http://jalopnik.com/automakers-admit-the-driverless-car-revolution-will-tak-1796103407
I've been saying this, but my opinions are not enough to keep the word "autonomous" from triggering some here into a full on panic... so it's nice to hear someone who actually knows what they're talking about say the same.
And "ubiquity" requires everyone to buy autonomous cars....... which judging by the 400-500K people still buying sports/sporty cars in the US will probably never happen. Given the choice someone who wants a 911 is not going to ride around in some autonopod, and given the profit from said choice we can safely assume that choice will always be available.
Back to your regular scheduled programming.
Plus what about all the trucksters who "have to" pull a trailer once per year? or put a couple logs in the back?
What kills me is how soon that is, while some around here still think it will "never" happen. I would say definitely in 10-15yrs there will be completely autonomous cars on public streets.
Over the road trucks are a likely first place they'll appear.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on July 31, 2017, 04:38:08 PM
Plus what about all the trucksters who "have to" pull a trailer once per year? or put a couple logs in the back?
What kills me is how soon that is, while some around here still think it will "never" happen. I would say definitely in 10-15yrs there will be completely autonomous cars on public streets.
There will definitely be some autonomous cars on the road soon, but the complete takeover that keeps people like Raza up at night will never happen. Let's really break it down.... people who don't give a shit about cars won't buy one; they will just buy rides. People who like nicer cars might buy nicer rides, but car ownership is a waste of time for most people. The people for whom cars are an extension of their identity, be it sports car buffs, pickup truck drivers, British footballers in Panameras on 22s... they will still want cars, and car companies will continue to sell to them gladly for handsome profits. Where there is a profit there is a way.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on July 31, 2017, 05:00:26 PM
There will definitely be some autonomous cars on the road soon, but the complete takeover that keeps people like Raza up at night will never happen. Let's really break it down.... people who don't give a shit about cars won't buy one; they will just buy rides. People who like nicer cars might buy nicer rides, but car ownership is a waste of time for most people. The people for whom cars are an extension of their identity, be it sports car buffs, pickup truck drivers, British footballers in Panameras on 22s... they will still want cars, and car companies will continue to sell to them gladly for handsome profits. Where there is a profit there is a way.
I see autonomous cars (AC) going totally wired to the grid/each other/ traffic systems. Plus there will be cameras. Onboard cameras, lots of them.
Why?
Because tard drivers (TDs) will hit ACs. AC owners (either occupants or the rental meisters who uber them out) will want proof so they don't pay.
As it becomes more and more obvious that TDs are a risk, whereas ACs are not, the insurance rates for TDs will rise and rise and it will be only rich who can afford to drive a car manually anyway.
Chase the money, and the ACs will take over pretty quick at that point.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on July 31, 2017, 05:40:01 PM
I see autonomous cars (AC) going totally wired to the grid/each other/ traffic systems. Plus there will be cameras. Onboard cameras, lots of them.
Why?
Because tard drivers (TDs) will hit ACs. AC owners (either occupants or the rental meisters who uber them out) will want proof so they don't pay.
As it becomes more and more obvious that TDs are a risk, whereas ACs are not, the insurance rates for TDs will rise and rise and it will be only rich who can afford to drive a car manually anyway.
Chase the money, and the ACs will take over pretty quick at that point.
OS! (Oh Shit!) :lol:
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on July 31, 2017, 05:40:01 PM
I see autonomous cars (AC) going totally wired to the grid/each other/ traffic systems. Plus there will be cameras. Onboard cameras, lots of them.
Why?
Because tard drivers (TDs) will hit ACs. AC owners (either occupants or the rental meisters who uber them out) will want proof so they don't pay.
As it becomes more and more obvious that TDs are a risk, whereas ACs are not, the insurance rates for TDs will rise and rise and it will be only rich who can afford to drive a car manually anyway.
Chase the money, and the ACs will take over pretty quick at that point.
Look at all the stuff required for ACs. Grids. Traffic lights. Cameras. Who's gonna pay for all this stuff? Tons of states are barely keeping the lights on as is. Feds damn sure won't do it. And again it's going to be a slow trickle. Look at the top 10 selling vehicles.... 1/3 of them are pickup trucks. What do any of those folks want with some anonymous autonopod? So only so many cars can be replaced over time, and of those, not all will be autonomous. So it's going to be a very slow grind just on the basis of a low replacement rate.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on July 31, 2017, 06:21:12 PM
Look at all the stuff required for ACs. Grids. Traffic lights. Cameras. Who's gonna pay for all this stuff? Tons of states are barely keeping the lights on as is. Feds damn sure won't do it. And again it's going to be a slow trickle. Look at the top 10 selling vehicles.... 1/3 of them are pickup trucks. What do any of those folks want with some anonymous autonopod? So only so many cars can be replaced over time, and of those, not all will be autonomous. So it's going to be a very slow grind just on the basis of a low replacement rate.
At first. Manufacturers will pay for any extra stuff needed. They know the payoff is going to be ginormous. Otherwise they wouldn't be sinking bazillions into the research.
Problem is development dollars will increasingly be spent on automated products... So you only have a few more years until there is no money to be spent on fun cars
Quote from: r0tor on July 31, 2017, 06:49:02 PM
Problem is development dollars will increasingly be spent on automated products... So you only have a few more years until there is no money to be spent on fun cars
Not if the shareholders and people buying them have any say
Again we are talking about 500K cars in the US alone. Not cheap shit either, avg price is prob $40K with a lot of profit baked in. You think manufacturers are going to give that up in the face of the race to the bottom that will be autonomous cars?
Keep in mind once autonomous cars really become a thing auto brands won't matter in that space. What's the diff between a Ford or Toyota if you're essentially hailing it like a cab? So if anything the enthusiast market will become more important. And that expands to "expressive" vehicles like pickups too. Dont discount the power of American individuality (as conformist and derivative as it may have become)
I think a big part of it is the infrastructure. Currently, we drive on roads funded by registration, gad taxes, etc. built by government. Meanwhile, cars are sold to us by private corporations. It'll take a massive amount of teamwork between the two to make EVs and autonomous vehicles totally viable to (all of) the public. Normal vehicles will be around for a long time, even as autonomous ones trickle in and the infrastructure morphs...if.
Nah, autonomous cars are designed for what we have. Software is amazing, and we carry in our pockets what used to be supercomputers with ultra-super-high networks. Stuff keeps advancing.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on August 01, 2017, 05:20:40 AM
Nah, autonomous cars are designed for what we have. Software is amazing, and we carry in our pockets what used to be supercomputers with ultra-super-high networks. Stuff keeps advancing.
I guaran-fucking-tee an automated car would fail miserably here in the winter. "Well, guess I'm not going to work today because my automated car is stuck in the driveway like an idiot."
Quote from: giant_mtb on August 01, 2017, 06:35:45 AM
I guaran-fucking-tee an automated car would fail miserably here in the winter. "Well, guess I'm not going to work today because my automated car is stuck in the driveway like an idiot."
give it time. A car will learn to drive better in the white than 90% of hoomans.
Quote from: giant_mtb on August 01, 2017, 06:35:45 AM
I guaran-fucking-tee an automated car would fail miserably here in the winter. "Well, guess I'm not going to work today because my automated car is stuck in the driveway like an idiot."
Yea, and it has to be all or none. Otherwise it's just an enhancement, like cruise control.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on August 01, 2017, 07:11:08 AM
give it time. A car will learn to drive better in the white than 90% of hoomans.
Maybe that's true for where you are (and other semi-snowy places), but I really doubt that around here. Computers are good at seeing things and avoiding objects, but I've yet to see an automated car slide an icy corner and recover.
Not to mention, a lot of the roads aren't even visible during the winter. How will it know where the lines are, the turning lanes, etc? It would take a Massive amount of resources to keep all roads cleared at all times to allow travel of automated vehicles...or, 100% of the vehicles would have to be automated. Which is not gonna happen any time soon. Just think of all the rural areas, poorer areas, etc...they'll be left in the dust. Poor people can't afford that shit. If someone has been buying 15 year old, $2k cars their whole life, how are they going to magically jump on the automated bandwagon? It'll be at least a decade after their real release before they could even consider affording one.
I've been saying this since the beginning. It's buoyed by fad. It will never work en masse without catastrophic levels of infrastructure spending and government control, which at that point it's probably better to spend on country-wide mass transit (not that I'd condone that of course, I'm just sayin'). But the premise itself is broken. People truly that disinterested in driving have no business owning cars - why accommodate them?
Also on that note, I think the general "the computers will do it better" mentality is kind of a shame. Cars are the essence of independence in America. Make them all automated and we're slaves to computers.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 01, 2017, 07:58:35 AM
People truly that disinterested in driving have no business owning cars - why accommodate them?
Because the American economy functions on the premise of people getting around easily. I agree that people who don't give a shit about owning a car or driving shouldn't- with autonomous cars, they won't have to.
Quote from: giant_mtb on August 01, 2017, 07:53:20 AM
Maybe that's true for where you are (and other semi-snowy places), but I really doubt that around here. Computers are good at seeing things and avoiding objects, but I've yet to see an automated car slide an icy corner and recover.
Not to mention, a lot of the roads aren't even visible during the winter. How will it know where the lines are, the turning lanes, etc? It would take a Massive amount of resources to keep all roads cleared at all times to allow travel of automated vehicles...or, 100% of the vehicles would have to be automated. Which is not gonna happen any time soon. Just think of all the rural areas, poorer areas, etc...they'll be left in the dust. Poor people can't afford that shit. If someone has been buying 15 year old, $2k cars their whole life, how are they going to magically jump on the automated bandwagon? It'll be at least a decade after their real release before they could even consider affording one.
I think those folks would be autonomous cars biggest beneficiaries. Public transportation currently needs high density and fixed routes to be even remotely viable. A pay-per-ride autonomous car based system would eliminate those barriers. IF a grandma in the middle of nowhere needs a ride she can just hail an AC.... rather than risk everyone's lives by driving, paying for a human cab driver or getting out to a public transportation that might not get where she needs to go.
Eventually, sure, I can see that. But it'll be a long time before a ride in an AC is cheaper than an Uber (not thay Uber even serves rural areas, but).
Quote from: giant_mtb on August 01, 2017, 08:43:29 AM
Eventually, sure, I can see that. But it'll be a long time before a ride in an AC is cheaper than an Uber (not thay Uber even serves rural areas, but).
-5billion
The AC is purchased once and just needs oil and belt changes (until it goes electric). Uber's model is pay people to drive cars. Take the people out of that and it will get 90% cheaper for long-term operation.
Quote from: giant_mtb on August 01, 2017, 08:00:22 AM
Also on that note, I think the general "the computers will do it better" mentality is kind of a shame. Cars are the essence of independence in America. Make them all automated and we're slaves to computers.
And the masses walking around aren't already (willing) slaves??
https://www.google.com/search?q=people+walking+with+smartphones&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi06Z3Do7bVAhUIdz4KHbOTBW8Q_AUICigB&biw=1366&bih=651
Quote from: giant_mtb on August 01, 2017, 08:43:29 AM
Eventually, sure, I can see that. But it'll be a long time before a ride in an AC is cheaper than an Uber (not thay Uber even serves rural areas, but).
Why not? There's no driver/owner. Those are prob the biggest costs of the Uber ride, which would be eliminated essentially. Manufacturers would also proabably self insure, further driving down costs
Quote from: GoCougs on August 01, 2017, 07:58:35 AM
I've been saying this since the beginning. It's buoyed by fad. It will never work en masse without catastrophic levels of infrastructure spending and government control, which at that point it's probably better to spend on country-wide mass transit (not that I'd condone that of course, I'm just sayin'). But the premise itself is broken. People truly that disinterested in driving have no business owning cars - why accommodate them?
You have and you're wrong. :huh: Your basic premise is wrong- most people DO NOT enjoy driving like some of us do. They would rather skip it altogether.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on August 01, 2017, 08:47:21 AM
And the masses walking around aren't already (willing) slaves??
https://www.google.com/search?q=people+walking+with+smartphones&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi06Z3Do7bVAhUIdz4KHbOTBW8Q_AUICigB&biw=1366&bih=651
Thank you, Captain Obvious.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on August 01, 2017, 08:46:12 AM
-5billion
The AC is purchased once and just needs oil and belt changes (until it goes electric). Uber's model is pay people to drive cars. Take the people out of that and it will get 90% cheaper for long-term operation.
How is buying and insuring a $30k car (conservative number for an AC, IMO) and maintaining it cheaper than paying a driver next to nothing and not paying for any maintenance or insurance? Please don't forget that taxi vehicles put on a shitload of miles...it's not "just" oil changes and belts. lol. Tires, suspension components, etc., all have to be replaced on high-use vehicles.
-5 billion, my ass.
Edit: I'm not saying it won't ever be cheaper...but some people talk about it like it's so simple and will happen virtually overnight.
Quote from: giant_mtb on August 01, 2017, 09:44:24 AM
How is buying and insuring a $30k car (conservative number for an AC, IMO) and maintaining it cheaper than paying a driver next to nothing and not paying for any maintenance or insurance? Please don't forget that taxi vehicles put on a shitload of miles...it's not "just" oil changes and belts. lol. Tires, suspension components, etc., all have to be replaced on high-use vehicles.
-5 billion, my ass.
Edit: I'm not saying it won't ever be cheaper...but some people talk about it like it's so simple and will happen virtually overnight.
Human labor is always the most expensive component of USA anything. :huh: We are too accustomed to health insurance, vacations, blah blah.
I don't think it will be overnight- for a while. When it finally explodes it'll be like those silly fidget spinners. Everywhere. From (seemingly) out of nowhere.
(idea has been around a while.)
Quote from: giant_mtb on August 01, 2017, 07:53:20 AM
Maybe that's true for where you are (and other semi-snowy places), but I really doubt that around here. Computers are good at seeing things and avoiding objects, but I've yet to see an automated car slide an icy corner and recover.
Not to mention, a lot of the roads aren't even visible during the winter. How will it know where the lines are, the turning lanes, etc? It would take a Massive amount of resources to keep all roads cleared at all times to allow travel of automated vehicles...or, 100% of the vehicles would have to be automated. Which is not gonna happen any time soon. Just think of all the rural areas, poorer areas, etc...they'll be left in the dust. Poor people can't afford that shit. If someone has been buying 15 year old, $2k cars their whole life, how are they going to magically jump on the automated bandwagon? It'll be at least a decade after their real release before they could even consider affording one.
Fords been testing snow
(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.2498408.1452892664!/img/httpImage/image.JPG_gen/derivatives/article_750/snow.JPG)
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on July 31, 2017, 07:15:12 PM
Not if the shareholders and people buying them have any say
Again we are talking about 500K cars in the US alone. Not cheap shit either, avg price is prob $40K with a lot of profit baked in. You think manufacturers are going to give that up in the face of the race to the bottom that will be autonomous cars?
Keep in mind once autonomous cars really become a thing auto brands won't matter in that space. What's the diff between a Ford or Toyota if you're essentially hailing it like a cab? So if anything the enthusiast market will become more important. And that expands to "expressive" vehicles like pickups too. Dont discount the power of American individuality (as conformist and derivative as it may have become)
Dude, it's already happening
QuoteBut Reuters spoke with BMW's chief financial officer, Nicolas Peter, who said BMW plans to crank up its research and development spending to concentrate on electric, autonomous and connected-car development. This R&D investment (between 5.5 and 6.5 percent of total revenue), along with the lack of profitability for EVs, will require the company to take measures to save money.
https://www.google.com/amp/jalopnik.com/the-manual-in-the-bmw-2-series-may-be-getting-axed-1796491694/amp
Quote from: r0tor on August 01, 2017, 10:43:54 AM
Fords been testing snow
(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.2498408.1452892664!/img/httpImage/image.JPG_gen/derivatives/article_750/snow.JPG)
Oh, look. Some slush on the road.
Quote from: giant_mtb on August 01, 2017, 09:44:24 AM
How is buying and insuring a $30k car (conservative number for an AC, IMO) and maintaining it cheaper than paying a driver next to nothing and not paying for any maintenance or insurance? Please don't forget that taxi vehicles put on a shitload of miles...it's not "just" oil changes and belts. lol. Tires, suspension components, etc., all have to be replaced on high-use vehicles.
-5 billion, my ass.
Edit: I'm not saying it won't ever be cheaper...but some people talk about it like it's so simple and will happen virtually overnight.
On a per mile basis car ownership is currently WAY cheaper. We can even go new. Buying a new Corolla and owning it for 5 years costs about $30K all in. You drive for 15K/yr, that's $0.40/mile. In my area an UberX ride is like $1.10-125/mile. And obviously the Corolla cost goes way down if you buy used as a big chunk of that is depreciation.
Uber drivers take about 75% of the fare. 20% of that generally covers expenses. So all in removing the driver would cut Uber fees in about half- putting it very close to owning a used car. Depending on your needs and desires that would make it more than viable for a lot of people. And again, that would come down even further if people would be willing to share rides with others (as millions of people do every day via public transportation).
So the outcome will definitely result in a lower overall cost of transportation for everyone; the question is timing. IMO, and apparently in the opinion of automakers, the whole concept of car ownership will become a niche thing with automation.... "mobility" will be the move, which could be a legitimate accelerant to the process, as that overcomes the biggest logistical/legal hurdle gumming things up. But only if that mobility can work in tandem with current infrastructure and human drivers.
Quote from: giant_mtb on August 01, 2017, 11:05:13 AM
Oh, look. Some slush on the road.
LOL in many places that shuts everything down.
I don't want to be forced into an automated car till I can just get in one and sleep or surf the internet or something. If I still have to pay attention, I want a fully conventional car. No middle ground.
Quote from: Cookie Monster on August 01, 2017, 01:22:15 PM
I don't want to be forced into an automated car till I can just get in one and sleep or surf the internet or something. If I still have to pay attention, I want a fully conventional car. No middle ground.
It's unlikely the general population would take that leap... Semi autonomous driving will warm people up to trusting the car systrms
Yea, the trust factor will add time as well. Especially with the setbacks from failures (even though they are usually user error)
Quote from: r0tor on August 01, 2017, 01:37:07 PM
It's unlikely the general population would take that leap... Semi autonomous driving will warm people up to trusting the car systrms
Yeah, I know it will be a leap to get to completely autonomous vehicles. Even if the technology is there, laws and regulations and trust will take a long time to catch up.
I wonder if we will see truly autonomous vehicles in our lifetimes.
Quote from: Cookie Monster on August 01, 2017, 01:54:28 PM
Yeah, I know it will be a leap to get to completely autonomous vehicles. Even if the technology is there, laws and regulations and trust will take a long time to catch up.
I wonder if we will see truly autonomous vehicles in our lifetimes.
Considering you and I have a solid, say, 60 years left to go, I think it's possible. I don't think the total takeover will happen in that time.
Quote from: Cookie Monster on August 01, 2017, 01:22:15 PM
I don't want to be forced into an automated car till I can just get in one and sleep or surf the internet or something. If I still have to pay attention, I want a fully conventional car. No middle ground.
That's what all of the big names are working on. If anything, everyone's "driver aids" are showing the middle ground is a bad answer. (that Tesla fatality wreck, others)
Quote from: Cookie Monster on August 01, 2017, 01:54:28 PM
I wonder if we will see truly autonomous vehicles in our lifetimes.
Supposed to be on sale starting in 2025 from the original article.
Quote from: giant_mtb on August 01, 2017, 02:22:01 PM
Considering you and I have a solid, say, 60 years left to go, I think it's possible. I don't think the total takeover will happen in that time.
Agree- it will take some time to gain momentum. Total takeover I would say is 50yrs away from now.
Quote from: giant_mtb on August 01, 2017, 02:22:01 PM
Considering you and I have a solid, say, 60 years left to go, I think it's possible. I don't think the total takeover will happen in that time.
Yeah, but unless there's a ban on traditional cars completely so that automated cars can communicate with each other in their own "environment", I feel like it's not going to happen that fast. Mixing truly automated cars and conventional cars seems like a recipe for a bad time, especially with liability and insurance issues.
I think mixing the two will be a clear demonstration of the technology's viability. If autonomous cars need a clean playground to work they are worthless. They will never happen
More rain on the AC parade:
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2017/08/suppliers-claiming-automakers-oversold-future-mobility/
He's 100% correct. And again I've been saying this all along - automakers and related interests are more interested in looking "progressive" (his words) and other things like getting investment dollars or pumping up stock price. They are basically lying about their ability to do autonomous vehicles. He's also correct that for the foreseeable future EVs will be nothing more than a curiosity WRT the overall market.
Come on, guys. Autonomous cars are super attractive.
(http://assets.inhabitat.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2017/02/uber-autonomous-889x667.jpg)
:lol:
Love this too: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2017/07/self-driving-taxis-will-become-the-most-disgusting-spaces-on-earth/
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on August 03, 2017, 11:10:29 AM
:lol:
Love this too: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2017/07/self-driving-taxis-will-become-the-most-disgusting-spaces-on-earth/
That's a good point, but I guarantee there will be camera systems inside driverless vehicles, which will deter at least a good portion of poor behavior. Especially since summoning a driverless taxi will all be on record since it'll be done through an account on your phone. I'm sure there will be self-reporting integrated as well..."This vehicle in need of service? Push *this* button." At which point the car's condition can be assessed by a person (oh shit, a person has to do something?!) who can then go back and see who was last in the vehicle and check the cameras if need be.
Quote from: giant_mtb on August 03, 2017, 11:18:44 AM
That's a good point, but I guarantee there will be camera systems inside driverless vehicles, which will deter at least a good portion of poor behavior. Especially since summoning a driverless taxi will all be on record since it'll be done through an account on your phone. I'm sure there will be self-reporting integrated as well..."This vehicle in need of service? Push *this* button." At which point the car's condition can be assessed by a person (oh shit, a person has to do something?!) who can then go back and see who was last in the vehicle and check the cameras if need be.
One can only hope. And they can charge the gross passenger.. But still you won't push the button unless you can *see* the grossness.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on August 03, 2017, 02:02:39 PM
But still you won't push the button unless you can *see* the grossness.
I don't see how that's any different than climbing into a manned taxi now. Except with an actual driver, you just tell him if there's an issue. :huh:
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on August 03, 2017, 11:10:29 AM
:lol:
Love this too: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2017/07/self-driving-taxis-will-become-the-most-disgusting-spaces-on-earth/
Eh.... like regular cabs, nobody will ride around in filth. Market forces would take care of that very quickly. They will def have cabs return to a depot where they can be cleaned out. I mean you look at cabs and public transportation now, that's basically what they do; and they can figure out the best place to put these depots so the cabs don't have to travel far to get cleaned and checked over.
What I'd be more concerned about is crime. I wouldn't want to be, for example, a woman late at night sharing a cab with a stranger. They would have to provide workarounds for that.
Eh, I've been in some pretty gross cabs.
I take a taxi/Uber now when I have a reason to. I can't imagine wanting to take one every day over driving my own car. I just don't see this catching on.
Well, you drive an $80K BMW.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on August 04, 2017, 06:04:18 AM
Well, you drive an $80K BMW.
Closer to $70k.
But yeah, look how many don't choose to maximize efficiency within the current set of choices. I just don't see it happening.
Quote from: Lebowski on August 04, 2017, 05:43:43 AM
Eh, I've been in some pretty gross cabs.
I take a taxi/Uber now when I have a reason to. I can't imagine wanting to take one every day over driving my own car. I just don't see this catching on.
Taxis don't even survive in my hometown, there isn't the client base. Giant city is a different story- tens of thousands of people can't own cars there (too expensive) so the taxi/ uber/ driverless taxi-uber does make sense there..
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on August 04, 2017, 06:57:58 AM
Taxis don't even survive in my hometown, there isn't the client base. Giant city is a different story- tens of thousands of people can't own cars there (too expensive) so the taxi/ uber/ driverless taxi-uber does make sense there..
Yep, the driverless Uber model makes perfect sense IMO ... where public transport already makes sense, car ownership is already difficult etc.
Driverless Ubers will make tons of sense in rural or even suburban areas where cabs don't. I think that's actually where it makes the most sense. Places like NYC don't have room for any more cars, autonomous or not. But I think of someone like my wife's grandmother, who lives on a fixed income in Borelando and can't afford a car, but still wants to live her life and get around. A pay per ride system that will get her door to door would be a win win and would probably be a shitload cheaper than paying to own/insure/maintain and possibly park a private car.
Similarly I know a dude with multiple DUIs ( :facepalm: ).... driverless Ubers would enable him to continue his alcoholism in peace. There are a shitload of huge use cases for this stuff well outside the bounds of coastal high density liberal enclaves
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on August 04, 2017, 08:04:47 AM
Driverless Ubers will make tons of sense in rural or even suburban areas where cabs don't.
Possibly, if the costs are lower than the current uber/ taxi models.
But also, consider the problem of cleaning the vehicle presented above. In a town which might only support 5 AC taxis (or Ubers, same thing for the most part), finance supporting a cleaning station doesn't work out well. My hometown is 12k people and many would still need to keep trucks for ranch work, but there are other areas of the country which will be similar. It will be very much a localized thing on how successful things are. Kind of like how Uber is nowhere to be found in some places still. (like right outside Fort Leavonworth, KS, just 40min from Kansas City.)
-until everything goes 100% AC of course.. :rastaman:
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on August 04, 2017, 08:04:47 AM
Driverless Ubers will make tons of sense in rural or even suburban areas where cabs don't. I think that's actually where it makes the most sense. Places like NYC don't have room for any more cars, autonomous or not. But I think of someone like my wife's grandmother, who lives on a fixed income in Borelando and can't afford a car, but still wants to live her life and get around. A pay per ride system that will get her door to door would be a win win and would probably be a shitload cheaper than paying to own/insure/maintain and possibly park a private car.
Similarly I know a dude with multiple DUIs ( :facepalm: ).... driverless Ubers would enable him to continue his alcoholism in peace. There are a shitload of huge use cases for this stuff well outside the bounds of coastal high density liberal enclaves
Right, it makes sense for people whom owning a car already doesn't make sense.
As for "no room for more cars", would mostly displace traditional taxis.
My point is I don't see this replacing car ownership for vast majority of Americans who currently own and want/need to own a car. Your point on rural areas ... maybe will bring taxi service to such areas (but hasn't regular Uber already done that to a large degree? I hardly see how adding driverless Uber's makes economic sense in areas traditional Uber's don't), but won't replace car ownership there.
Quote from: Lebowski on August 04, 2017, 09:42:29 AM
Right, it makes sense for people whom owning a car already doesn't make sense.
As for "no room for more cars", would mostly displace traditional taxis.
My point is I don't see this replacing car ownership for vast majority of Americans who currently own and want/need to own a car. Your point on rural areas ... maybe will bring taxi service to such areas (but hasn't regular Uber already done that to a large degree? I hardly see how adding driverless Uber's makes economic sense in areas traditional Uber's don't), but won't replace car ownership there.
Good point on displacement.
As for the rural area thing... like anything economic there is a breakeven point. Driver pay eats up about 1/2 the Uber fee. Take them out the viability goes up... not everywhere but def a lot more places. And that's not even factoring in the cost savings of automakers providing the rides directly, rather than going through the rigamarole of trying to sell cars to operators.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on August 04, 2017, 09:35:38 AM
Possibly, if the costs are lower than the current uber/ taxi models.
But also, consider the problem of cleaning the vehicle presented above. In a town which might only support 5 AC taxis (or Ubers, same thing for the most part), finance supporting a cleaning station doesn't work out well. My hometown is 12k people and many would still need to keep trucks for ranch work, but there are other areas of the country which will be similar. It will be very much a localized thing on how successful things are. Kind of like how Uber is nowhere to be found in some places still. (like right outside Fort Leavonworth, KS, just 40min from Kansas City.)
-until everything goes 100% AC of course.. :rastaman:
I'd probably be willing to be a contract worker/detailer for taxis/AC Ubers. Cleaning up puke is no fun, but if the money's right... :huh:
Quote from: Lebowski on August 04, 2017, 09:42:29 AM
Your point on rural areas ... maybe will bring taxi service to such areas (but hasn't regular Uber already done that to a large degree?
lol no. If by rural you mean suburban and a hair further, sure.
Quote from: giant_mtb on August 04, 2017, 09:50:34 AM
lol no. If by rural you mean suburban and a hair further, sure.
Like I said, in any given area if the economic case can't be made for regular Uber drivers, where there are already people (presumably some of whom need/want some extra work) who own cars, I don't see how an economic case can be made for the capital investment of putting dedicated Uber vehicles out there.
IME Uber has already brought service to plenty of areas where taxis aren't there, at least in scale, and I've used Uber in areas I wouldn't exactly call suburban.
Yeah, Uber definitely does reach further than a normal taxi company would. Just a matter of paying for it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UxCFo8ribo
LOL Silly. People are truly amazingly fragile.
Malcolm Gladwell just penned a piece for Car and Driver. In short, much as smart phones are decaying our culture, autonomous cars are along the same lines. WtP want to abdicate responsibility and it will make us ever more lower energy, listless and shifty (my editorializing):
https://www.caranddriver.com/features/what-happens-when-we-give-up-control-of-our-cars-feature
Where to even begin on that article... conspiratorial alarmist slippery slope nonsense.
People hate driving for a litany of very good reasons that have nothing to do with "decaying culture" and "abdication of responsibility". It's more practical shit like our crumbling infrastructure (https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/) and increasingly long and maddening traffic jams. (https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/08/rush-hour-traffic-commute/402418/) Crawling in rush hour traffic is the exact opposite of the freedom you purport automobiles to be. Needing a car to get anywhere is also the opposite of the freedom you purport automobiles to be. The option of the self-driving car is a net positive.
And as I proposed with this thread, even if autonomous cars will usher in the apocalypse, there are just too many hurdles to see this coming down the pike any time soon. I'm not worried either way.
People are starting to wake up:
https://jalopnik.com/what-if-autonomous-cars-just-never-happen-1820778692
If safety is the goal, there is a lot of low hanging fruit. Distracted driving could be smartly killed with a few lines of code and an OS update. Americans need better driving instruction. Etc.
I read this thread title as
"Gays, we have time"
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on October 05, 2017, 06:40:54 AM
Needing a car to get anywhere is also the opposite of the freedom you purport automobiles to be.
Go ahead, bud. You're free to walk if that's what freedom means to you.
Quote from: giant_mtb on November 30, 2017, 07:42:16 AM
Go ahead, bud. You're free to walk if that's what freedom means to you.
Hardly. My point is, if you need a car to live, it's hardly something that brings you freedom.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on November 30, 2017, 10:56:54 AM
Hardly. My point is, if you need a car to live, it's hardly something that brings you freedom.
That's a big-ass stretch.
By the same token, if you can't access a car, how free are you?
Philosophical sporty. This ought to be a good one.
Quote from: 2o6 on November 30, 2017, 12:06:57 PM
That's a big-ass stretch.
By the same token, if you can't access a car, how free are you?
???
Most people's car time is spent waiting in their kid's pick up lines or stuck in bumper to bumper traffic for their work commute. Most people could not work without a car. Where is this freedom cars are giving the average person?
Just because some of it doesn't equate to "freedom" means ALL of it doesn't equate to freedom, Sporty? Cars give the "freedom" to go when you want, on YOUR schedule, even if that schedule is dictated by where you have to be. It means not relying on someone ELSE to get you where you want to be when you need to be there like on a bus that goes on a limited route. The freedom is that at any point in their travels they can change their mind and go somewhere else right then and there. Whether they do or not does not change that basic concept.
I may be using the car to go to and from work and have set times to do that, but I have the freedom of choosing my route and my departure time, and I can choose to leave a bit early or late, take another route and make stops at otherwise inconvenient places to pick up groceries or supplies. Or just take off and drive for a bit. Just because I get stuck in traffic for a bit doesn't negate the freedom of choice the personal car gives me to run errands on MY schedule or just drive around.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 01, 2017, 07:47:18 AM
???
Most people's car time is spent waiting in their kid's pick up lines or stuck in bumper to bumper traffic for their work commute. Most people could not work without a car. Where is this freedom cars are giving the average person?
Holy shit. :facepalm:
I do wonder if people felt more freedom before cars spaghettified cities along roads. Traffic definitely makes me feel claustrophobic in this region, there are ever-growing swaths of the workday in which I write off the prospect of mobility entirely. Cities along the interstate are space out around the assumption that people can travel at 60mph. If traffic moves at less than a third of that, then the effective distance between cities is tripled.
Quote from: ChrisV on December 01, 2017, 08:00:06 AM
Just because some of it doesn't equate to "freedom" means ALL of it doesn't equate to freedom, Sporty? Cars give the "freedom" to go when you want, on YOUR schedule, even if that schedule is dictated by where you have to be. It means not relying on someone ELSE to get you where you want to be when you need to be there like on a bus that goes on a limited route. The freedom is that at any point in their travels they can change their mind and go somewhere else right then and there. Whether they do or not does not change that basic concept.
You can get off a bus any time you want too.
Quote from: ChrisV on December 01, 2017, 08:00:06 AMI may be using the car to go to and from work and have set times to do that, but I have the freedom of choosing my route and my departure time, and I can choose to leave a bit early or late, take another route and make stops at otherwise inconvenient places to pick up groceries or supplies. Or just take off and drive for a bit. Just because I get stuck in traffic for a bit doesn't negate the freedom of choice the personal car gives me to run errands on MY schedule or just drive around.
You can do much of this with public transportation, or walking, or biking, or hand gliding as well. Sure, public transportation fixes you into its schedules, but that's not much different than having to deal with traffic somewhere like Atlanta, DC, NYC, LA etc., which makes getting around by car damn near impossible certain times of day.
And I'm not even suggesting public transportation to be the fix (you brought it up, not me).... but this notion that cars = freedom in today's world is silly.
If a car doesn't give you freedom, it's because you live in the wrong place (i.e. a miserable place)
Quote from: CaminoRacer on December 01, 2017, 12:56:37 PM
If a car doesn't give you freedom, it's because you live in the wrong place (i.e. a miserable place)
That's BS. Just owning and having to be financially and physically responsible for a car is the opposite of freedom, unless you enjoy car ownership (which most people do not). That has nothing to do with where you are.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 01, 2017, 01:04:57 PM
That's BS. Just owning and having to be financially and physically responsible for a car is the opposite of freedom, unless you enjoy car ownership (which most people do not). That has nothing to do with where you are.
It's a tool that allows you to do much, much more than you would be otherwise capable. Other factors may put a limitation on your freedom - work schedule, traffic, etc. But that's not the car limiting your freedom - that's the other factors limiting your freedom.
When I flew back to SLC after Thanksgiving, I had to take the train home. I had to rush off the plane to catch a lightrail that took me to the train station, then wait 15 minutes outside, then catch the train home and sit next to strangers. I didn't have the freedom to stop at In-N-Out for dinner on the way home. I didn't have the freedom to be on my own schedule. I didn't have the freedom to choose which bathroom to use - I either use the one on the train or not, instead of picking a nice gas station, fast food joint, fancy department store, etc. I was constrained. Cars are the opposite of constrained. You're in control and you choose when & where you go. If I got to my freeway exit & decided "nah, I'm not gonna home right now. I'm gonna drive to Vegas!", a car allows me to do that. The train doesn't. My shoes don't. My bicycle doesn't.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 01, 2017, 01:04:57 PM
That's BS. Just owning and having to be financially and physically responsible for a car is the opposite of freedom, unless you enjoy car ownership (which most people do not). That has nothing to do with where you are.
Ask him about his local bus service.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 01, 2017, 12:33:28 PM
You can get off a bus any time you want too.
You can do much of this with public transportation, or walking, or biking, or hand gliding as well. Sure, public transportation fixes you into its schedules, but that's not much different than having to deal with traffic somewhere like Atlanta, DC, NYC, LA etc., which makes getting around by car damn near impossible certain times of day.
And I'm not even suggesting public transportation to be the fix (you brought it up, not me).... but this notion that cars = freedom in today's world is silly.
I didn't realize that owning a car only happens in busy urban environments and that people only made payments on cars to day. Cars still mean freedom of schedule for MANY people today. I have the freedom to leave any time I want and drive anywhere I want on MY schedule, not some limited bus route (which may not even exist in many places around the country) or wait until a cab shows up.
Sorry your world is so small, Sporty.
Quote from: CaminoRacer on December 01, 2017, 12:56:37 PM
If a car doesn't give you freedom, it's because you live in the wrong place (i.e. a miserable place)
I live in a great place. It's just that everybody else wants in.
This is some of the most unthusiast bullshit I've ever seen leave sporty's fingertips. If a car doesn't give you freedom, then why do you have more than one?
Quote from: giant_mtb on December 01, 2017, 04:08:11 PM
This is some of the most unthusiast bullshit I've ever seen leave sporty's fingertips. If a car doesn't give you freedom, then why do you have more than one?
Too busy to sell. Gonna pay off the note this weekend and put it up... it's ready to go.
One can be an enthusiast and acknowledge the burdens cars place on NON-enthusiasts. I enjoy owning a car and getting to drive, but I don't think most people do :huh: That the current alternatives suck doesn't change that :huh:
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 01, 2017, 05:20:11 PM
Too busy to sell. Gonna pay off the note this weekend and put it up... it's ready to go.
One can be an enthusiast and acknowledge the burdens cars place on NON-enthusiasts. I enjoy owning a car and getting to drive, but I don't think most people do :huh: That the current alternatives suck doesn't change that :huh:
It makes sense to me. I love Linux but it would be tragic if everybody was forced to be a commandline jockey in order to do anything.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 01, 2017, 07:47:18 AM
???
Most people's car time is spent waiting in their kid's pick up lines or stuck in bumper to bumper traffic for their work commute. Most people could not work without a car. Where is this freedom cars are giving the average person?
In the absence of a car, you're stuck living within either close proximity to a public transit line or your workplace. Those not living in megapolises, there aren't exactly a lot of employment prospects within walking distance. Or particularly good public transit. It also likely means living in a cramped apartment, in a crowded place, with a high COL. Or, you can move outside of city limits, have a decent sized home with a yard (maybe a pool) at a more affordable cost and commute. Is that not a form of freedom? Freedom to enjoy a lifestyle that is not urban?
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 01, 2017, 05:20:11 PM
Too busy to sell. Gonna pay off the note this weekend and put it up... it's ready to go.
One can be an enthusiast and acknowledge the burdens cars place on NON-enthusiasts. I enjoy owning a car and getting to drive, but I don't think most people do :huh: That the current alternatives suck doesn't change that :huh:
Start walking everywhere you go and get back to me about the freedom a car gives you. Jesus.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 01, 2017, 05:20:11 PM
Too busy to sell. Gonna pay off the note this weekend and put it up... it's ready to go.
One can be an enthusiast and acknowledge the burdens cars place on NON-enthusiasts. I enjoy owning a car and getting to drive, but I don't think most people do :huh: That the current alternatives suck doesn't change that :huh:
Which one are you selling?
Quote from: FoMoJo on December 01, 2017, 06:39:15 PM
Which one are you selling?
Definitely the Civic; possibly both, though I'm shying away from selling the G now that I've got the gas mileage situation under control.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 01, 2017, 07:02:09 PM
Definitely the Civic; possibly both, though I'm shying away from selling the G now that I've got the gas mileage situation under control.
Get a Vornado?
No, water injection kit
!?