They're Coming: U.S. Proposes Spending $4 Billion on Self-Driving Cars
 

In extraordinarily odd timing, the Obama administration is lining up support to bring self-driving cars to the road as soon as possible.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/15/bu...ving-cars.html

Personally, I can hardly wait for the transition to humanless cars to be complete. I guess it has to start first, though.

Coming? They've been here for a bit now and autonomous features have been options/standard on pricier makes and models for a minute.

Can't get here soon enough IMO.

Will driverless cars be able to go grocery shopping without me and then swing by and pick up my dry cleaning?

I don't see why not. Grocery stores have curbside pickup now.

i am thinking whether auto the insurance rate will be the same for everybody since no one is driving.

I wish they would put $4 billion into repairing bridges and highways first. :(

Good observations. And shouldn't self-driving cars be much cheaper? No need for seats, HVAC, sound systems, windshield wipers, power windows, cup holders, floor mats, glove compartments, etc., etc., etc.

I suspect the insurance companies will leave the rates more or less untouched until it becomes the dominant technology, then they'll up the rates for the hold-outs. I would be amazed if any of them go the route of offering discounts.

There will still likely be modifiers based on where your car is parked at night.

Me, too.

I don't know how self driving cars(and all electric/hydrogen/methanol powered) will fix NYC's traffic jams though.

Now here is a logical suggestion.

Spending billions on self driving cars is a stupid waste of money IMO.

They won't release self driving cars to the public all at once. We will see all the obstacle avoidance systems added to a point where you just can't hit something. Think of this,. you won't be able to rubber neck at an accident. Your car will be hurried past the scene, avoiding all risk. The first car will hit the deer and pull to the side then all the others will come past. N
o one will be able to gridlock an intersection.

The insurance industry is apparently quite concerned with what they expect to be a massive reduction in collisions with self-driving cars. I agree that they will stick it to the hold outs, but those are the people expected to be responsible for most of the collisions, so they should pay.

Criminy, the latest road bill just transferred over $70 Billion from the general fund (okay, it was borrowed) to highways, just like the last one. How much subsidy do motorists want? Does it never end?

Yes, when they properly maintain that which they have built. I'm also for a moratorium on all new lane miles for at least a decade and channel the funds to repair and maintenance only.

I commute over a bridge that is jammed up every day during rush hour. The majority of days much of the traffic slowdown is due to an accident that blocks one lane. It doesn't seem to matter whether it is raining or a sunny day. The highways are filled with poor drivers.

Filling the highways with autonomously driven vehicles would allow more efficient utilization of the existing roads and minimize traffic jams.

I totally agree. What I was getting at was just that I doubt the insurance companies will reward people by cutting rates. Self-driving cars will become the new baseline, regardless of the decrease in accidents, with people-driven cars paying even more.

But won't everybody be getting about in their own personal flying cars which have been touted as the Next Thing for the last umpteen years?



http://cbsnews1.cbsistatic.com/hub/i...ace130b30fee66

http://paleofuture.com/storage/thumb...=1265767365152

In the Seattle area, there is a tunnelling project that has been going on for few years that is already so behind in timeline, and so overpriced, that questions are starting to arise regarding the whole project... and calling it a project "too big to fail."

Stuck In Seattle | Bloomberg Business - Business, Financial & Economic News, Stock Quotes

The report above is a bit dated... Bertha has been repaired, and has started tunneling again, only to be halted recently as sinkholes formed behind the machine and areas of the tunnel collapsed. Further, the tunnel boring is considered dangerous to an older highway viaduct for highway 99, above the tunnel route.

Perhaps a better solution is to simply kill the project...

Somehow this whole thing reminds me of Boston's Big Dig... which ultimately has been considered "worth it," by some... despite the cost overruns, the tunnel failures and even the deaths associated with the project.
Can We Talk Rationally About the Big Dig Yet? - News and reviews - Boston.com

So do we really need more roads? Or just better ways to use the roads we have now?

+1 There's already good momentum toward driverless cars. It doesn't need government help. OTOH the roads do.

It sounds like corporate welfare to me.

Specifically the article mentioned "infrastructure improvements."

Probably not. You would be 'along for the ride'. To take care of what the car is incapable of doing.

What else does it need to do but drive?

Still waiting for the news reports of unfortunate passengers of autonomous vehicles being accosted by packs of roving punks who surround the car and stop it dead in it's tracks.

Not kosher.

Just to repeat the question that almost always comes up with this topic. How will these driverless cars deal with a car with a human driver, pedestrian, cyclist?

How do you retrofit/upgrade a non-driverless car to a driverless car? What about cyclists and pedestrians? Do you install some sort of RFID chip in bicycles? What about pedestrians? Do we implant an RFID chip in their arm? In their shoes, in their clothing?