Driverless cars

[august948]

I haven't followed the topic closely, but is it not the case that there would be two stages of adaption?  1) when driverless cars become increasingly prevalent but are autonomous in their actions, and 2) when there are enough of them on the road that they could be networked together to optimize traffic.  It seems there would be benefits in both stages, but that these would really start to accrue once the network effects could be realized (there's an analogy there with the growth of computers at first as individual workstations, and then all within the internet).

 

It would be good if driverless car producers started thinking now in terms of common communication and control protocols.

 

What do we do about lost packets?

 

[Slick Vik]

From what I've been reading, there is general agreement that the car needs to have the ability to re-engage the driver for the foreseeable future and that's one of the biggest challenges - doing that in a way that is seamless and safe for all.  I absolutely agree that we're going to see an incremental implementation that may take 15-25 years, but we're going to start seeing impact within 3-5 years.

 

The sweet spot for passenger rail in comparison to air seems to be <750 miles based on most of the research that I've seen.  Once you get beyond that, the speed differential with air travel becomes a huge advantage.  In Japan and Europe, that's not much of a constraint, but once you get outside of the northeast corridor in the US, you're looking at clusters that are in that range, not a continuous network and that's a challenge.

 

 

There are certain corridors where investments should be made in ordinary intercity rail

 

LA-SF, Houston-Dallas-San Antonio, Denver-SLC, Houston-New Orleans and others

 

Also already investments are taking place in Florida, Missouri, Illinois, Michigan to upgrade current tracks for somewhat higher speeds.

[august948]

Inter-city rail is a great idea in the right corridors. Also, just because driverless cars are coming doesn't mean that rail plans should be abandoned. You are pushing for a dependence on automobiles. Why should people be held hostage to a system only dependent on vehicles that cost immense amounts of money for the average person to purchase and maintain? In a way, riding a train is basically a driverless car already.

 

Because it's better than being held hostage to a system that only goes to very limited destinations?

 

[livincinco]

Inter-city rail is a great idea in the right corridors. Also, just because driverless cars are coming doesn't mean that rail plans should be abandoned. You are pushing for a dependence on automobiles. Why should people be held hostage to a system only dependent on vehicles that cost immense amounts of money for the average person to purchase and maintain? In a way, riding a train is basically a driverless car already.

 

Huge differences between a driverless car and a train.  A driverless car provides point to point transportation on existing infrastructure and greatly increases the efficiency of that existing infrastructure.  A train provides a fixed route on a new set of infrastructure.

 

There's quite a few commercial options that are starting to develop for people that can't afford or don't want to own a car - Zipcar, Uber, and a bunch of other startups are developing to fill that need.  Driverless cars fit extremely well into that kind of a model.

[Subdude]

For freight rail. but against passenger rail. Hmmm

 

This topic is NOT going to be hijacked to a discussion about passenger rail again.   

[Subdude]

That's a very real question and one that there's a lot of discussion about.  Driverless cars have collision avoidance systems so they won't hit the car in front of them, but does everybody end up stacking up behind the slow car?  The same question exists with bicycles.  This is potentially a huge benefit for bike riders because they wouldn't have to worry about getting hit, but you could conceivably have bikes riding down the middle of the road, blocking all cars just because they can.

 

That's what I find so fascinating about this.  Huge potential benefits, but a ton of questions about implementation that are going to need to be addressed.  Large amounts of money being poured into answering those questions though.

 

 

I wonder about the same point myself.  Can we only get substantial network effects when EVERY car is automated?  If so, it would seem that the only solution would be to limit use of non-automated vehicles, at rush hour, say, or on freeways.  Of course then the  driver of that 1992 Camry would be screaming bloody murder.  

[august948]

I wonder about the same point myself.  Can we only get substantial network effects when EVERY car is automated?  If so, it would seem that the only solution would be to limit use of non-automated vehicles, at rush hour, say, or on freeways.  Of course then the  driver of that 1992 Camry would be screaming bloody murder.  

 

They might start by making only certain roadways available for networked driving.  I'm thinking HOV or toll roads.  Once it's proven out they could expand to other roadways.  I'm sure the rollout will take quite a while.  The thing that worries me, though, is the first time a kid gets hit by an automated car there might be a huge backlash.  They need to get the sensor systems and redundancy 100% as early as possible.

 

[livincinco]

I wonder about the same point myself.  Can we only get substantial network effects when EVERY car is automated?  If so, it would seem that the only solution would be to limit use of non-automated vehicles, at rush hour, say, or on freeways.  Of course then the  driver of that 1992 Camry would be screaming bloody murder.  

 

I wouldn't be surprised to see development of non-autonomous and autonomous lanes on highways, but agree with your point.  The safety benefits start to kick in pretty quickly as well as some the energy efficiency benefits and both of those are considerable.  To truly get to the highest level of mobility benefits though, you have to be able to fully automate the grid.  Then you can do things like remove stop signs and streetlights to allow continuous flow.

 

It may never get to the point that the grid is fully automated and all of those benefits are realized, but the safety benefits alone are large enough to continue to drive the investment.

[livincinco]

BTW, for those who doubt whether this can be developed in 25 years, I thought I would share this Radio Shack cellphone commercial from 25 years ago just for laughs.

 

 

That phone cost $1400, weighed 4 lbs, and cost a $1/minute to make calls. 

 

EDIT - sorry, I know this is off topic, but I couldn't resist putting this one up too.

 

Edited November 1, 2013 by livincinco

[august948]

lol...oh those were the days...it reminded me of this from about the same time period...

 

Edited November 1, 2013 by august948

[arche_757]

BTW, for those who doubt whether this can be developed in 25 years, I thought I would share this Radio Shack cellphone commercial from 25 years ago just for laughs.

 

Yes, cell phones have come a long way.  But what we are talking about is far more complicated, and quite honest probably much more costly to implement - even over the long haul.  Our road system is tremendously huge - Texas alone has 300,000 miles of roads.  Now, much of the roadways will remain as-is but I can imagine that there will be a need for different road signs, road read-out systems and the like.  At least for the first full generation of vehicles (talking once we've reached 100% intergration).  Perhaps I'm wrong?  But isn't the cellulare phone estentially the same device as depicted in your supplied link?  Still handheld, still has the primary function of transmitting data via voice input over a cordless connection.  And look at what spurred on the greater development of the cell phone - the military and possibly NASA.  Wireless headsets were in us in World War 2, and great - HUGE - amounts of innovation took place from 1946-1969 thanks in part to the post-war military industrial complex.

 

I'm not arguing against what you say - just playing devils advocate.  I too find this very fascinating.

[livincinco]

Yes, cell phones have come a long way.  But what we are talking about is far more complicated, and quite honest probably much more costly to implement - even over the long haul.  Our road system is tremendously huge - Texas alone has 300,000 miles of roads.  Now, much of the roadways will remain as-is but I can imagine that there will be a need for different road signs, road read-out systems and the like.  At least for the first full generation of vehicles (talking once we've reached 100% intergration).  Perhaps I'm wrong?  But isn't the cellulare phone estentially the same device as depicted in your supplied link?  Still handheld, still has the primary function of transmitting data via voice input over a cordless connection.  And look at what spurred on the greater development of the cell phone - the military and possibly NASA.  Wireless headsets were in us in World War 2, and great - HUGE - amounts of innovation took place from 1946-1969 thanks in part to the post-war military industrial complex.

 

I'm not arguing against what you say - just playing devils advocate.  I too find this very fascinating.

 

I haven't seen anything talking about required changes to existing infrastructure for the first generation.  The emphasis is on the automakers adjusting to the existing infrastructure.  The changes occur in the car with greatly increased sensory capabilities in the car to read the existing signage/road conditions.  The last numbers that I saw were that Google's driverless cars had already driven over 450,000 miles.

 

Don't know if you had a chance to watch the Mercedes video that I posted earlier in the thread.  It's pretty impressive.

 

 

[infinite_jim]

The most glaring problem is what to do about the inevitable interactions between human drivers and automated drivers. The legal system is light years away from establishing liability protocol and might be for quite awhile b/c it gets pretty messy when you think about for whom should be held at fault when accidents occur. The driver? The software? The hardware? The passenger? The road? etc. I don't see driver-less cars as the panacea some folks are making it out to be. If we do get them sooner than later, then don't be surprised if they end up outlawing human drivers (at least on Federal freeways) in the process.

In the short term, I'd like to see the material science of roads improve first to where they could absorb micro-particulate pollution, keep your tires from wearing out as much, and/or dampen the noise produced by your tire's friction. At least in road sections where this would make sense. I think the embedded sensors of 2nd Gen infrastructure should occur sooner than later as well.

Edited November 1, 2013 by infinite_jim

[Slick Vik]

Huge differences between a driverless car and a train.  A driverless car provides point to point transportation on existing infrastructure and greatly increases the efficiency of that existing infrastructure.  A train provides a fixed route on a new set of infrastructure.

 

There's quite a few commercial options that are starting to develop for people that can't afford or don't want to own a car - Zipcar, Uber, and a bunch of other startups are developing to fill that need.  Driverless cars fit extremely well into that kind of a model.

 

The efficiency may increase, but it also may decrease, because more cars on the roads means the roads have less life and need more maintenance. What I see is just an extension of auto dependency.

 

On the last point, I would say those services are more for people that don't want a car. There should be a good, fair system that gives people an equal alternative between transit and personal transportation. That's all I've ever advocated for. NYC, Chicago, and Boston are good examples.

BTW, for those who doubt whether this can be developed in 25 years, I thought I would share this Radio Shack cellphone commercial from 25 years ago just for laughs.

 

 

That phone cost $1400, weighed 4 lbs, and cost a $1/minute to make calls. 

 

EDIT - sorry, I know this is off topic, but I couldn't resist putting this one up too.

 

 

There have also been a lot of ideas that never came to fruition. Still waiting on the hydrogen fuel cell car.

 

And even hybrid and electric cars have a very small overall percentage of the marketplace.

[Slick Vik]

Because it's better than being held hostage to a system that only goes to very limited destinations?

 

 

The destinations are limited only if you're living in certain cities.

[livincinco]

The efficiency may increase, but it also may decrease, because more cars on the roads means the roads have less life and need more maintenance.

There have also been a lot of ideas that never came to fruition. Still waiting on the hydrogen fuel cell car.

And even hybrid and electric cars have a very small overall percentage of the marketplace.

One of the appeals of driverless is crash prevention. Crash prevention allows the elimination of heavy safety features and reduces the overall weight of the car. That results in reduced wear on roads as well as improved fuel efficiency .

Hybrid has consistently gained market share for years. The Toyota Prius is the number 1 selling car in California now. I don't think full electric is ready for primetime yet but it is getting closer.

I doubt hydrogen will be viable in the forseeable future.

[arche_757]

^ I think Slick Vicks point may have been:  Hydrogen has been pushed down our throats as the future, yet what have we seen from that avenue?  Nothing much.

 

I think clean diesel is also an area to research?  Great mileage, and the wear and tear on engines is FAR less than gasoline.

 

Regardless, I do believe automated personal transit is somewhere down the road.  Though who knows?  I mean, in 1890 I'll bet if you told the average person that horses would cease to be used as forms of transportation most would laugh at you.  I think the auto - as run by human (error prone) drivers is still very much the future unless micro processing takes a leap and a bound.

 

Alternatively I'd rather see more emphasis on "frictionized" forms of energy production (or pavement that helps absorb pollution).  Imagine having pavement that with each pass of each tire generates a modest amount of energy.  Say just enough to power a street light for 2 minutes?  Think of the possibilities and the "lift" it would give to our very tired and worn energy grid.

Edited November 1, 2013 by arche_757

[livincinco]

^ I think Slick Vicks point may have been: Hydrogen has been pushed down our throats as the future, yet what have we seen from that avenue? Nothing much.

Fair enough, but I would also point out that this is already much further along than hydrogen. Hydrogen is theoretical, but never really advanced to practical. In this case, there are a number of major manufacturers that have committed to putting autonomous cars on the street within a decade.

I'd also argue that they are different because hydrogen had to be a straight conversion while this can be incremental.

[arche_757]

Very true.

 

I think that for this to actually work - there will have to be a large scale test bed: Either a fairly heavily populated county or city?  Maybe a town like Tulsa, or Colorado Springs?  Once we see a large scale area work, and work well, then roll-out of driverless tech will be more prevelant.

 

Can't you just see some area cities and small(er) minded city councils fighting this?  I can.  I can also certainly see Johnny Law fighting it too.

[Slick Vik]

^ I think Slick Vicks point may have been:  Hydrogen has been pushed down our throats as the future, yet what have we seen from that avenue?  Nothing much.

 

I think clean diesel is also an area to research?  Great mileage, and the wear and tear on engines is FAR less than gasoline.

 

Regardless, I do believe automated personal transit is somewhere down the road.  Though who knows?  I mean, in 1890 I'll bet if you told the average person that horses would cease to be used as forms of transportation most would laugh at you.  I think the auto - as run by human (error prone) drivers is still very much the future unless micro processing takes a leap and a bound.

 

Alternatively I'd rather see more emphasis on "frictionized" forms of energy production (or pavement that helps absorb pollution).  Imagine having pavement that with each pass of each tire generates a modest amount of energy.  Say just enough to power a street light for 2 minutes?  Think of the possibilities and the "lift" it would give to our very tired and worn energy grid.

 

Clean diesel is very popular in Europe but hasn't caught on here as much, even though it's the simplest solution to many problems RIGHT NOW.

Fair enough, but I would also point out that this is already much further along than hydrogen. Hydrogen is theoretical, but never really advanced to practical. In this case, there are a number of major manufacturers that have committed to putting autonomous cars on the street within a decade.

I'd also argue that they are different because hydrogen had to be a straight conversion while this can be incremental.

 

At this point it's still very early in the game and any predictions are nothing more than speculation.

[arche_757]

Clean diesel is very popular in Europe but hasn't caught on here as much, even though it's the simplest solution to many problems RIGHT NOW.

I think much of that had to do with California impossing pretty stringent requirements on particulate matter in exhaust?  If so, they have sort of held the rest of the US hostage over it?

 

Europeans have diesel everything, and indeed it is very popular.  And the EU is certainly proactive on reducing pollution, so this should be an avenue the US pushes for in a big way over the next decade as a means to reduce transportation costs in our car heavy society.

[Slick Vik]

I think much of that had to do with California impossing pretty stringent requirements on particulate matter in exhaust?  If so, they have sort of held the rest of the US hostage over it?

 

Europeans have diesel everything, and indeed it is very popular.  And the EU is certainly proactive on reducing pollution, so this should be an avenue the US pushes for in a big way over the next decade as a means to reduce transportation costs in our car heavy society.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/automobiles/efficiency-imported-from-europe.html

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/automobiles/18DIESEL.html?pagewanted=all

[livincinco]

At this point it's still very early in the game and any predictions are nothing more than speculation.

 

I would have potentially agreed with you a year ago, but the development has been very rapid in the last 12 months.  Specifically, the FTHSA has already released guidelines for different levels of driverless cars and has indicated federal support for continued development.

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/transportation-report/automobiles/302643-obama-administration-issues-policy-for-driverless-cars

 

There are already three states that have approved some basic legislation related to testing of autonomous cars and at least nine others have introduced legislation towards that end.

 

Nissan, BMW, Audi, Toyota, Ford, Tesla, Google, GM, and Mercedes have all announced that they are working on autonomous cars and Nissan says they will have one on the market by 2020.  Tesla says they will have theirs before then.

 

Navigant research just released a report estimating sales of autonomous vehicles at 95 million in 2035.  I also linked to KPMG's research on the subject in my first post.

 

http://www.navigantresearch.com/newsroom/autonomous-vehicles-will-surpass-95-million-in-annual-sales-by-2035

 

You can call that speculation if you like, but that's a lot of action to dismiss that lightly.

 

 

[livincinco]

The most glaring problem is what to do about the inevitable interactions between human drivers and automated drivers. The legal system is light years away from establishing liability protocol and might be for quite awhile b/c it gets pretty messy when you think about for whom should be held at fault when accidents occur. The driver? The software? The hardware? The passenger? The road? etc. I don't see driver-less cars as the panacea some folks are making it out to be. If we do get them sooner than later, then don't be surprised if they end up outlawing human drivers (at least on Federal freeways) in the process.

In the short term, I'd like to see the material science of roads improve first to where they could absorb micro-particulate pollution, keep your tires from wearing out as much, and/or dampen the noise produced by your tire's friction. At least in road sections where this would make sense. I think the embedded sensors of 2nd Gen infrastructure should occur sooner than later as well.

 

For the short term the industry is taking a shortcut by stating that the driver needs to be vigilant and needs to take control of the vehicle at any time.  That keeps the legal liability on the driver, but you're absolutely correct that there are a lot of long term liability questions that need to be worked out.

 

[Slick Vik]

I would have potentially agreed with you a year ago, but the development has been very rapid in the last 12 months.  Specifically, the FTHSA has already released guidelines for different levels of driverless cars and has indicated federal support for continued development.

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/transportation-report/automobiles/302643-obama-administration-issues-policy-for-driverless-cars

 

There are already three states that have approved some basic legislation related to testing of autonomous cars and at least nine others have introduced legislation towards that end.

 

Nissan, BMW, Audi, Toyota, Ford, Tesla, Google, GM, and Mercedes have all announced that they are working on autonomous cars and Nissan says they will have one on the market by 2020.  Tesla says they will have theirs before then.

 

Navigant research just released a report estimating sales of autonomous vehicles at 95 million in 2035.  I also linked to KPMG's research on the subject in my first post.

 

http://www.navigantresearch.com/newsroom/autonomous-vehicles-will-surpass-95-million-in-annual-sales-by-2035

 

You can call that speculation if you like, but that's a lot of action to dismiss that lightly.

 

Time will tell. I am skeptical.

[august948]

Alternatively I'd rather see more emphasis on "frictionized" forms of energy production (or pavement that helps absorb pollution).  Imagine having pavement that with each pass of each tire generates a modest amount of energy.  Say just enough to power a street light for 2 minutes?  Think of the possibilities and the "lift" it would give to our very tired and worn energy grid.

 

Not to go too far out on a tangent, but there are a lot of posibilities for energy generation or recovery if we put our minds to it.  One thing I'd like to see is solar panels on most houses and buildings. Distributing power generation over millions of buildings would make a huge impact on the robustness of our grid and reduce environmental concerns.

 

[Slick Vik]

Not to go too far out on a tangent, but there are a lot of posibilities for energy generation or recovery if we put our minds to it.  One thing I'd like to see is solar panels on most houses and buildings. Distributing power generation over millions of buildings would make a huge impact on the robustness of our grid and reduce environmental concerns.

 

 

We agree for once. My cousin actually works for a solar panel company and says the reason they have a hard time selling is because of initial costs and lack of government subsidization in contrast to other forms.

[august948]

Very true.

 

I think that for this to actually work - there will have to be a large scale test bed: Either a fairly heavily populated county or city?  Maybe a town like Tulsa, or Colorado Springs?  Once we see a large scale area work, and work well, then roll-out of driverless tech will be more prevelant.

 

Can't you just see some area cities and small(er) minded city councils fighting this?  I can.  I can also certainly see Johnny Law fighting it too.

 

If google is a major player then I suspect somewhere in California will be the first to do this large scale.

 

What's most interesting about this is noodling out the unintended consequences.  For instance, some police departments are supposedly heavily dependant on traffic fines for operational funds.  if they can't cite automated cars will they try to ban them from their municipality? 

 

[arche_757]

For instance, some police departments are supposedly heavily dependant on traffic fines for operational funds.  if they can't cite automated cars will they try to ban them from their municipality? 

 

 

Exactly!  What is to keep certain municipalities from baning said vehicles?

 

And in regards to Google's involvement - I kind of figured that something would roll out in California, but my hope is that a more "neutral" city such as Colorado Springs, Tulsa or Birmingham (or similarly sized mid-major city) is the test bed.  Otherwise I feel that there may be a corporate bias that shows up if the test-city is too close to the Googleplex.

 

[livincinco]

Exactly!  What is to keep certain municipalities from baning said vehicles?

 

And in regards to Google's involvement - I kind of figured that something would roll out in California, but my hope is that a more "neutral" city such as Colorado Springs, Tulsa or Birmingham (or similarly sized mid-major city) is the test bed.  Otherwise I feel that there may be a corporate bias that shows up if the test-city is too close to the Googleplex.

 

 

In the short term, it looks like everything is getting built in a way that requires the ability of the driver to retake control, but I definitely can see laws requiring drivers to retain control of the vehicle inside that municipality.  Similar to the individual rules on phone usage.

 

I think that you'll also see municipalities apply laws regarding distracted driving. Don't forget though that most of the existing car manufacturers are working independent of Google and cooperation is by no means guaranteed at this point.  I wouldn't be surprised to see GM or Ford work closely with a "middle of the country" city.

Edited November 1, 2013 by livincinco