Nissan plans to offer affordable self-driving cars by 2020
Source: Computerworld.com
Nissan plans to offer affordable self-driving cars by 2020
It plans to demonstrate its autonomous tech later this year
By Lucas Mearian
August 27, 2013 04:48 PM ET
Computerworld - Nissan announced today that it expects to begin selling multiple models of self-driving cars by 2020.
Self-driving cars, also known as autonomous drive vehicles, use cameras and sensors to detect roadway lanes and objects around them in order to guide themselves without human intervention.
Among others, GM plans to introduce a semi-automated Cadillac driving system in 2015. Google was among the first tech companies to announce plans to produce a self-driving car for "ordinary people" in less than five years.
Read more: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9241946/Nissan_plans_to_offer_affordable_self_driving_cars_by_2020?source=CTWNLE_nlt_emgtech_2013-08-28
Oh, frabjous day! This is what I've been wanting to hear.
At last, some GOOD news.
Bluzmann57
(12,336 posts)Will it honk at slower drivers? Etc., etc.
Personally, I like driving. But I suppose a lot of people who don't drive can utilize a car like that. One more question- What if a person loses their license and isn't allowed to drive? Can they "drive" this car? Ok, two questions. Details.
raccoon
(31,105 posts)and another, like a mild-mannered driver.
(at least I think so)
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)to expressing their road rage without having to bother with steering and stuff.
You can much more effectively pop the tires of your tormentors (or the tormentors themselves, for that matter) if you can grip the pistol with both hands.
MADem
(135,425 posts)This is going to really help old folks, it'll keep 'em on the road longer, but they won't be a danger to others.
supernova
(39,345 posts)Older drivers will definitely want self navigating cars.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Also, the "slow driving" due to dusk coming on, or sun in their eyes, or tiredness--all of those little things could be mitigated. It will keep seniors independent longer, because they won't be getting into stupid accidents and racking up points and/or hurting themselves, and they'll be able to stay in their homes.
I help out the odd seniors on occasion, and that whole "loss of independence" thing is on all their minds. It's terrifying for them, like the monster under the bed or the Evil Monkey in the closet!
snooper2
(30,151 posts)That would take literally all the fun out of driving..
Ping me when the computer can respond to voice commands and pull this off
MADem
(135,425 posts)I didn't find that impressive at all.
It just looked like some guy standing on his brake and gunning it, and laying down a little rubber.
In a huge empty area, with no need for precision to avoid hitting anything.
I think this is kind of impressive, though:
snooper2
(30,151 posts)but you are right, for all my YouTube prowess and usually finding just the right video...I failed LOL
I should have done this one again....That sound at 2:09 in the video gets me a little aroused
MADem
(135,425 posts)I bought it used because I needed wheels fast, and it was a good price, and it was a station wagon and I needed to haul a bunch of "stuff" for a bit.
I gave it to a member of my family, who was thrilled with it.
I prefer the manuals--I feel as though I have much better control of the vehicle.
What a bizarre video!!! Do these guys goad the cops into chasing them and then try to get away?
That's some moxie!!!!! DAMN!
snooper2
(30,151 posts)and they do rallies and other "stuff", YouTube videos make money when you have 40 million video views
MADem
(135,425 posts)tinrobot
(10,887 posts)We're entering a new era that probably won't include gas guzzling muscle cars.
I'm sure they'll be kept around as relics by some, much like buggies and steam locomotives.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)tinrobot
(10,887 posts)Xithras
(16,191 posts)When Google first began demonstrating their self driving car, they famously set up a test track for reporters to ride around in and programmed the car to drive it as fast as safely possible. While the car wasn't powersliding around corners, it DID manage to scare the living hell out of every single person who rode in it...and yet it always stayed between its lines and kept it passengers safe.
Adding powerslides and donuts would be a simple software modification.
Drale
(7,932 posts)how about affordable and practical electric cars that can go the distance of a gas powered car, do everything a gas powered car can, like pull a trailer and charge almost instantly? I don't need a computer driving for me, I need a car that is environmentally sound and that ends humanities dependence on fossil fuels.
thesquanderer
(11,972 posts)Drale
(7,932 posts)environmentally friendly cars are a necessity if we are going to save the earth for future generations. By putting money into researching this technology that is not needed and probably won't sell that well, because lets face it if we can't convince people to give up their cars for public transportation people are not going to give up driving to a computer, it takes much needed money away from the development of electric cars that are practical.
thesquanderer
(11,972 posts)...that the money going to develop this could instead provide something like an electric car that charged almost instantly, if only they would simply choose to redirect the funds that way. You might as well say they should redirect these funds toward developing a Star Trek style Transporter, then they could do away with cars completely! Yeah it would be great, but...
Money going into things like self-driving cars is not stopping research elsewhere, and the limiting factor of battery technology is not simply one of money. Not every technological problem is solvable by simply throwing more money at it more quickly. There are plenty of people working on trying to improve battery technology. Development of other advancements is not hindering that.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Could do all you want existed, the car companies wouldn't be selling as many as they could?
Drale
(7,932 posts)car companies need to focus on advancing electric car technology. Look at Tesla has the Model S which gets roughly 300 miles to the charge and that's only about 100 miles less than my Optima gets on a full tank. We are getting to were we need to be but if the GM's, Chrysler's and Ford's put an effort to forward the technology we could be further faster.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)That is a fact. It isn't the electric motor technology that is a limitation. Batteries capable of replacing a fuel tank and IC engine do not exist, yet. Do not think for a minute there are not a lot of companies plugging away (pun intended) at producing super battery technology. And not just the Big 3.
truthisfreedom
(23,140 posts)We have the battery technology we need right now, and it's only improving from here.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)We have to build those. And I cannot afford to spend $65,000 - $100,000 on an electric car.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,867 posts)Are you a famous rapper?
and Go Cubbies.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)A significant part of our fuel consumption can be attributed to poor route planning, uneven throttle control, and inefficiencies created by our human need to maintain safety margins.
Computer operated cars, on the other hand, can all by hypermiling gas sippers that draft each other down the freeway and always choose the most fuel-efficient route, while avoiding pollution generating congestion.
Electrics are great, but it will be many, many years before they become ubiquitous enough to really make a large dent in our oil consumption numbers. Self-driving technology can be fitted to vehicles that use existing technology, and can immediately reduce fuel consumption and pollution.
Ideally, we will all end up with self-driving electric cars.
kentauros
(29,414 posts)Another aspect to current commuting that will be eliminated (or mostly so) are accidents. To no longer have to sit in stop-and-go traffic due to the stupidity of other drivers causing accidents would save fuel as well, not to mention nerves (and lives.)
I have to wonder if anyone has studied how much productivity is lost due to employees having to "decompress" from their commutes each day before they're fully ready to work. We could probably push for 35-hour full-time work weeks without the need to de-stress each day
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)if they were deployed as a fleet of taxis. Everyone could just hail one using something like Lyft or Uber, get dropped off, and the car goes to its next pickup. Voila! No more parking lots or garages. Lots more land for parks, buildings in walkable downtowns, etc.
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)Certainly, they would not be driving on a generic road. Perhaps they would build special freeways for them.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)Google, Toyota, and others have already demonstrated fully operational self driving cars operating on our public roadways, and a number of states like California are already pushing through legislation to permit them. Drive around the peninsula south of SF long enough, and you'll eventually see one of their test vehicles buzzing down the roadways.
The technology is real, and the laws are being amended to permit them. This isn't vaporware, and there's no reason to believe that we won't be seeing them.
eggplant
(3,908 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)causes an accident.
So this means we can now text and drive.
And drink and drive.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)"The Economist" pointed out that self-driving cars could lead to a big resurgence of country pubs, for example.
panzerfaust
(2,818 posts)JustanAngel
(44 posts)Yes, the law needs to address these issues before the technology is introduced to the public, rather than afterwards.
The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)insurance for a self driving system will possibly be cheaper because it is more cautious and more skilled. Just sit back and enjoy your coffee, read a book, have a conversation or take a nap.
ConcernedCanuk
(13,509 posts).
.
.
Large cities mostly have subway systems already to alleviate traffic congestion and pollution.
Not quite sure how those self-driving cars would navigate the back roads and bush roads I spend most of my time on.
Besides - driving wouldn't be much fun, - well, the addicted texters would like it I suppose;
until a computer/sensor failed to recognize a tree in front of the vehicle.
OH - silly me - computers/sensors never mess up . . .
CC
ileus
(15,396 posts)on my morning commute or we'll be run over.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)MicaelS
(8,747 posts)I would buy one now if I could afford one. I drive about 20 miles one way to work. 90% of that is on the freeway, at night. I would love to be able to put on some music, and read until I got to work.
aggiesal
(8,907 posts)MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Not where I work. And I predict autonomous cars will sell like hotcakes.
aggiesal
(8,907 posts)automated car during the day,
and you're going to trust one at night?
Hope you're never on any roads I drive.
Nothing against you of course, I just don't
trust automated cars.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Than during the day. I don't encounter and traffic jams, or slowdowns.
tinrobot
(10,887 posts)Parent's who need to get kids to school but don't have time.
People who are too infirm to drive.
People who prefer to read and surf the internet on their commute.
Heavy drinkers out on the town.
Taxi companies...
I could go on...
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Parent's who need to get kids to school but don't have time....School bus/carpool?
People who are too infirm to drive....Shouldn't be driving anywhere but to a hospital (they can call 911 for pickup)
People who prefer to read and surf the internet on their commute....Can read and surf the internet at the office like any other regular American
Heavy drinkers out on the town...Plenty of services to get them home; some are even free
Taxi companies...I imagine the flesh-and-blood drivers would fight this threat to their livelihood with everything they have
tinrobot
(10,887 posts)Spend a few hours per day behind it if that makes you happy.
There are plenty of other people who would enjoy the additional time/freedom a safe, self driving car could provide.
aggiesal
(8,907 posts)tinrobot
(10,887 posts)Google is claiming 300,000 miles with no accidents. Take that at face value.
I'll adopt a wait and see for now. If it is proven safe, then it could be very beneficial.
aggiesal
(8,907 posts)tinrobot
(10,887 posts)Here's a few that mention it:
The self-driving car logs more miles on new wheels
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-self-driving-car-logs-more-miles-on.html
Google's Driverless Car Is Now Safer Than the Average Driver
http://mashable.com/2012/08/07/google-driverless-cars-safer-than-you/
Googles Self-Driving Cars Complete 300K Miles Without Accident
http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/07/google-cars-300000-miles-without-accident/
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)You've never met an old person who isn't comfortable driving, but would love to go and visit a friend or family member maybe 40 or 50 miles away, with no convenient public transportation? Aren't you excited about such a person being able to walk out of their house, get into their self-driving car, then sit back and relax while they are taken to their destination?
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)so much for that taxi plan.
Bus? Fine if they live in an urban area. Except maybe for Arlington, TX, (pop. ~300,000) which is just now starting up its very first bus system.
kentauros
(29,414 posts)with all the other drivers out there doing these same things. I'd also include the inexperienced drivers, be they young or immigrants, as well as the ones that seem to truly think they're on a NASCAR track. I had someone pass me within just a hair's width of my bumper this morning in his impatient goal to be "in front" of everyone else.
Now, I will admit that I like some aspects of driving, such as taking corners and banked curves fast. However, my ability to do so requires either being lucky with no one in front of me, or empty roads. The latter only happens after a hurricane evacuation, and the former only happens about 10% of the time. I'd be fine with not getting that thrill if it meant also losing the nerve-wracking I get twice-daily.
When all the cars drive me, then I would expect there will be tracks cropping up to satisfy the racetrack mentalities that seem to want that kind of driving on their daily commute. And if they can't handle the idea of all cars driving them, then they can sit at home to telecommute their job while playing the latest racing video game
(Realistically, I'd much rather telecommute my job, too, as it's desk/cubicle type of work.)
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)raccoon
(31,105 posts)Not much traffic, you can see for miles and miles, etc. Piece of cake.
(Except in Wichita around 5:00 PM.)
shanti
(21,675 posts)I used to dream about it.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)What could possibly go wrong?
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)actually, the Asiana crash happened because the plane was not using instruments to land, but was being flown by hand by pilots with little experience with the tricky approach to SFO.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)Pilots don't get experience piloting when they depend on computers.
The same with drivers. We're becoming completely dependent on tech which we can't always rely on.
Lasher
(27,541 posts)No worries then for the riding impaired.
I hope they come with an inflatable chauffeur, kinda like the movie, Airplane! Then I could sit in the back and pretend I'm rich.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)tinrobot
(10,887 posts)...and if they cause an accident, who is liable?
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)RobinA
(9,886 posts)when I was in elementary school I was promised a jetpack by my Weekly Reader. I haven't seen that yet.
As far as the self-driving car - "Hello, Mr./Ms. Boss? I would have been in to work today, but my car didn't want to come. It might be more willing to go to work if it could have a shady spot to park in all day.
damnedifIknow
(3,183 posts)Can't ticket a computer for speeding right?
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)the car locks its doors on you and drives directly to City Hall instead of where you told it to go.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)Robots will take over when we're all gone.
BeyondGeography
(39,351 posts)Heywood J
(2,515 posts)The car could suddenly swerve into oncoming traffic after the 10,000th turn or try to run all red lights on Friday the 13th. The car could refuse to take you to work until you gave your credit card to a Chinese or Russian web site. It could brick the engine and/or transmission, or phone home with the exact details of your travel and demand payment in exchanger for not releasing that information. The possibilities (and precedents) are endless. Human nature is to profit, destroy, and pry holes to see into forbidden things.
kentauros
(29,414 posts)Why can't it be a separate system?
And when was the last time you heard of hackers getting into military craft or NASA's vehicles? Not to mention how hackers have brought down all the planes out there, especially the ones that are "fly by wire" or the various experimental aircraft NASA and the military test. Why haven't they all been hacked by now?
I'd say that the more realistic hacking to take place will be to take back human control once all vehicles are automated. As we've seen in this thread, too many don't want to relinquish control, not because of safety, but because they won't be able to drive as insanely as possible. That's what racetracks can be used for, and I'd rather all those types of drivers be there to begin with and leave the roads to the rest of us that just want to get where we're going, safely and calmly.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)kentauros
(29,414 posts)The most likely kind of hacking will be from those wanting to regain control of the vehicle for themselves. From the sounds of things, each car will be offline. Sensors and cameras will allow them to navigate the roads, not the Internet. Read up on the various ways they have to automate vehicles and you might not be so worried.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)They will need GPS.
kentauros
(29,414 posts)You only need an antenna to get GPS coordinates. Surveyors do the same thing to get location and elevation points (such as for the maps I make.) Their data collectors aren't online. They merely collect the data. Our office computers then interpret that data, same as would happen in a car.
There are numerous methods for vehicles to navigate roads, too, beyond GPS. Simple ones, such as permanent magnets embedded in the center of each lane, or induction loops in the lanes. Also, limited access HOV-type roadways just for these smarter cars. Guidance doesn't have to be by GPS or other broadcast methods in order for the system to work. Honestly, do some research about these multitudes of methods and you'll see just how versatile they could do this kind of transit
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Navigation is more than tracking with magnets, it is doubtful magnets would know where they are, and why would they introduce something new when there is a system already in place? In order to get where you want to go, you must know where you already are. Who do you think is going to pay for these magnets or induction loops? Do you think they will put them in place before the first car is ready? And honestly, do some research, do you think anyone will actually build dedicated roads for these vehicles?
kentauros
(29,414 posts)I asked you to do the same, so I didn't have to duplicate my efforts. As for who would pay for it, government would, same as with everything else to do with the roads. The government put the GPS system into orbit. Sure, taxpayers paid for it, but we didn't implement it.
As for a data collector being the means for a hacker to get in, the problem with that way of thinking is assuming that it would be "a way in." GPS data is rather simple. There isn't much there for viruses to work with. Plus, if it isn't lat/longs, or N/E (Northing/Easting) numbers, the data will be rejected. I know this because I work with those data sets in mapping.
If the GPS on an automated vehicle gets corrupted data that doesn't match the master set, the corrupted stuff gets kicked out. You won't have cars crashing due to someone uploading bad data. Plus, I have yet to hear of anyone doing that. If they had, we'd be seeing planes crashing because they could no longer find the airports.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)or not. And if it doesn't
shouldn't it?
And if it's control turns on and of at driver's will
it seems too random and prone to user error.
Almost every instance anyone can give for use of these cars would be answered by better mass transit (getting fewer cars on the road)
kentauros
(29,414 posts)and why I'm constantly perplexed at why telecommuting is so resisted in this country. Gas prices go up and you'd think people would insist on telecommuting from their homes, yet it never happens.
As for the cars "turning on and off" the driving ability, that's also assuming quite a lot from something that's offline. Besides, the majority of driving is getting to and from work, and errands. Most people aren't driving for pleasure, they're driving for necessity.
Mass transit also only goes so far. As I like to paraphrase an old Houston Metro slogan "You can't get there from here." Because their routes are crappy, they try to use fewer buses on bigger routes, you have to make five transfers to get from one end of town to the other, and they are only now close to implementing a light-rail system that would have been in place a decade ago if not for anti-mass transit republicans like Tom Delay.
If cities like Houston would also learn how to lead instead of always following (following is politically safer) we could have had something like SkyTran years ago, too. A grid-based mass transit system would be far more agreeable to most people than the crazy-path systems we have now.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)because many people prefer to be in the company of others.
I do a bit of telecommuting myself. Although it's nice that I can do work without anyone monitoring my every move, it can get rather boring and there can also be many distractions. However, saying that, I think I would rather telecommute than be just another driver stuck in long traffic jams, or battling severe weather and bad roads.
kentauros
(29,414 posts)Another is young managers can't then micromanage as easily, and why they'll resist, too. I've read that managers that don't micromanage are more open to telecommuting, because they've developed other ways to manage and trust their employees to a better extent. Plus, they're aware of the kind of software that can monitor work done, or progress, though the latter is often just results-based anyway.
Some places that telecommute their employees do require them to show up at least one day a week, and that's fine. However, there's no reason why we can't just video-chat with our co-workers, too There were times at other jobs when email wasn't adequate for the one guy that got to telecommute from his home in another state! For meetings we'd conference call with him, yet we could have skyped it, too. I still don't know what the guy looked like to this day
Heywood J
(2,515 posts)to have new software uploaded via a physically-secured port. The corresponding concept doesn't really exist for a car, which is a mass-produced consumer good. Look at how many software and firmware updates Blu-Ray players require, and how many software updates any operating system regularly receives. There are comparatively few airplanes that fly by wire, whose parts are tracked and qualified. There are 255,000,000 cars in the USA alone and you will be relying on the lowest-bidding sub-subcontractor for safety and security. Do you want to bet that some Chinese state-controlled chipmaking enterprise wouldn't leap at the prospect of being able to cripple the US transportation infrastructure, on demand, via a secret ROM back door? Some may come pre-programmed with malware: http://spectrum.ieee.org/riskfactor/telecom/security/this-week-in-cybercrime-some-new-computers-have-malware-already-installed Is the car maker going to inspect every line of code in software and in firmware, especially if it's subcontracted to an overseas IT firm?
Cars are already online. Look at OnStar, Sync, and similar systems, wirelessly-loaded stereo systems, cars that connect to cell phones, etc. Cars that are not online will eventually become the exception, especially once they start communicating with each other for navigation, advance condition and hazard data, etc. Someone will be waiting to exploit an unsanitized input stream or a buffer overflow. SEND TO OTHER CAR: "TRAFFIC AHEAD FOUR MILES'; DROP TABLE *;"
Another large question would be liability. Nothing with any significant amount of code is bullet-proof. Who's responsible for the multi-vehicle pileup when an exception isn't caught.
kentauros
(29,414 posts)Sorry for the all caps, but I can't do bold in the title.
The car need not be online to get GPS data. It need only receive, just like a radio. All it truly needs is the data for where it is. Now, it will have to be high-quality data, better than the current GPS devices people get. That is, resolution will have to be better than one meter per pixel on a map. That's too much leeway for drift in a lane.
If this were such a big issue, that some other country could cripple our transit systems with some back-door programming, then why hasn't it yet happened with all the GPS devices on the market now? Why haven't people blindly driven off a cliff because their GPS device told them to turn right at the wrong place (thanks to people being unable to read maps anymore)? Why haven't all the GPS data collectors surveyors use have been told they are on UTM-15 projection instead of NAD-83? Think of how screwed up properties, both private and public, would become if they did that. Talk about lawsuits galore!
Yes, the cars will likely talk to each other. Unless the hacker hacks their own car to "spread" a virus, there isn't much reason for the cars to talk to anything else. Plus, a navigation system has no need to be connected to anything online, even if for upgrades. Make upgrades be something like you mention for aviation. We are talking about an automated transit system. Why leave its maintenance in the hands of the consumers? We don't let vehicle owners do their own safety and emissions testing, so why let them have access to the navigation systems? In fact, now that I mention it, you could have all upgrades done only by professionals in a system-specific shop, a "hard upgrade" versus "online" or over wifi. Seems like that would be safest and best to prevent all the fear-based problems you keep lobbing at me.
JustanAngel
(44 posts)"Why haven't people blindly driven off a cliff because their GPS device told them to turn right at the wrong place..." You dpn't know that these things haven't happened.
kentauros
(29,414 posts)Inattentive drivers are deadly only to themselves and the few cars around them. The point we were discussing here was the idea of hackers getting into a closed system (a GPS receiver, i.e., "data collector" and telling all cars to do something deadly, such as drive it (and its driver) off a cliff.
aggiesal
(8,907 posts)is the last time I drive that car.
How will it know when the light changes from Red to Green
or from Green to Red? Will it know what a yellow light is?
Or what will it do driving through neighborhoods and that
unsuspecting child runs out in front of the car?
How about emergency vehicles? We can hear the sirens
blaring from around the corner, so we know that something
is about to happen, but can an automated car?
As you can tell, I'm not down with this.
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)RebelOne
(30,947 posts)Probably well beyond the means of the middle class driver.
kentauros
(29,414 posts)I recall reading about this technology, and the various ways of doing it (there are many different systems, so I hope the manufacturers manage to standardize something that works everywhere for every vehicle.)
What was laughable at the time was how adamant against automated vehicles the big car manufacturers were. Their lame excuse was "we don't want to take the fun out of driving." Well, none of us get to have much fun driving in daily stop-and-go traffic, either, or dealing with the idiots in parking lots, or trying to find a parking space that isn't partly taken by the vehicles on either side, and so forth.
Daily driving isn't fun; it's a necessity. Fun driving is the kind done on a track, be it paved or off-road, such as the not-so-popular road sport in America, rally racing. Get you a car just for the racing you want to do, put it on a trailer, take it to the track, and get all the fun you can stomach for the week or the month. Let the rest of us have calm, stress-free daily commutes that don't require us to "decompress" once we get to the office, or wherever.
Better yet, let's implement telecommuting whether American businesses like it or not. Empty the skyscrapers and the freeways so all the folks that do things with their hands can get to their work safely and calmly
raccoon
(31,105 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)kentauros
(29,414 posts)And I always remember that opening
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)to assist good freaking luck.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)goes all "Hal from 2001" and takes out it's owner for not appreciating everything it does for the driver.
kentauros
(29,414 posts)olddots
(10,237 posts)no offence to you techies here but convenience is not always convenient .
kentauros
(29,414 posts)In fact, I dare say it's not about convenience at all.
It's primarily about safety, yet also about efficiency. Humans cannot drive their vehicles in the most fuel-efficient manner possible. A computer can, and the fuel savings would be immense, not to mention the reduction in pollution. You'd be able to eliminate the speed daemons, the ones that seem to enjoy guzzling fuel just to make the rest of us mad. We'd be able to nap on our commute to work. The tech-addicted could surf the 'net with impunity, never once concerned about drifting into the lane next to them and killing that mother taking her children to their first day of school.
I'm not really a techie like some around here. However, I'd much rather work from home (telecommute, telework) than be on the roads at all, including having to put up with the sun in my eyes both ways as well as the rest of the 100% inattentive drivers "sharing" the roads with me. My safety is more important than anything. I put up with it and drive defensively because that's the only option available right now.
When automated vehicles are the norm, I hope I'm still alive to truly appreciate how much better they will make all of our lives
Throd
(7,208 posts)One of my simple pleasures in life.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)PasadenaTrudy
(3,998 posts)the twisties in my Miata...
kentauros
(29,414 posts)Usually, that's done on either a parking lot, or sometimes, on abandoned airstrips. You can do all sorts of things when you're not constrained by lanes, laws, and unpredictable "fellow" drivers
jmowreader
(50,530 posts)You could put an offender out on supervised release dependent on his/her renting, for a rate set by his/her ability to pay, one of these cars. The offender plugs in the places he/she needs to go on any particular day - I have to go to work, to the grocery store, to Target, to the doctor, wherever - at the beginning of each day. After the parole officer reviews the itinerary and approves it, the offender pushes a button to go to work, then after work to each of his/her errands...and the parole officer won't have to worry that the offender will make extra stops at the liquor store, the drug dealer, the whorehouse and the backroom casino.
Question: if you're drunk, would you have to sit in the back seat so the cop at the sobriety checkpoint doesn't think you're driving the car yourself?
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)well if i last that long.
self driving car would be very boring!
kentauros
(29,414 posts)You'd be able to safely fall asleep at the wheel (assuming there's even a wheel by then.)
yurbud
(39,405 posts)flvegan
(64,406 posts)This is for you. No, rather for us. The driving public that knows what we're doing, and do so for a reason.
drgoodword
(19 posts)Forbes has a good article from the beginning of the year that gives some insight into how revolutionary the self-driving car will likely be:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chunkamui/2013/01/22/fasten-your-seatbelts-googles-driverless-car-is-worth-trillions/
Some highlights from the Forbes piece:
Driverless car technology has the very real potential to save millions from death and injury and eliminate hundreds of billions of dollars of costs. Googles claims for the car, as described by Sebastian Thrun, its lead developer, are:
1.We can reduce traffic accidents by 90%.
2.We can reduce wasted commute time and energy by 90%.
3.We can reduce the number of cars by 90%.
To put those claims in context:
About 5.5 million motor vehicle accidents occurred in 2009 in the U.S., involving 9.5 million vehicles. These accidents killed 33,808 people and injured more than 2.2 million others, 240,000 of whom had to be hospitalized.
Adding up all costs related to accidentsincluding medical costs, property damage, loss of productivity, legal costs, travel delays and pain and lost quality of lifethe American Automobile Association studied crash data in the 99 largest U.S. urban areas and estimated the total costs to be $299.5 billion. Adjusting those numbers to cover the entire country suggests annual costs of about $450 billion.
Now take 90% off these numbers. Google is claiming its car could save almost 30,000 lives each year on U.S. highways and prevent nearly 2 million additional injuries. Google claims it can reduce accident-related expenses by at least $400 billion a year in the U.S. Even if Google is way offand I dont believe it isthe improvement in safety will be startling.
Regarding legislation governing self-driving cars, three states have already passed laws (Nevada, Florida, and California).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_car#Legislation
In 20 years, only the richest will be able to afford the insurance to drive "manually". Personally, I welcome this remarkable life, time, energy and stress saving innovation.