Driverless cars

[livincinco]

I've thought about starting a thread on the impact of driverless cars for a while now and the special report from The Economist has finally pushed me to do it.

There's an increasing number of predictions that driverless cars could be in wide-spread use by 2025. IMO, that would trigger a transportation revolution similar to the information revolution that we've experienced for the last 20 years. The implications on city planning are massive.

Thoughts?

http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21576224-one-day-every-car-may-come-invisible-chauffeur-look-no-hands

Edit: included a report that KPMG produced on driverless cars and the potential impact.

https://www.kpmg.com/US/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/self-driving-cars-next-revolution.pdf

[august948]

There's a good chance this is part of the future, but I'll be a late-adopter on this. I've seen too many technology related screw-ups in my career in info tech to think they'll get it right the first time. Not sure what the implications would be for city planning. You're still talking about cars that are about the same size as today's traveling in the same way from point a to point b. It's just that, hopefully, you'll have less accidents and better traffic flow due to it being managed.

[samagon]

I'm ready. I'd like to be able to relax and watch a movie during my daily commute, or perhaps just surf the internet.

[livincinco]

There's a good chance this is part of the future, but I'll be a late-adopter on this. I've seen too many technology related screw-ups in my career in info tech to think they'll get it right the first time. Not sure what the implications would be for city planning. You're still talking about cars that are about the same size as today's traveling in the same way from point a to point b. It's just that, hopefully, you'll have less accidents and better traffic flow due to it being managed.

I'm was with you on late adoption, but the rate of progress is making me more of a believer. Yes, there may be some question about safety, but given the general competence level of most drivers on the road today, a flawed automated car might still be better than a live driver...

One of main implications for city planning that I see is removal of the need for parking in proximity because there's no reason that an automated car couldn't drop you at a location and then move itself to a centralized location for parking. Essentially an automated valet.

I think that there's also a huge sprawl implication as people are more likely to be tolerant of long commutes if they can sleep or do other activities while they are in a car. Additionally, commuting costs could drop significantly because of increases in fuel efficiency. I've heard some predictions of 30%-40% improvements in fuel efficiency due to more efficient braking and acceleration as well as the ability of driverless cars to travel close enough together to take advantage of the "drafting" effect that race cars utilize to reduce wind resistance.

Even if the technology isn't perfect initially, you could certainly incorporate a "driverless" lane into certain highways to provide a short term benefit.

[RedScare]

Being an attorney, I am naturally curious what this would do to DWI laws. If one does not have full control of the vehicle, does DWI apply? The reality is that the laws would likely stay, but police would not know who to pull over due to all of the vehicles being controlled and moving at regulated speeds.

[west20th]

I'm ready. I'd like to be able to relax and watch a movie during my daily commute, or perhaps just surf the internet.

 

Why wait for driver-less cars?

[august948]

I'm was with you on late adoption, but the rate of progress is making me more of a believer. Yes, there may be some question about safety, but given the general competence level of most drivers on the road today, a flawed automated car might still be better than a live driver...

Two thumbs-up on that observation.

One of main implications for city planning that I see is removal of the need for parking in proximity because there's no reason that an automated car couldn't drop you at a location and then move itself to a centralized location for parking. Essentially an automated valet.

Good point, I hadn't thought about that. I'll take it a step further. What we might see is the rise of car sharing where instead of purchasing a car, you pay a monthly fee to have access to a car whenever you need it. You could schedule a pickup for work in the morning and call for one to pick you up during the day as needed and to take you home again in the evening. There's already a company that does that sort of short-term on-demand rentals in some cities.

[livincinco]

Being an attorney, I am naturally curious what this would do to DWI laws. If one does not have full control of the vehicle, does DWI apply? The reality is that the laws would likely stay, but police would not know who to pull over due to all of the vehicles being controlled and moving at regulated speeds.

The legal questions, both in terms of determining liability and impact on legislation, seem to be the biggest concern about timeline of adoption. Most sources I've looked at say the technology is maybe five years away from being commercially ready, but that the social and legal issues are going to take a lot longer to figure out.

I edited my original post to include the report on driverless cars that KPMG put out in August of 2012. It's a very interesting read.

[august948]

Being an attorney, I am naturally curious what this would do to DWI laws. If one does not have full control of the vehicle, does DWI apply? The reality is that the laws would likely stay, but police would not know who to pull over due to all of the vehicles being controlled and moving at regulated speeds.

If the cars are being managed or driven then I would think it would be more like a drunk in a taxi. That said, I suspect cars will broadcast their VIN to a network that the police can tap and instead of having to fire up the sirens they'll just click an icon and have the car pull over or go to the nearest police station.

[samagon]

If the cars are being managed or driven then I would think it would be more like a drunk in a taxi. That said, I suspect cars will broadcast their VIN to a network that the police can tap and instead of having to fire up the sirens they'll just click an icon and have the car pull over or go to the nearest police station.

 

So you reduce the probability that a person will wake up in someone else's garage with the owner of said garage hovering over that person with a shotgun asking him to leave, but increase the probability of drunk stumbling into the substation that the car pulls up in front of and the person mistakes it for their house and pass out on the tile floor?

 

Not sure there's an upside for people who take the risk.

[august948]

So you reduce the probability that a person will wake up in someone else's garage with the owner of said garage hovering over that person with a shotgun asking him to leave, but increase the probability of drunk stumbling into the substation that the car pulls up in front of and the person mistakes it for their house and pass out on the tile floor?

 

Not sure there's an upside for people who take the risk.

The first case is all upside.

The second case wouldn't be that frequent since the car isn't going to be visibly under the influence of the drunk. I'd guess that the driverless cars will eventually have breathalyzers and wouldn't allow a drunk to take control anyway.

[mfastx]

This is the future.  I can't wait for the day when I will be able to get in my car, input a destination on it's computer, and let it take me there hands free.  Probably not within my lifetime, but one can dream lol.  Eliminate human error and driving gets a lot safer.

[august948]

Even if the technology isn't perfect initially, you could certainly incorporate a "driverless" lane into certain highways to provide a short term benefit.

You'd almost certainly have to have driverless lanes or more to the point driver lanes since it would be less efficient and possibly more dangerous to have some human operated cars mixed in with mostly driverless ones. If you want to take control you'd have to have the car pull off the highway otherwise it would likely be a mess.

[IHB2]

since presumably urban commuters would be switching in large #s to driverless vehicles, and since it's clear that the vast majority of commuters in most US urban areas aren't willing to give up their individual cars, it might be the perfect time to introduce a self-driving all-electric "city car" so small that existing road capacity would be greatly increased without pouring any more concrete. maybe build them with safety features & a top speed low enough to insure survivability of the passengers in a crash, but fast enough to appeal to a 30 mile commuter.

 

use the carrot of significant tax breaks for owning/using these cars possible b/c of the savings on road building/repair and all the other costs that come with ever-increasing #s of gasoline-powered vehicles on our roads.

[livincinco]

Interesting article in the NY Times.  This approach is almost like an enhanced cruise control.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/28/science/on-the-road-in-mobileyes-self-driving-car.html?hpw&_r=0

[mfastx]

This is hopefully what we are going to be heading towards in the next few decades.  Driverless cars would provide a safer, faster, more reliable mode of transportation. 

[livincinco]

This is hopefully what we are going to be heading towards in the next few decades.  Driverless cars would provide a safer, faster, more reliable mode of transportation. 

 

I wouldn't be surprised if we see "assisted driving" within the next couple of years as a partial step towards a true driverless car.  Automated braking systems and automated parallel parking systems are already being offered, so it's really not that much of a stretch. 

 

It would be pretty nice to be able to get on the highway for long trips and be able to turn on an assisted driving feature.

[Slick Vik]

There's already a much cheaper alternative to this (for reasonable distances): a bicycle.

[livincinco]

There's already a much cheaper alternative to this (for reasonable distances): a bicycle.

Can a bike get me from my house to a specific address in San Antonio in 3 hours?

I love bikes, but they are pretty limited. You can only go limited distances and can only carry very limited amounts of stuff.

[august948]

There's already a much cheaper alternative to this (for reasonable distances): a bicycle.

For some things, yes, but you can't get 8 people comfortably on a bicycle, out of the elements and comfortable with air conditioning and a video entertainment system like you can in an Escalade or Suburban. Nor do you have the carrying capacity to go to Home Depot, Best Buy and Walmart all on the same trip. Plus, if we're talking about driverless cars, there's a big advantage to be had in being able to bar hop without actually drinking and driving. Not sure I'd want to get completely sloshed and then try to ride my bicycle down Washington on a Friday night.

[Slick Vik]

For some things, yes, but you can't get 8 people comfortably on a bicycle, out of the elements and comfortable with air conditioning and a video entertainment system like you can in an Escalade or Suburban.

You're seriously singing the praises of two of the biggest gas guzzlers there are? HAHAHAHAHAHA

[august948]

You're seriously singing the praises of two of the biggest gas guzzlers there are? HAHAHAHAHAHA

Absolutely. Every mode of transportation has it's time and place. If you need to carry 8 people plus cargo and maybe pull a boat or trailer to boot, you won't be pulling out the old Huffy.

[livincinco]

You're seriously singing the praises of two of the biggest gas guzzlers there are? HAHAHAHAHAHA

I have to say that you are seriously one of the most myopic and closed minded individuals that I have ever encountered in my life. Vehicles are tools that have certain uses. If you are bringing home a load of lumber from Home Depot, then an SUV is without question a better vehicle than a bike to transport it. If you are traveling from Houston to San Antonio than a car is without a doubt a better vehicle than a bike in which to do that.

In the real world, there are a variety of vehicles that are used for different purposes. I know that you would prefer that cars didn't exist. All I have to say is, sucks to be on the wrong side of history.

[Slick Vik]

I have to say that you are seriously one of the most myopic and closed minded individuals that I have ever encountered in my life. Vehicles are tools that have certain uses. If you are bringing home a load of lumber from Home Depot, then an SUV is without question a better vehicle than a bike to transport it. If you are traveling from Houston to San Antonio than a car is without a doubt a better vehicle than a bike in which to do that.

In the real world, there are a variety of vehicles that are used for different purposes. I know that you would prefer that cars didn't exist. All I have to say is, sucks to be on the wrong side of history.

An SUV serves no purpose. It's one of history's most unfortunate inventions. A truck would be a good tool to lug lumber I agree.

I've never said I prefers cars exist I would simply prefer they aren't the only method of efficient transport as we have in our city.

You don't think about the side effects. Think about a poor person in houston. Perhaps he or she can afford a car, or if he or she could then it would be such a high percentage of income that paying for other necessities would be a struggle.

Are you okay with this? We are judged on how we treat our most impoverished in society. Remember that.

[august948]

SUV's are enormously useful under certain circumstances. I'm sure you could go on and on about what the most unfortunate inventions are, but an SUV isn't one of them.

And yet the poor in our country are richer than most other people in the world so I'd say we'd get a pretty good grade on that.

http://www.oregonlive.com/hovde/index.ssf/2012/08/income_in_perspective_americas.html

[livincinco]

An SUV serves no purpose. It's one of history's most unfortunate inventions. A truck would be a good tool to lug lumber I agree.

I've never said I prefers cars exist I would simply prefer they aren't the only method of efficient transport as we have in our city.

You don't think about the side effects. Think about a poor person in houston. Perhaps he or she can afford a car, or if he or she could then it would be such a high percentage of income that paying for other necessities would be a struggle.

Are you okay with this? We are judged on how we treat our most impoverished in society. Remember that.

Or you could consider it from the perspective that a car provides a poor person with mobility options that are otherwise not obtainable. Someone with a car can consider employment at locations that a person without a car could not and perhaps gain a better standard of living in the process.

As I've said before, I believe that there is mass transit that is necessary and there is mass transit that is a lifestyle choice. I completely support mass transit for necessity and I believe Houston has worked to provide that throughout the city. I don't see light rail as transit of necessity. That's transit of lifestyle choice and I don't see that as a good long term investment because it requires a different set of infrastructure than other forms of transit. Cars, buses, trucks, and bicycles can all run on the same infrastructure (roads and highways). Driverless and electric cars have the potential to revolutionize the efficiency of cars and improve leverage of that existing infrastructure.

[RedScare]

An SUV serves no purpose. It's one of history's most unfortunate inventions. A truck would be a good tool to lug lumber I agree.

I've never said I prefers cars exist I would simply prefer they aren't the only method of efficient transport as we have in our city.

You don't think about the side effects. Think about a poor person in houston. Perhaps he or she can afford a car, or if he or she could then it would be such a high percentage of income that paying for other necessities would be a struggle.

Are you okay with this? We are judged on how we treat our most impoverished in society. Remember that.

 

SUVs have many purposes. They were overused by some, but that doesn't diminish their usefulness for other purposes. You seem to have a very shallow research capability, followed by enormous leaps of logic, generally to conclusions that you wish to be true. For instance, while bemoaning the poor and their use of cars, you ignore that they can use that car to reach many better paying jobs, such as construction, that your beloved trains cannot reach. In some cases buses might reach the job, but you criticize buses as well. 

 

I also have this sneaking suspicion that while criticizing cars, you likely secretly drive one yourself.

[Slick Vik]

SUV's are enormously useful under certain circumstances. I'm sure you could go on and on about what the most unfortunate inventions are, but an SUV isn't one of them.

And yet the poor in our country are richer than most other people in the world so I'd say we'd get a pretty good grade on that.

http://www.oregonlive.com/hovde/index.ssf/2012/08/income_in_perspective_americas.html

 

I suspect you've never been poor.

[Slick Vik]

Or you could consider it from the perspective that a car provides a poor person with mobility options that are otherwise not obtainable. Someone with a car can consider employment at locations that a person without a car could not and perhaps gain a better standard of living in the process.

As I've said before, I believe that there is mass transit that is necessary and there is mass transit that is a lifestyle choice. I completely support mass transit for necessity and I believe Houston has worked to provide that throughout the city. I don't see light rail as transit of necessity. That's transit of lifestyle choice and I don't see that as a good long term investment because it requires a different set of infrastructure than other forms of transit. Cars, buses, trucks, and bicycles can all run on the same infrastructure (roads and highways). Driverless and electric cars have the potential to revolutionize the efficiency of cars and improve leverage of that existing infrastructure.

 

I think the automobile is a lifestyle choice and further expansion of highways is a bad use of money. Much of the rest of the world agrees with me.

SUVs have many purposes. They were overused by some, but that doesn't diminish their usefulness for other purposes. You seem to have a very shallow research capability, followed by enormous leaps of logic, generally to conclusions that you wish to be true. For instance, while bemoaning the poor and their use of cars, you ignore that they can use that car to reach many better paying jobs, such as construction, that your beloved trains cannot reach. In some cases buses might reach the job, but you criticize buses as well. 

 

I also have this sneaking suspicion that while criticizing cars, you likely secretly drive one yourself.

 

Again, what if the person can not afford a car in the first place? That's the problem with making infrastructure solely built around cars, it keeps many on the outside looking in.

 

I don't drive I walk to work. But nice try.

[livincinco]

I suspect you've never been poor.

 

Spend some time in developing countries and you'll get an idea of extreme poverty.  Neither one of us is trying to minimize the issues that result from being poor, but August is right.  Poor in the US and poor in India or Africa are completely different.  It's like trying to compare the destruction caused by the building of a highway with the destruction caused by carpet bombing.