Driverless cars

[august948]

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.

 

 

Given the slowness of government processes when building roads and making improvements I suspect corporate players are going to have to step up with investment money for something like that until the technology catches on.  They also need someplace where they've got the political clout to get things done.  That could be a neutral city, but one small enough for the dollars to make a large impact on the local political process (jobs, fees, etc).  With the number of players diving into this we could see multiple locations unless they form some sort of industry association for driverless cars to combine forces.  Not that unlikely given the size and scope of what needs to be done.

 

[infinite_jim]

If the major insurance companies buy in, driver-less cars will be here to stay. As with architecture, what insurance is willing to cover is what gets built.

[august948]

If the major insurance companies buy in, driver-less cars will be here to stay. As with architecture, what insurance is willing to cover is what gets built.

 

Good point.  Makes me also wonder how long it will be til new cars are required to have the black-boxes several insurance companies are now touting.

 

[Subdude]

Given the slowness of government processes when building roads and making improvements I suspect corporate players are going to have to step up with investment money for something like that until the technology catches on.  They also need someplace where they've got the political clout to get things done.  That could be a neutral city, but one small enough for the dollars to make a large impact on the local political process (jobs, fees, etc).  With the number of players diving into this we could see multiple locations unless they form some sort of industry association for driverless cars to combine forces.  Not that unlikely given the size and scope of what needs to be done.

 

 

I think you are right that it will take a major push from business, someone with the heft of Google, to have rules for driverless cars implemented.  Ideally the NTSA would take the lead to develop national standards early in the process, but as we've seen with the process of getting ipads approved on airplanes, the federal government finds it hard to lead on technology issues. 

[arche_757]

I think the greatest challenge for this system - if we're talking city streets based and not just for interstate travel is:

 

The ease with which we can change our destinations by simply turning a wheel and following whatever whim we so choose.  With a programmed auto the user will need to alter the route in the computer/input device somehow, and that requires the user to have a general sense of direction and purpose to their outing.  I'll bet around 40% of our weekly driving is somewhat random.  That randomness is what I believe will make the first few generations of these vehicles something of an outlier in car sales and even interest.  I think it will even cause quite a few people some restlessness in the idea that they are to an extent giving up some freedom to have a machine that needs to be programmed prior to use.

 

Think of it this way - what if you had to tell the computer on your desk (or lap) which sequence of events to do first...

 

Imagine starting it and then saying: "This is what I want to do today"  "Word, internet to check emails, internet to log-in to my favorite forum, internet to find a recipe, word, then spreadsheet for work, then itunes to purchase a song...etc"  You see that requires you to formulate a pattern that will need to be thought out first, rather than simply executed as you accomplish task after task (or waste time by writting on this forum for instance).

 

I'm not sure that makes sense?  If not I'll try and explain better.

[Slick Vik]

I think the greatest challenge for this system - if we're talking city streets based and not just for interstate travel is:

The ease with which we can change our destinations by simply turning a wheel and following whatever whim we so choose. With a programmed auto the user will need to alter the route in the computer/input device somehow, and that requires the user to have a general sense of direction and purpose to their outing. I'll bet around 40% of our weekly driving is somewhat random. That randomness is what I believe will make the first few generations of these vehicles something of an outlier in car sales and even interest. I think it will even cause quite a few people some restlessness in the idea that they are to an extent giving up some freedom to have a machine that needs to be programmed prior to use.

Think of it this way - what if you had to tell the computer on your desk (or lap) which sequence of events to do first...

Imagine starting it and then saying: "This is what I want to do today" "Word, internet to check emails, internet to log-in to my favorite forum, internet to find a recipe, word, then spreadsheet for work, then itunes to purchase a song...etc" You see that requires you to formulate a pattern that will need to be thought out first, rather than simply executed as you accomplish task after task (or waste time by writting on this forum for instance).

I'm not sure that makes sense? If not I'll try and explain better.

You can't take FREEDOM away from a Texan.

[livincinco]

I think the greatest challenge for this system - if we're talking city streets based and not just for interstate travel is:

The ease with which we can change our destinations by simply turning a wheel and following whatever whim we so choose. With a programmed auto the user will need to alter the route in the computer/input device somehow, and that requires the user to have a general sense of direction and purpose to their outing. I'll bet around 40% of our weekly driving is somewhat random. That randomness is what I believe will make the first few generations of these vehicles something of an outlier in car sales and even interest. I think it will even cause quite a few people some restlessness in the idea that they are to an extent giving up some freedom to have a machine that needs to be programmed prior to use.

Think of it this way - what if you had to tell the computer on your desk (or lap) which sequence of events to do first...

Imagine starting it and then saying: "This is what I want to do today" "Word, internet to check emails, internet to log-in to my favorite forum, internet to find a recipe, word, then spreadsheet for work, then itunes to purchase a song...etc" You see that requires you to formulate a pattern that will need to be thought out first, rather than simply executed as you accomplish task after task (or waste time by writting on this forum for instance).

I'm not sure that makes sense? If not I'll try and explain better.

I think I understand your point, but not sure why you feel that it would need to be that pre-planned. I don't see any reason why you would have to plan out a sequence of events any more than you currently do. I don't see any reason that you wouldn't be able to determine your tasks serially or change your mind en route.

[august948]

I think I understand your point, but not sure why you feel that it would need to be that pre-planned. I don't see any reason why you would have to plan out a sequence of events any more than you currently do. I don't see any reason that you wouldn't be able to determine your tasks serially or change your mind en route.

 

That would be an interesting option, though.  Maybe integrate your daily task list with the car's computer so not only can you work on it while the car drives itself, but the car can pick up it's tasks (destinations) and sequence them in the best order.  That kind of integration could be a major productivity booster.

 

[arche_757]

My point was - what about the travel that is somewhat unexpected?

 

Of course what I'm talking about is probably something much further down the road - 2nd or 3rd generation of these vehicles?  I can imagine a touch pad where you can move a route around and indicate stops etc for different businesses... but I think that sort of device is really quite complicated and would be reliant upon a whole network of linked systems.

 

I imagine security would also need to be VERY tight, or else this system would be easily manipulated via hackers and the like.

[livincinco]

Morgan Stanley is predicting 100% market penetration of autonomous cars by 2026.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/27/morgan-stanley-autonomous-cars-prediction_n_4867613.html

[Slick Vik]

Even if all cars are driverless does it really make sense to have a system where people are forced to shell out tens of thousands of dollars to buy a vehicle every few years? All vehicles have a shelf life.

I understand if you have various options but if you live somewhere like houston then for the most part you don't have an option. And I think people in this country should have options, otherwise you're living in a monopolistic society, and that's good for only the people involved in that industry and those associated with it.

[livincinco]

Even if all cars are driverless does it really make sense to have a system where people are forced to shell out tens of thousands of dollars to buy a vehicle every few years? All vehicles have a shelf life.

I understand if you have various options but if you live somewhere like houston then for the most part you don't have an option. And I think people in this country should have options, otherwise you're living in a monopolistic society, and that's good for only the people involved in that industry and those associated with it.

One of the major advantages of autonomous cars is the fact that it doesn't require car ownership, but instead lends itself perfectly to ride sharing capabilities. You call a car when you need it. Pay for the use of it while you have it and then it goes to the next person. It's a pretty natural evolution of services like Uber and ZipCar.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2014/01/what-will-happen-public-transit-world-full-autonomous-cars/8131/

[Slick Vik]

One of the major advantages of autonomous cars is the fact that it doesn't require car ownership, but instead lends itself perfectly to ride sharing capabilities. You call a car when you need it. Pay for the use of it while you have it and then it goes to the next person. It's a pretty natural evolution of services like Uber and ZipCar.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2014/01/what-will-happen-public-transit-world-full-autonomous-cars/8131/

I have my doubts as to if this will work for high levels of population. Who is to say there will be enough vehicles in a fleet to serve millions of people?

[livincinco]

I have my doubts as to if this will work for high levels of population. Who is to say there will be enough vehicles in a fleet to serve millions of people?

 

Depends on what the business model is.  If it's private and for-profit, I would say that it's pretty likely that there will be multiple companies competing and plenty of vehicles in the fleet.  If it's government run and subsidized, I have a lot less confidence that it will be executed correctly.

 

I'd much rather see it run as a regulated private marketplace with a government subsidy for the underprivileged (a la food stamps).

 

[mfastx]

Driverless cars are great and certainly are what the future holds.

However, there is still a place for rail and buses due to the simple fact that in very large cities, there is not enough space for everyone to have their own car. Even if they are automated, it would still be very inconvenient for people in large cities.

[livincinco]

Driverless cars are great and certainly are what the future holds.

However, there is still a place for rail and buses due to the simple fact that in very large cities, there is not enough space for everyone to have their own car. Even if they are automated, it would still be very inconvenient for people in large cities.

No question about that, but I would suggest that it changes the decision making process for transit planners because it changes a lot about capacity and utilization of highways. Autonomous trucks have much more opportunity to function at off hours relieving peak capacity. Buses become much more flexible because of the capability of stacking buses so that they function essentially as train cars. For example, it would be relatively easy to run five buses at a time through a Park & Ride during peak because they no longer need to be staffed.

I'm not a fan of light rail, but subways certainly make sense in very dense areas.

[Slick Vik]

Depends on what the business model is. If it's private and for-profit, I would say that it's pretty likely that there will be multiple companies competing and plenty of vehicles in the fleet. If it's government run and subsidized, I have a lot less confidence that it will be executed correctly.

I'd much rather see it run as a regulated private marketplace with a government subsidy for the underprivileged (a la food stamps).

Define plenty

Driverless cars are great and certainly are what the future holds.

However, there is still a place for rail and buses due to the simple fact that in very large cities, there is not enough space for everyone to have their own car. Even if they are automated, it would still be very inconvenient for people in large cities.

Agreed there is only so much room

[Slick Vik]

No question about that, but I would suggest that it changes the decision making process for transit planners because it changes a lot about capacity and utilization of highways. Autonomous trucks have much more opportunity to function at off hours relieving peak capacity. Buses become much more flexible because of the capability of stacking buses so that they function essentially as train cars. For example, it would be relatively easy to run five buses at a time through a Park & Ride during peak because they no longer need to be staffed.

I'm not a fan of light rail, but subways certainly make sense in very dense areas.

For once I agree with you to an extent. If labor is removed than frequency is increased. A good example is Vancouver skytrain where on the Canada line driverless cars are used and frequency is every 3 minutes.

I don't know why this technology isn't used more but it's restricted to grade separated rail so it wouldn't help in houston. Light rail is a cheaper substitute to subways in dense corridors in houston that developers like. As someone who loves business I would think you would support that.

[livincinco]

Define plenty

 

Plenty is when supply is sufficient to meet demand.

 

[livincinco]

For once I agree with you to an extent. If labor is removed than frequency is increased. A good example is Vancouver skytrain where on the Canada line driverless cars are used and frequency is every 3 minutes.

I don't know why this technology isn't used more but it's restricted to grade separated rail so it wouldn't help in houston. Light rail is a cheaper substitute to subways in dense corridors in houston that developers like. As someone who loves business I would think you would support that.

 

I don't like light rail because it requires dedicated infrastructure that can't be used for multiple purposes.  It has virtually no capacity advantage over well run BRT. It's not cost effective for the ridership that it supports, and I believe that 50 years from now, most cities are going to be regretting the amount of money that they invested in these systems as automotive technology continues to develop.  Any other questions?

 

[Slick Vik]

I don't like light rail because it requires dedicated infrastructure that can't be used for multiple purposes.  It has virtually no capacity advantage over well run BRT. It's not cost effective for the ridership that it supports, and I believe that 50 years from now, most cities are going to be regretting the amount of money that they invested in these systems as automotive technology continues to develop.  Any other questions?

 

 

1. So does BRT, but you support BRT.

 

2. This is true up to a point, once you hit a certain demand then buses don't cut it anymore.

 

3. This is hypothetical thinking and not good enough to justify not investing now. At one time people thought we would be like the Jetsons also, what happened? Is the whole rest of the world stupid?

[livincinco]

1. So does BRT, but you support BRT.

 

2. This is true up to a point, once you hit a certain demand then buses don't cut it anymore.

 

3. This is hypothetical thinking and not good enough to justify not investing now. At one time people thought we would be like the Jetsons also, what happened? Is the whole rest of the world stupid?

 

1. Not really, BRT just requires dedicated lanes during hours of operation.  Those lanes could be easily used for freight during off-hours.  Additionally those lanes could be utilized for disaster evacuation planning.  LRT does not achieve either of those purposes.

2. Curitiba moves 2.3 million passengers a day through a 66 mile BRT system.  Dallas runs 95,000 passengers a day through a 85 mile LRT system.  Capacity doesn't overly concern me.

 

3.  That's why driverless will be a private system.  Government will sit back and say that it's hypothetical until after it happens and then they'll be trying to figure out how to respond to it.  Mercedes, Nissan, Ford, Google, Audi, Tesla,  and BMW are among the companies that are investing heavily in it and are all racing to be first to market with it.  Tesla recently announced that they will have a car that is capable of handling 90% control automatically on the market in three years. 

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-driverless-cars-elon-musk-2013-9

 

BTW, you might want to look at the "hypothetical" 2014 Mercedes S550 which features "Traffic Jam Assist" which allows the driver to enable autonomous driving when the car is traveling at up to 37 mph.  It also keeps the car in lane while driving autonomously. 

 

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1306_2014_mercedes_benz_s550_first_drive/

 

I'd discount that too.  After all, it's just Mercedes, it's not like they have any history of innovations that then lead to widespread adoption.

 

http://www.mbusa.com/mercedes/benz/innovation

[Slick Vik]

1. Not really, BRT just requires dedicated lanes during hours of operation. Those lanes could be easily used for freight during off-hours. Additionally those lanes could be utilized for disaster evacuation planning. LRT does not achieve either of those purposes.

2. Curitiba moves 2.3 million passengers a day through a 66 mile BRT system. Dallas runs 95,000 passengers a day through a 85 mile LRT system. Capacity doesn't overly concern me.

3. That's why driverless will be a private system. Government will sit back and say that it's hypothetical until after it happens and then they'll be trying to figure out how to respond to it. Mercedes, Nissan, Ford, Google, Audi, Tesla, and BMW are among the companies that are investing heavily in it and are all racing to be first to market with it. Tesla recently announced that they will have a car that is capable of handling 90% control automatically on the market in three years.

http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-driverless-cars-elon-musk-2013-9

BTW, you might want to look at the "hypothetical" 2014 Mercedes S550 which features "Traffic Jam Assist" which allows the driver to enable autonomous driving when the car is traveling at up to 37 mph. It also keeps the car in lane while driving autonomously.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1306_2014_mercedes_benz_s550_first_drive/

I'd discount that too. After all, it's just Mercedes, it's not like they have any history of innovations that then lead to widespread adoption.

http://www.mbusa.com/mercedes/benz/innovation

Have you been to cities with BRT? Those lanes are for buses only 24/7.

Curutiba has reached capacity and is investing in subways as a result.

This is all speculation

[livincinco]

Have you been to cities with BRT? Those lanes are for buses only 24/7.

Curutiba has reached capacity and is investing in subways as a result.

This is all speculation

Curitiba has a good plan then. I think Houston should follow it. Invest heavily in BRT and then convert to subway when ridership hits 2 million passengers a day.

[livincinco]

California is on track to create rules for driverless cars before the end of the year. They would be the first state to adopt a full set of rules related to widespread use. (Three states have adopted rules related to legalizing testing of autonomous cars).

http://www.chron.com/news/us/article/California-pushes-to-finish-driverless-car-rules-5309034.php

[livincinco]

Interesting description of the capabilities of Google's car driving on city streets.

 

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/technology/2014/04/first-look-how-googles-self-driving-car-handles-city-streets/8977/

 

[Sparrow]

To boost the public's confidence in driverless cars wouldn't it be more prudent to start in a closed system with far fewer variables to contend with? Not just on the automation side of things mind you, but also from the public perception viewpoint. I'd be much more confident in a system like the HOV lane where there won't be any stoplights or pedestrians to contend with. I could see a driverless car lane in the place of the HOV lane on highways that allow much higher speeds than current systems. Seeing cars zoom by at 100 mph while I'm stuck in bumper to bumper traffic would make me want to give it a try.