Driverless Cars and the Future

[Taem]

I've been giving this a lot of thought lately (traffic), and after reading reports on projected city growth versus new freeways being built or widened, I've come to the rather obvious conclusion that many experts have already stated that our current automobile system is unsustainable in it's current form into the near future due to space and cost expense. With the city of LA's population poised to double every ten-years or so, unless a significant amount of a cities income were set aside to battle these types of issues, then we will soon be gridlocked all of the time.

Which bring me to Governor Browns signing into law the allowing of driverless cars on the road. (wiki link here also); (video here). In theory, these cars can react faster than any human could to danger and see danger 360-degrees, and when more cars become driverless, they can interact with one-another, eventually going at top-speed down the freeway, breaking in unison to let in new drivers. This is really the wave of the future and we are not only on the cutting edge, but the only sustainable future for us, and Google has it nailed!

So what do you think of driverless cars? Current laws signed by Gov. Jerry Brown assert that a licensed driver still need to be behind the wheel in case of an emergency. What do you think about that?

I feel as more and more cars become driverless, this will become obsolete and eventually, fleets of taxi's will be ran from a computer owned by some billionaire. Kids will be able to taxi, elderly with their drivers license suspended, those with DUI's. It's the future I see coming.

I also feel the speed limit will become obsolete within mere decades of ALL (repeat ALL) cars becoming driverless, as the only limitations are of that of the car itself. And with that, I see there being a FAST, MEDIUM, and SLOW lane for cars, depending on how much you spent on your car. yes, cars - and the speed they maneuver - will become class dependent on how much money you have. This is inevitable.

Thoughts?

EDIT: Derp... forgot to add the most important part... So how will driverless cars change traffic? Because once all of America has driverless cars, the network which oversees their location and movement will be able to move cars where they need to be to minimize and maximize speed and space to allow every nook and cranny to be utilized. For example, cars can drive 100-MPH and be mere feet from one another (assuming all driverless cars have a full diagnostic system on-board to detect tire pressure, break system, etc.) allowing for a constant, quick flow. They will be able to adjust for slight variances and accidents and reroute efficiently. I'm sure there are more examples I can rack up later, but I must return to work.

[FireIceTalon]

This is interesting. As someone who used to live in LA, I always wondered why the freeways were always so ridiculously jam packed. The high population explanation didn't make sense to me because on the freeway you just go - there is no signals or pedestrians to stop you. I would get frustrated driving on them because I knew it was people wanting to get over last minute that was causing most of the congestion - there are no traffic signals there so it would frustrate the hell out of me cause I knew such jams could be avoided if people thought ahead and paid attention a little bit more instead of putting on makeup or talking on a cell phone. I can understand mass traffic and congestion on surface streets, because you have signals, pedestrians, intersections and what not, but on the freeway I never understood it, and in some ways I still cannot wrap my mind around it.

Driverless cars seem plausible to an extent, but I am not sure it can fully solve the problem of growing populations. No matter how accurate and responsive they are, when a population gets to a certain point, there will just be too many cars, driverless or not, to avoid traffic congestion. More than anything I see them as a personal convenience, and a way to at least greatly reduce accidents. I guess they are worth it for these things alone.

Also, cars have always been very class dependent. You don't see too many blue collar workers driving a Bentley, right?

[Alram]

Somebody will find a way to hack your car.

And. In a not quite related news article:

"Driverless Bus Collides With Driverless Truck

BEAVER FALLS, Pa. (October 25, 2012)--Police don't plan to cite the drivers of a truck and school bus which crashed in western Pennsylvania, but only because neither vehicle had a driver at the time.

Police in Patterson Township, Pa., told the Beaver County Times the incident happened just before 10 a.m. Tuesday when the parked bus began to roll down a hill.

Police aren't sure why that happened, because the driver had engaged the parking brake."

http://www.kwtx.com/news/offbeat/headlin...50891.html

[NuurAbSaal]

Well, I imagine people will be reluctant to hand over control over their safety to a computer (no matter if that would statistically be the safer option). Also, there are those that enjoy driving, me among them. This might still be the way of the future, but: in the future. I can't see this happening in the next fifty years.

People like to be in control or have the illusion of being in control.

take care
Tarabulus

[eppie]

Thoughts?

These exist for quite some time now already.
They are called trains.

No seriously, this is indeed the future of road traffic.
Maybe the implementation is difficult......the time when some cars have this technology and others don't. But they will find something for that.

[kandrathe]

I'm putting all my hopes on us being able to take advantage of the bendiness of space time. Of course, that is predicated on us figuring out our power problems and graduating from burning the remains of fossils.

[LavCat]

These exist for quite some time now already.
They are called trains.

Years ago, when I was working in the field of computer automation and process control, Dallas airport had a new computer controlled train. The first time I flew into Dallas the conductor informed us she was a computer and that we were perfectly safe (or words to that effect). My podmates began to laugh hysterically. As they regained their composure one shared with me: "We work for IBM."

[Nystul]

My last car's computer couldn't even tell reliably that I had the right key and was allowed to start the car. I shudder to think if it had been responsible for driving the thing.

Do automatic transmissions get better mileage than manuals yet?

[LochnarITB]

Do automatic transmissions get better mileage than manuals yet?

It depends. In most cases, a well practiced manual driver will still do better. However, automatics are closing the gap, especially with a CVT (continuously variable transmission). The CVT introduces some reliability issues as well as a driving experience that some don't like due to extra noise and the feel of acceleration and engine revving without the feel of shifts.

Of course (and you had to know this was coming), YMMV!

[Kevin]

Do automatic transmissions get better mileage than manuals yet?

It depends. In most cases, a well practiced manual driver will still do better. However, automatics are closing the gap, especially with a CVT (continuously variable transmission). The CVT introduces some reliability issues as well as a driving experience that some don't like due to extra noise and the feel of acceleration and engine revving without the feel of shifts.

Of course (and you had to know this was coming), YMMV!

Last time I looked BMW's and most of the Toyota offerings were getting better mileage on the automatics compared to the manual version, being tested with professional drivers. With computers doing shifting control in some cases they are programmed to shift in more fuel efficient manners.

[Taem]

Of course, that is predicated on us figuring out our power problems and graduating from burning the remains of fossils.

Assuming your serious on the power issue, then maybe you overlooked this post of mine? <LINK>

It addresses the power needs of America - hell, the world - in a very realistic and safe environment that can be dealt with as soon as today, if the powers that be were so inclined! And fuel for this is abundant, long-lasting, and cheap, and more importantly, can't be used to make nuclear weapons. I think if they find a way to safely contain the radiation, miniature Thorium reactors could be used to safely power cars - bye bye fossil fuels.

[Kevin]

I think if they find a way to safely contain the radiation, miniature Thorium reactors could be used to safely power cars - bye bye fossil fuels.

I still think Hydrogen fuel cells are already economically viable (better than electric) and wouldn't require nearly the infrastructure change that other methods would. They just don't carry the same profit margins that fossil fuel burning vehicle do, nor the government subsidies that hybrids/electrics do. They are no more dangerous than gasoline powered vehicles at this stage either, and well the byproduct is pure water. It just makes more sense to me than most other alternatives for powering transportation. Heck, Iceland is already in the process of switching all vehicles to hydrogen, London has Taxi fleets running on it.

[DeeBye]

They are no more dangerous than gasoline powered vehicles at this stage either, and well the byproduct is pure water.

I tried to explain to my son how burning hydrogen chemically results in water vapour and nothing else, but he doesn't believe me. It's like black magic.

[Alram]

In Texas we just opened a new stretch of highway at a speed of 85 MPH. Fast. It was road tested before allowing this high speed limit, and determined to be safe. The first day there were several accidents. All of them were caused by cars hitting feral hogs that were crossing the road at night. I hit a deer or it hit my car on 60 MPH on a dark unlit country road. It was impossible to avoid.

I don't know how driverless cars could go only a few feet from one another at high speeds when there are other road hazards that can occur besides car to car collisions. And how could cars realistically go at super fast speeds only a few feet apart when there is always the possibility of a sudden mechanical failure. That would cause a disastrous multicar pileup.. Nobody thought of the feral hogs when they made the 85 MPH speed limit. In theory I suppose a computer could react better than a human, but it would have to be programmed for a wide array of possibilities.

[LochnarITB]

I don't know how driverless cars could go only a few feet from one another at high speeds when there are other road hazards that can occur besides car to car collisions. And how could cars realistically go at super fast speeds only a few feet apart when there is always the possibility of a sudden mechanical failure. That would cause a disastrous multicar pileup.

I doubt that there would ever be a system that maintains the cars at just a few feet at speed. There would still be spacing to allow for braking even with the reaction time a computerized driver would bring. One thing to remember is that, short of a concrete wall suddenly popping up in front of a car, momentum will keep a car moving forward even with hog parts spattered on its front or its engine turning into a paper weight. A computer does not get shocked or frightened and simply reacts to the changing conditions. It would slow the vehicle to change course or stop in a controlled manner, as would following vehicles detecting a change of proximity. Things like rollovers and lane jumping caused by things like striking a feral hog are actually the result of the human driver trying to take inappropriate corrective measures.

[swirly]

I doubt that there would ever be a system that maintains the cars at just a few feet at speed.

I wonder if a solution to this might be a no-space system. Have the cars built with the ability to attach to each other. They are all computer controlled and so can communicate with each other (wirelessly before connection) to determine when paths line up long enough to connect and when space is needed. They would arrange themselves such that vehicles going the same way for a certain amount of time would attach to reduce drag, share workloads, and react to problems as a combined system instead of individually. Could maybe have the attachment mechanisms built such that a car failing gets supported by the other cars it is attached to so that it can fail gracefully. Like brakes failing gets communicated and the other cars help it stop. Just a crazy idea that came to mine from reading your post.

[LochnarITB]

I doubt that there would ever be a system that maintains the cars at just a few feet at speed.

I wonder if a solution to this might be a no-space system. Have the cars built with the ability to attach to each other. They are all computer controlled and so can communicate with each other (wirelessly before connection) to determine when paths line up long enough to connect and when space is needed. They would arrange themselves such that vehicles going the same way for a certain amount of time would attach to reduce drag, share workloads, and react to problems as a combined system instead of individually. Could maybe have the attachment mechanisms built such that a car failing gets supported by the other cars it is attached to so that it can fail gracefully. Like brakes failing gets communicated and the other cars help it stop. Just a crazy idea that came to mine from reading your post.

Actually, I almost added something to that effect. I started to type "unless they were to train together". It would be a great idea for freeway situations like long distance commuters. It would maybe even be the first type of application where the masses would accept it. Drive yourself to the onramp. The system sync light comes on. You open your morning paper or lay back for a little nap and off you go as Autobot eases you into your space. You get close to your offramp and the car gently alerts you. If something did happen, and you were run off the road, your experience might be 'What the hell happened? All of a sudden, this car turned into a cannoli.'

[DeeBye]

Have the cars built with the ability to attach to each other. They are all computer controlled and so can communicate with each other (wirelessly before connection) to determine when paths line up long enough to connect and when space is needed.

Years of multiplayer gaming experience has taught me that some guy will "mod" his car's computer to intentionally grief everyone else and have a hearty guffaw at the chaos he has caused, while also calling my mom names.

[swirly]

his car's

This made me ponder the effect automated cars could have on public transportation. Buses probably wouldn't change too much. They might lose the driver, but otherwise would stay pretty similar. Though hopefully even cheaper? Taxi services could be more interesting though. They could just leave empty cars in designated areas. You walk up, scan a CC (or some kind of ID/prepaid thing), and get in. If you knew you needed one you could order one online and it would drive itself to your house. No interacting with people/drivers at all. Without the cost of paying drivers and some possible usage gains (more efficient driving? Less hard on the engine driving? The less drag spoken of before if linking happened) maybe the cost of such would go down to where for many it becomes cheaper than owning a car yourself?

[Archon_Wing]

Hmm, considering who they grant a license to in the US (honestly, this includes me), I seriously think the roads would be safer. :p Especially in situations where people may be tired after a long day and reaction times may be delayed. Or in less than optimal weather conditions.

The issue is, is the automation truly superior to human reaction time? And decision making isn't an easy thing to program I'd assume.

The only worry is somehow exploiting this for malicious purposes. Not sure of what though yet.