespread transition away from human-operated vehicles and they scare large investors as well as driver unions, parts-makers, etc.

Imagine how much wear and tear, crashes, and other causes for new car purchases and parts sales there are. Self-driving cars wouldn't just reduce waste at that level, they would also make it unnecessary for many people who currently buy and insure cars to do so, which would result in more competition for sales. Until the bean-counters have a sure strategy figured out to make as much money of self-driving car society as they do off human-operated car society, they will keep investing in negative press against self-driving vehicles. It is not that different from the time when Oprah and others decried automated phone systems. That was, of course, before call center jobs could be outsourced as easy as any other job.
tandempower is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-19, 06:37 PM
  #148  
Maelochs
Senior Member
 
Maelochs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 10,944

Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE

Mentioned: 122 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5119 Post(s)
Originally Posted by mtb_addict View Post
I have said all along the self-driving car as advertised is a fraud. They duped people into pouring millions and billions into a research that is decades away from any return for investment.

The fact is they did made great progress the past few years...but they fraudulantly use their past success to project the future success.

The past few years was all about "getting the easy low hanging fruit." Now all the easy hurdles have been overcome.

The hard part is still ahead. In order to make it work in a way to make a real difference to the world, they have to "get all the fruit off the tree." They still have no idea how to get the fruit higher up. The fruit near the top seems impossible.

What is really happening is that the advances in technology is being used to make driving easier and safer. This will not get us anywhere near the driverless utopia where it will be super safe for pedestrians and cyclists. Instead, this is about reducing the labor costs.

Like trucking companies welcome new technology that make truck driving easy. So they can hire less skilled drivers. The salary for drivers keep decrease while the advances in technology increase. In the future, you might have minimum wage workers driving trucks. That is the realistic goal.
So long as they can drive safely, who cares?

I don't think the AV manufacturers Have to get All the fruit ... the tech isn't there yet.

All they have to do is get enough to justify the investment ... and none of us have any idea how that works. I know General Electric used to get more in tax credits than it owed in taxes because ti got "research and development" refunds. And ti was about the biggest company on the planet making billions a year.

In nay case ... taxis and trucks might be good scenarios ... taxis are already in operation, have been for a good while. And there, yes, the reason for AV is to get the cost of the driver out of the equation.

here's what i see: A bunch of people who really don't know much are telling the people who know a lot about how to do stuff we don't rally understand.

Unless some posters here are doing cutting edge work in AV programming or optics or computer-processing directly related to AV ... or unless some posters here are CFOs of major corporations investing in AVs .. we don't really know what is happening now, let along what is predicted. Whatever we know is gleaned from month-old news reports and year-old disclosures.

We have no idea why certain companies seem to be investing in AVs, or how much they have really invested, or how those investments might be structured ... maybe the investments arr written of against profits to lower the company's tax burden? We don't know.

To assume that all these multi-billion-dollar corporations have been duped .... but Joe Blow form Nowhere has it all figured out ... yeah, no. Waymo, or Alphabet, Intel, Ford, GM, the Euro carmakers ... they know more about what tech is available and what is in the pipeline than we do. because of different states' reporting requirements, they know a Lot more about how their vehicles are performing than we do.

But ... whatever. Sometimes discussion turns into debate, and when we are debating things we simply don't know we are wasting precious life.

Be well.
Maelochs is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-19, 06:44 PM
  #149  
Mobile 155
Senior Member
 
Mobile 155's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: So Cal
Posts: 4,871

Bikes: 72-76 Peugeot, 89 Klein Quantum Road Bike, 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1308 Post(s)
It seems as if we may have drifted a bit from wil we see self driving cars soon to solving the problems of self driving cars once they get here. My skepticism comes from how lone it has taken to get EVs on the road from when we were promised. They may be here now and ready to proliferate as a choice for the average driver but it was a very long time coming and they still have a way to go. Just from a personal perspective I started looking into EVs way back in the early 70s when I first got into cycling as an alternative. 40 to 49 years doesn't seem like a long time but as mtb addict it is a long way from the low hanging fruit to the viable product in the case of transportation vehicles.

My take is they may have much of the ground work laid out but there seems to be some serious road blocks to getting self driving cars onto the the dealer lots and into the public's hands. I have been reading some statements by Musk about the self driving Teslas and he assured the investors that once the system is developed for safe self driving cars "all" models of Teslas have or will have the hardware necessary to be self driving. Once the programs are available that is. My question is will that decision be Musk's to make or will the government and lawyers make that decision?

I only use Tesla because I have only tried a Tesla with the range that would interest me in an EV today. With continuing infrastructure of course. I am not sure even Musk can make a prediction as to when self driving cars can replace manual driving cars. How long will it take for people to transition? Will everyone want to transition? There are still a number of people that refuse to drive a vehicle with an automatic. There are even some that seem to feel they don't want a car at all so self driving would be against their principals I guess.

As long as we are projecting, if they ever do come up with self driving cars or transportation pods and Lyft and Uber get their hands on them we could see the elimination of buses and Taxis even in the larger urban centers. Self driving vehicles can pic you up and drop you off point to point, your home to office and back home. They could take to to the airport or the store or a movie or out to dinner. Your child can have a self driving car take them to school or an after school program. On demand transportation would be a reality. Even in the suburbs people could have their own self driving car, or one for every member of the family like a cell phone. No I don't know if that is how it will work but it sounds nice to me. No sitting in the hot sun or cold rain waiting for a bus that comes when they want to send one and stops running when they want. As long as we are speculating.
Mobile 155 is offline  
Reply With Quote

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service