http://jalopnik.com/next-porsche-911-might-might-not-come-with-a-manual-t-1771097480 (http://jalopnik.com/next-porsche-911-might-might-not-come-with-a-manual-t-1771097480)
A bridge too far mon
Meanwhile I'm pretty sure that both the Cayenne and Panamera will retain their manual options and naturally aspirated engines
What is going on at Porsche? I hate the hipster cliches but they seem to be.... losing their way. Then again when they were at peak Porsche (964-993 gen IMO) they were on the brink of bankruptcy
click bait
Just buy a 1993 Geo Metro if you want a manual. :dance:
Umm, panamera never had a manual option.
Quote from: MrH on April 15, 2016, 05:46:12 AM
Umm, panamera never had a manual option.
IIRC the V6 models came with a manual as standard. But the take rate was very low.
Quote from: MrH on April 15, 2016, 05:46:12 AM
Umm, panamera never had a manual option.
They did man, Google it.
I'm just guessing that the burnout rate of clutches is high, and most people are willing to just go a computer-shifter.
I think going DSG/DCT/PDK or whatever brand name they want to use on the Hi-Po models makes sense. But for the day to day sports car that are just for hobbyists/enthusiasts I think offering a manual transmissions has to continue, no? I cannot see myself buying a car like a 911 (or some equivalent sports car) and not getting a manual transmission. I know it isn't max performance but it is simply more fun for some folks.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 15, 2016, 06:26:55 AM
They did man, Google it.
Not in the US? At least I didn't think it came here. If it was offered, I think it was V6, RWD only. And there are probably 5 in the country. If that's the case, is that really any different than not offering it at all?
If true, it's all over.
I've already come to terms with the fact that the auto industry is changing in major ways. But then again, I believe that autonomous vehicles will out number conventional vehicles in my lifetime, which doesn't seem to be a commonly held viewpoint around here.
Either way, as long as it doesn't get wrecked, I already own my lifelong sports car. I was hoping to supplement it with other fun cars along the way, but there's no reason why those can't be cars that already exist today, or DCTs if I want a proper track car.
BYOSC
Build your own sports car. It's the way of the future. "Kit" cars and old school builds.
Quote from: CaminoRacer on April 15, 2016, 10:06:51 PM
BYOSC
Build your own sports car. It's the way of the future. "Kit" cars and old school builds.
No way it'll be legal to drive that shit on the road once driving becomes an app on your phone.
I imagine it must be annoying for performance purists to see the sports car market moving to automated transmissions while some lackluster and boring economy car can still be gotten with a manual. But even in that niche more and more customers are going for automated transmissions.
This idea that getting around will be a phone app any time soon is optimistic at best and ridiculous at worst IMO for reasons I've laid out ad nauseum. Just the logistics of a wholesale transformation doesn't make sense. What happens to the 300 million human driven vehicles on the road? Think this through guys
Quote from: CaminoRacer on April 15, 2016, 10:06:51 PM
BYOSC
Build your own sports car. It's the way of the future. "Kit" cars and old school builds.
I am with this. Again if its legal to ride a fcuking motorcycle on the street it should be fine to drive a kit car as long as it passes emissions. I think the passage of such a law would be a much bigger threat to conventional sports cars than the manufactured irrational spectre of the wholesale autonomous switch.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 16, 2016, 06:58:49 AM
I am with this. Again if its legal to ride a fcuking motorcycle on the street it should be fine to drive a kit car as long as it passes emissions. I think the passage of such a law would be a much bigger threat to conventional sports cars than the manufactured irrational spectre of the wholesale autonomous switch.
They passed that law that allows kit car builders to make up to 500 cars a year and get them registered IIRC. Shelby Cobras, Lotus 7s, etc. with high build quality are now even easier to get.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 16, 2016, 06:57:19 AM
This idea that getting around will be a phone app any time soon is optimistic at best and ridiculous at worst IMO for reasons I've laid out ad nauseum. Just the logistics of a wholesale transformation doesn't make sense. What happens to the 300 million human driven vehicles on the road? Think this through guys
They'll be phased out just like phones without GPS chips. It'll become illegal to produce them, then illegal to sell them, then they'll do some C4C-like program to encourage people to get them off the roads. Then millennials can text their way to work.
Quote from: Raza on April 16, 2016, 03:26:35 PM
They'll be phased out just like phones without GPS chips. It'll become illegal to produce them, then illegal to sell them, then they'll do some C4C-like program to encourage people to get them off the roads. Then millennials can text their way to work.
Phones without GPS chips are illegal to produce/sell?
And when do you see this happening?
What will happen to the 300 million cars on the road?
Where will the $9T come from?
Do you really think this mass property confiscation would come with no pushback?
For the love of everything rational please think these things through. You can't complain about faulty premises and continue on this panicked crusade.
I think manual driving will become illegal or severely restricted in about 30-40 years. It will be seen as an unnecessary risk to the public. Why should a bunch of old coots be allowed hoon around putting innocent children at risk in their environmentally damaging old cars?
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on April 16, 2016, 05:12:21 PM
I think manual driving will become illegal or severely restricted in about 30-40 years. It will be seen as an unnecessary risk to the public. Why should a bunch of old coots be allowed hoon around putting innocent children at risk in their environmentally damaging old cars?
A manual transmission is also kind of annoying and dangerous when you're driving and want to update your Facebook status or take a selfie. :thumbsup:
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 16, 2016, 04:03:43 PM
Phones without GPS chips are illegal to produce/sell?
Yeah, for years now. I remember a long time ago a cell phone company said that if they deactivated my mother's Motorola Timeport, they would, by law, not be allowed to reactivate it because it doesn't have GPS.
Quote
And when do you see this happening?
In the future.
Quote
What will happen to the 300 million cars on the road?
They will eventually fall into disrepair and be taken off the road through the natural course of things or be traded in as part of a Cash 4 Clunkers type program. I couldn't have been more clear about that.
Quote
Where will the $9T come from?
When did I say anything about $9 trillion? I don't remember that.
Quote
Do you really think this mass property confiscation would come with no pushback?
I didn't say confiscation. Not once. You did.
Quote
For the love of everything rational please think these things through. You can't complain about faulty premises and continue on this panicked crusade.
The only faulty premises are the ones you put in my mouth. I didn't say half the shit you're asking me about.
Quote from: Raza on April 17, 2016, 10:32:28 AM
Yeah, for years now. I remember a long time ago a cell phone company said that if they deactivated my mother's Motorola Timeport, they would, by law, not be allowed to reactivate it because it doesn't have GPS.
There is no current law requiring that cell phones be fitted with GPS. There are regulations, related to the E911 system, that require telephone service providers (wired or wireless) be able to locate the geographic origin of a call within a certain accuracy. For cell phones, that can be accomplished either via GPS or via triangulating the signal using the cell tower network. Back in 2011, the FCC passed a rule stating that the accuracy of location for all phone types (including VoIP) will be tightened considerably starting in 2018. Currently, tower triangulation is not accurate enough to meet this new accuracy requirement, so in all likelihood that will mean GPS in all cell phones unless somebody can find a way to get the required accuracy without using GPS.
Quote from: MX793 on April 17, 2016, 10:51:46 AM
There is no current law requiring that cell phones be fitted with GPS. There are regulations, related to the E911 system, that require telephone service providers (wired or wireless) be able to locate the geographic origin of a call within a certain accuracy. For cell phones, that can be accomplished either via GPS or via triangulating the signal using the cell tower network. Back in 2011, the FCC passed a rule stating that the accuracy of location for all phone types (including VoIP) will be tightened considerably starting in 2018. Currently, tower triangulation is not accurate enough to meet this new accuracy requirement, so in all likelihood that will mean GPS in all cell phones unless somebody can find a way to get the required accuracy without using GPS.
Different road, same destination.
Quote from: Raza on April 17, 2016, 10:59:57 AM
Different road, same destination.
Point being, there's no requirement for it today (nor was there one several years ago). Technically, there won't be a requirement for it when the tighter accuracy of location standards come into effect. Also, I should probably amend my statement that network/tower accuracy can't meet the new requirement. Current requirements for location are <50ft for GPS based systems and <100ft for network based solutions. The requirement coming in 2018 (or maybe later, the articles I found from 5 years ago call that a "no sooner than" date) tightens the accuracy to <50ft for any solution. I'm not a cell expert, but it's possible that current network solutions are already achieving that.
Quote from: MX793 on April 17, 2016, 11:29:29 AM
Point being, there's no requirement for it today (nor was there one several years ago). Technically, there won't be a requirement for it when the tighter accuracy of location standards come into effect. Also, I should probably amend my statement that network/tower accuracy can't meet the new requirement. Current requirements for location are <50ft for GPS based systems and <100ft for network based solutions. The requirement coming in 2018 (or maybe later, the articles I found from 5 years ago call that a "no sooner than" date) tightens the accuracy to <50ft for any solution. I'm not a cell expert, but it's possible that current network solutions are already achieving that.
Regardless, a rule or law results in GPS essentially being mandatory for cell phones.
Quote from: Raza on April 17, 2016, 11:31:34 AM
Regardless, a rule or law results in GPS essentially being mandatory for cell phones.
Not if network accuracy meets the tighter limits. Then it's up to the service providers as to whether they require GPS on the phones on their network or not.
Quote from: MX793 on April 17, 2016, 11:35:01 AM
Not if network accuracy meets the tighter limits. Then it's up to the service providers as to whether they require GPS on the phones on their network or not.
Currently.
Quote from: Raza on April 17, 2016, 10:32:28 AM
In the future.
They will eventually fall into disrepair and be taken off the road through the natural course of things or be traded in as part of a Cash 4 Clunkers type program. I couldn't have been more clear about that.
This doesn't make any sense
If these automated cars cannot operate on the roads with human driven cars, then all the human driven cars have to come off the road a lot faster than the "natural course of things" will allow. If autonomous cars can operate with human driven cars on the same roads then your whole fatalist conclusion falls apart. So which is it?
Quote from: Raza on April 17, 2016, 10:32:28 AMWhen did I say anything about $9 trillion? I don't remember that.
That is how much it will cost, based on average new car prices, to replace all the cars on the road. And that is conservative because a lot of the 300 million vehicles on the road are commercial vehicles.
Quote from: Raza on April 17, 2016, 10:32:28 AMI didn't say confiscation. Not once. You did.
You argue that human driven cars on the road will become illegal. OK, not exactly confiscation, but largely the same result since all human driven cars will largely become worthless under the passage of said law.
Quote from: Raza on April 17, 2016, 10:32:28 AMThe only faulty premises are the ones you put in my mouth. I didn't say half the shit you're asking me about.
You still haven't demonstrated exactly how this will all play out. Where is the political will? Where is the money? Where is the precedent? Can you give us some kind of ball park timeline? You are just projecting your control issues onto this issue and hoping nobody asks for details. It's silly. Even if human driven cars are "outlawed", just by pure logistics it probably won't happen in our lifetimes.
It's too expensive to switch all cars at once. Autonomous cars have to be able to function with human driven vehicles, or they'll never make it. Everyone is designing based on that assumption so far.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 17, 2016, 12:24:12 PM
This doesn't make any sense
If these automated cars cannot operate on the roads with human driven cars, then all the human driven cars have to come off the road a lot faster than the "natural course of things" will allow. If autonomous cars can operate with human driven cars on the same roads then your whole fatalist conclusion falls apart. So which is it?
Who said can't? And no, it doesn't fall apart if they can operate with driven cars as well. For the same reason people who say "When I was young, we didn't have seatbelts and we survived" are ridiculed. Just because something can be done safely doesn't mean the government is going to continue to allow us to do it.
Quote
That is how much it will cost, based on average new car prices, to replace all the cars on the road. And that is conservative because a lot of the 300 million vehicles on the road are commercial vehicles.
This number seems dubious. How much it will cost whom? The total cost of millions of people gradually changing over?
Though I will say I didn't think about commercial vehicles. I'll have to get back to you on that.
Quote
You argue that human driven cars on the road will become illegal. OK, not exactly confiscation, but largely the same result since all human driven cars will largely become worthless under the passage of said law.
Not exactly illegal. I posited a ban or effective ban on the production and sale of new cars. I'm sure a few would stick around as second cars, museum pieces, heirlooms, and collector cars. Eventually the manually driven cars that are on the road will be the only ones available at a certain date.
Quote
You still haven't demonstrated exactly how this will all play out.
So?
Quote
Where is the political will?
It'll get there when the money gets behind automated cars. When GM and Ford start lobbying that this is the way forward and then some liberal weenies and conservative crusaders jump in screaming "think of the children!", the political will will be there.
Quote
Where is the money?
This money you speak of is dubious.
Quote
Where is the precedent?
Cigarettes. Manual transmissions.
Quote
Can you give us some kind of ball park timeline?
No.
Quote
You are just projecting your control issues onto this issue and hoping nobody asks for details. It's silly. Even if human driven cars are "outlawed", just by pure logistics it probably won't happen in our lifetimes.
When did I say it was going to happen in our lifetimes? In fact, in the past, I've explicitly stated it won't happen in our lifetime because of the legal liability issues alone.
Quote from: MrH on April 17, 2016, 12:43:15 PM
It's too expensive to switch all cars at once. Autonomous cars have to be able to function with human driven vehicles, or they'll never make it. Everyone is designing based on that assumption so far.
I agree; which is why I said they'll be phased out over time. Sporty doesn't seem to understand that "over time" means "not all at once". Cars--basically any car--eventually, through time, becomes impracticable to keep running. When that happens, as time goes on, and there are fewer and fewer, if any, manually driven cars on the market, real cars will start to die off.
So many holes. Cigarettes and manual transmissions are still legal, there is no ban on them. Most people don't buy new cars so again without some kind of infeasible ban or mass confiscation the transition will take at least 20 years based on optimistic sales figures. Etc. etc. There are just so many huge flaming hoops for the country to jump through for your nightmare to become a reality we will see any time soon. W/e man.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 17, 2016, 02:01:51 PM
So many holes. Cigarettes and manual transmissions are still legal, there is no ban on them. Most people don't buy new cars so again without some kind of infeasible ban or mass confiscation the transition will take at least 20 years based on optimistic sales figures. Etc. etc. There are just so many huge flaming hoops for the country to jump through for your nightmare to become a reality we will see any time soon. W/e man.
So all of a sudden the champion of automated cars says it won't happen?
Quote from: Raza on April 17, 2016, 03:34:35 PM
So all of a sudden the champion of automated cars says it won't happen?
Bro I have always said the same thing. There are a lot of upsides to autonomous cars, but they are not going to happen in any big way any time soon, for a lot of pretty obvious and huge reasons. Similarly the idea that human driven cars will be outlawed is.... far fetched, to be nice. I have never said autonomous cars will happen any time soon
I should bookmark that post so I can unearth it for laughs after the machines have taken over.
Because, seriously, autonomous cars are already among us. redshift was probably taunting us gassers from his smartphone while his Tesla was automatically dealing with the hwy 101 slog.
Welp, I work with machine vision technology - optical, laser, 2D and 3D ("autonomous" cars might be using other tech such as radar or whatever but same difference) - and factory automation in general and I'm definitely in the "not in our lifetimes" camp, esp. once I throw in a bit of my process engineering experience. It's easy to make a process work at the 98th percentile, but that is a billion miles away from being a viable process (just think if the airline industry had a 98% success record - you'd have ~600 airline crashes a day).
We're only going to have viable autonomous cars with mammoth (catastrophic, really) upgrades to road infrastructure to increase process performance and minimize variation (standardized road infrastructure, including mitigation techniques for weather, such as 100% lighted/fenced roads, etc.). I'm sure Apple, Google, etc., like the PR and get a good bump out of giving their hotshot folks a project, but autonomous cars are right up there much of "new" tech these days - from Musk's Hyperloop to Bezos's "everyone a chance to fly in space" to the laughable boondoggle of Google's Makani - it's sorta interesting but simply not viable, and everyone knows it.
Even if viable, it yet be another example of Big Tech's complicitness in the violations of rights of WtP (you're not gonna have autonomous cars without the network being regulated by government), so best to thank your gods for unanswered prayers.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 18, 2016, 01:14:52 AM
Welp, I work with machine vision technology - optical, laser, 2D and 3D ("autonomous" cars might be using other tech such as radar or whatever but same difference) - and factory automation in general and I'm definitely in the "not in our lifetimes" camp, esp. once I throw in a bit of my process engineering experience. It's easy to make a process work at the 98th percentile, but that is a billion miles away from being a viable process (just think if the airline industry had a 98% success record - you'd have ~600 airline crashes a day).
We're only going to have viable autonomous cars with mammoth (catastrophic, really) upgrades to road infrastructure to increase process performance and minimize variation (standardized road infrastructure, including mitigation techniques for weather, such as 100% lighted/fenced roads, etc.). I'm sure Apple, Google, etc., like the PR and get a good bump out of giving their hotshot folks a project, but autonomous cars are right up there much of "new" tech these days - from Musk's Hyperloop to Bezos's "everyone a chance to fly in space" to the laughable boondoggle of Google's Makani - it's sorta interesting but simply not viable, and everyone knows it.
Even if viable, it yet be another example of Big Tech's complicitness in the violations of rights of WtP (you're not gonna have autonomous cars without the network being regulated by government), so best to thank your gods for unanswered prayers.
LOLOLOLOLOL
Guess you missed the car that can drive in pitch black, and the other cars that are already driving around without issues.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on April 18, 2016, 05:26:17 AM
LOLOLOLOLOL
Guess you missed the car that can drive in pitch black, and the other cars that are already driving around without issues.
These are just some of the millions of scenarios cars encounter. Autonomous cars havent figured out how to deal with pedestrians or merging aggression yet. But computer learning/AI can catch up pretty quick. It's the physical/financial/legal hurdles and just straight up logistics. Raza is TEARFULLY SCREAMING that the laws banning human driven cars are just around the corner, but as far as I know US law doesn't even allow the purchase or sale of fully autonomous cars yet lmao. We would need to cross that hurdle first, and while I do see that being crossed, as Raza himself states regularly the state of the tech is not up to the level of a texting teen or constipated opoid and alcohol addicted ex steel worker. Our lawmakers are pretty dumb but not that dumb. So this idea that all these issues will magically disappear anytime soon is naive or alarmist depending on your view. We were supposed to have flying cars by now remember?
I for one welcome our new autonomously driven overlords. :praise:
Quote from: SJ_GTI on April 18, 2016, 10:00:04 AM
I for one welcome our new autonomously driven overlords. :praise:
At least autonomous overlords would be designed to process logic as opposed to our current overlords. ;)
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 18, 2016, 05:44:37 AM
These are just some of the millions of scenarios cars encounter. Autonomous cars havent figured out how to deal with pedestrians or merging aggression yet. But computer learning/AI can catch up pretty quick. It's the physical/financial/legal hurdles and just straight up logistics. Raza is TEARFULLY SCREAMING that the laws banning human driven cars are just around the corner, but as far as I know US law doesn't even allow the purchase or sale of fully autonomous cars yet lmao. We would need to cross that hurdle first, and while I do see that being crossed, as Raza himself states regularly the state of the tech is not up to the level of a texting teen or constipated opoid and alcohol addicted ex steel worker. Our lawmakers are pretty dumb but not that dumb. So this idea that all these issues will magically disappear anytime soon is naive or alarmist depending on your view. We were supposed to have flying cars by now remember?
When did I say right around the corner? Again, you're putting words into my mouth.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 18, 2016, 01:14:52 AM
Welp, I work with machine vision technology - optical, laser, 2D and 3D ("autonomous" cars might be using other tech such as radar or whatever but same difference) - and factory automation in general and I'm definitely in the "not in our lifetimes" camp, esp. once I throw in a bit of my process engineering experience. It's easy to make a process work at the 98th percentile, but that is a billion miles away from being a viable process (just think if the airline industry had a 98% success record - you'd have ~600 airline crashes a day).
We're only going to have viable autonomous cars with mammoth (catastrophic, really) upgrades to road infrastructure to increase process performance and minimize variation (standardized road infrastructure, including mitigation techniques for weather, such as 100% lighted/fenced roads, etc.). I'm sure Apple, Google, etc., like the PR and get a good bump out of giving their hotshot folks a project, but autonomous cars are right up there much of "new" tech these days - from Musk's Hyperloop to Bezos's "everyone a chance to fly in space" to the laughable boondoggle of Google's Makani - it's sorta interesting but simply not viable, and everyone knows it.
Even if viable, it yet be another example of Big Tech's complicitness in the violations of rights of WtP (you're not gonna have autonomous cars without the network being regulated by government), so best to thank your gods for unanswered prayers.
I agree with this. The tech is there, but when you're talking hundreds of millions of passenger miles every year, it still has a long way to go. Then, factor in infrastructure and the whole insurance/litigation issues, and I'm not convinced the revolution will happen for a long time yet. The first controlled heavier than air flight took place in 1903, but it took 50-60 years for safe and reliable air travel to replace trains and ocean liners.
Quote from: Rockraven on April 18, 2016, 11:31:54 AM
The first controlled heavier than air flight took place in 1903, but it took 50-60 years for safe and reliable air travel to replace trains and ocean liners.
But 30yrs ago we barely had electronic calculators and look what we have now. The tech is getting better at an exponential rate, and the people glued to their phone screens want whatever the new toy is, the law will for sure take awhile to catch up
BUT the fact that all the major automakers now see where the market will head is going to be a huge boost in legislation. All of the car lobbies working together are going to crush anyone who opposes self-driving cars.
I don't see current cars becoming illegal for another long while after that though.
Quote from: Raza on April 18, 2016, 10:52:17 AM
When did I say right around the corner? Again, you're putting words into my mouth.
You aren't speaking in specifics on anything, so I'm not surprised.
If you don't think it's coming any time soon, what are you so freaked out about? Do you think any of this will happen in your lifetime?
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 18, 2016, 01:00:38 PM
You aren't speaking in specifics on anything, so I'm not surprised.
If you don't think it's coming any time soon, what are you so freaked out about?
Who's freaked out? I'm disappointed in the culture that wants this to happen. You're now putting words and emotions into my mouth. Stop doing that.
Quote
Do you think any of this will happen in your lifetime?
Asked and answered.
Quote from: Rockraven on April 18, 2016, 11:31:54 AM
I agree with this. The tech is there, but when you're talking hundreds of millions of passenger miles every year, it still has a long way to go. Then, factor in infrastructure and the whole insurance/litigation issues, and I'm not convinced the revolution will happen for a long time yet. The first controlled heavier than air flight took place in 1903, but it took 50-60 years for safe and reliable air travel to replace trains and ocean liners.
So not only did it take many decades for passenger planes to get vastly better, but look at the mammoth infrastructure that allows many thousands of jetliners to fly about the US daily - the airports, air traffic control, the radar and comm systems, and all of that standardized across many many government entities.
Like flying cars and boat cars and electric cars, self-driving cars answer a question no one is materially asking. Sure, it's sorta interesting, sure it's sorta useful, but just like flying/boat/electric cars, on any sort of wide scale, it just isn't that useful or viable.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 18, 2016, 01:34:34 PM
So not only did it take many decades for passenger planes to get vastly better, but look at the mammoth infrastructure that allows many thousands of jetliners to fly about the US daily - the airports, air traffic control, the radar and comm systems, and all of that standardized across many many government entities.
Like flying cars and boat cars and electric cars, self-driving cars answer a question no one is materially asking. Sure, it's sorta interesting, sure it's sorta useful, but just like flying/boat/electric cars, on any sort of wide scale, it just isn't that useful or viable.
LOL No. The majority of the US would love to be able to get in, punch a destination, and play on their phone until they get there. People who enjoy driving are a minority. Most do it because they "have to".
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on April 19, 2016, 09:09:05 AM
LOL No. The majority of the US would love to be able to get in, punch a destination, and play on their phone until they get there. People who enjoy driving are a minority. Most do it because they "have to".
Not really....
http://www.jdpower.com/cars/articles/car-news/study-says-minority-drivers-want-autonomous-cars (http://www.jdpower.com/cars/articles/car-news/study-says-minority-drivers-want-autonomous-cars)
At least not with the current state of technology. And there will always be holdouts. My FIL's FIL still refuses to get on a plane.
I agree most people hate driving, but they trust a computer to drive even less (despite being demonstrably worse in a lot of conditions)
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 19, 2016, 11:14:41 AM
Not really....
http://www.jdpower.com/cars/articles/car-news/study-says-minority-drivers-want-autonomous-cars (http://www.jdpower.com/cars/articles/car-news/study-says-minority-drivers-want-autonomous-cars)
At least not with the current state of technology. And there will always be holdouts. My FIL's FIL still refuses to get on a plane.
I agree most people hate driving, but they trust a computer to drive even less (despite being demonstrably worse in a lot of conditions)
Didn't know you were loosely related to r0tor.
Quote from: MrH on April 19, 2016, 01:32:59 PM
Didn't know you were loosely related to r0tor.
FIL² is well into his 70s. rot0r is our age... he just espoused the ideology of a 70+ year old down and out ex factory worker.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 19, 2016, 11:14:41 AM
Not really....
http://www.jdpower.com/cars/articles/car-news/study-says-minority-drivers-want-autonomous-cars (http://www.jdpower.com/cars/articles/car-news/study-says-minority-drivers-want-autonomous-cars)
psssh that article is way old. People said they didn't want touchscreen anythings a ways back. Before that they complained automobiles scared their horses.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on April 19, 2016, 02:00:52 PM
psssh that article is way old. People said they didn't want touchscreen anythings a ways back. Before that they complained automobiles scared their horses.
Here's a more recent one with the same results.
http://newsroom.aaa.com/2016/03/three-quarters-of-americans-afraid-to-ride-in-a-self-driving-vehicle/ (http://newsroom.aaa.com/2016/03/three-quarters-of-americans-afraid-to-ride-in-a-self-driving-vehicle/)
I get the feeling a lot of people with shit like adaptive cruise control and the like don't even know how to use it. My mom doesn't know how to configure regular cruise control and she has been driving for 25+ years. There are way too many hurdles
We still have GPS's that run idiots into lakes.
I can see in our lifetimes (well at least the young ones on here), a sort of mixture of self-driving cars with a driver having to be in the driver seat at all times. Maybe similar to what airplanes have now. There's autopilot but you still need a pilot at all times in the cockpit. So I see a human getting in their car and putting in a destination in their GPS. Then the human gets out of the parking lot and gets on the main road at which time they engage autopilot. Once they near their destination, they have to disengage autopilot and park their car. If something malfunctions during their ride, a warning buzzer and lights will alert the driver that they must disengage autopilot. Accidents will still happen but at a greatly reduced rate. 100% is not possible with any engineered function. A certain failure rate (whatever percentage) is always present in even the most automated tightly controlled mechanized processes.
Quote from: veeman on April 19, 2016, 04:32:23 PM
I can see in our lifetimes (well at least the young ones on here), a sort of mixture of self-driving cars with a driver having to be in the driver seat at all times. Maybe similar to what airplanes have now. There's autopilot but you still need a pilot at all times in the cockpit. So I see a human getting in their car and putting in a destination in their GPS. Then the human gets out of the parking lot and gets on the main road at which time they engage autopilot. Once they near their destination, they have to disengage autopilot and park their car. If something malfunctions during their ride, a warning buzzer and lights will alert the driver that they must disengage autopilot. Accidents will still happen but at a greatly reduced rate. 100% is not possible with any engineered function. A certain failure rate (whatever percentage) is always present in even the most automated tightly controlled mechanized processes.
That's probably how it will start out. As people get more comfortable with letting the car drive it will be more and more hands-off until we get to Will Smith hearing "You drove MANUALLY?!?! Are you CRAZY?!?!" (I, Robot)
PS- I, Robot was originally Isaac Asimov (books are way better than the movie!!) who also wrote a story in the 50s/60s about self-driving cars at the retirement home. Since the brains are "alive" they don't get thrown out but allowed to die peacefully at an old farm....
I would almost be fine with just main roads (freeways/expressways) being automated. It would make long distance drives somewhat easier and wouldn't infringe on my god given American Dream right to drive a car.
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 20, 2016, 08:51:18 AM
I would almost be fine with just main roads (freeways/expressways) being automated. It would make long distance drives somewhat easier and wouldn't infringe on my god given American Dream right to drive a car.
+1
People could still take surface roads if they're scared of computer cars.
OH also, big addition to the system will be Dynamic Speed Limits. Wyoming has them on the interstate- LED speed limit signs. Depending on conditions on particular stretches, they lower the usual 75mph to whatever is appropriate for that section.
Google maps shows me yellow or red sections of road based on feedback from other maps users, showing where congestion is. The computer cars will have to be tied into something similar, so they can adjust speed accordingly, plus the radars and cameras etc...
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on April 20, 2016, 09:00:39 AM
+1
People could still take surface roads if they're scared of computer cars.
Even around here where our biggest road is a 15 mile stretch of 55mph 4-lane highway connecting three towns, I choose back roads. Unless I'm in a hurry, I rarely take the highway.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on April 20, 2016, 09:00:39 AM
+1
People could still take surface roads if they're scared of computer cars.
So people should be inconvenienced and take a longer, slower route if they want to still drive a car? :hammerhead
Quote from: veeman on April 19, 2016, 04:32:23 PM
I can see in our lifetimes (well at least the young ones on here), a sort of mixture of self-driving cars with a driver having to be in the driver seat at all times. Maybe similar to what airplanes have now. There's autopilot but you still need a pilot at all times in the cockpit. So I see a human getting in their car and putting in a destination in their GPS. Then the human gets out of the parking lot and gets on the main road at which time they engage autopilot. Once they near their destination, they have to disengage autopilot and park their car. If something malfunctions during their ride, a warning buzzer and lights will alert the driver that they must disengage autopilot. Accidents will still happen but at a greatly reduced rate. 100% is not possible with any engineered function. A certain failure rate (whatever percentage) is always present in even the most automated tightly controlled mechanized processes.
Pilots that fly planes with autopilot (I'm guessing mostly military or commercial passenger) are highly selected, highly trained, highly paid, and highly regulated. The average American driver? Not so much, and asking them to rely on autopilot is asking them to be even worse.
If so many people hate driving or otherwise don't want to drive, well, there is deeper philosophical question to be answered; Do Americans even want the responsibility of self-determination?