Ford commits to fully autonomous vehicles within five years

[Harley Lover]

I did forget about that haha.

 

I know we also had a debate about that as to whether it truly meant 13 different models, or just variants of models (i.e. Fusion Hybrid and Fusion Energi counting as 2 of those 13)

 

I don't know if that question ever got "decided"! Another thing that occurred to me is how loose a definition of "electrification" is being used - could the definition be stretched to include a car that simply has stop/start technology, for example?

[silvrsvt]

 

For young people who can barely afford to buy a house, the idea of not owning a car is very attractive, as cities wake up to the flaws of dedicating so much land for parking they will increase the cost to provide parking, driving the cost up and reducing the quantity they mandate businesses must provide. this has already begun in some areas with additional fees for non-permeable surfaces to reduce CSO and flooding in urban areas.

 

and parking minimums are beign reduced all over the country, the net effect is more walkable and less car centric nieghborhoods, which are better suited towards Car sharing and autonomous cars.

 

But not everyone lives in the city either. I live in a very density populated state with roughly 1.1 million people spread between two counties that roughly 1580 sq miles between the two of them and we still have lots of people driving their own cars and places to park them.

[RichardJensen]

 

How is it flawed?

 

Would you drive for Uber?

 

Essentially, it doesn't make sense for anyone to drive for Uber with the rates they're paying and they're still losing money. It's questionable how much they can raise fares as well.

Edited August 19, 2016 by RichardJensen

[jpd80]

Perhaps we need to rethink why self drive cars are being pushed at the moment and who's doing the pushing?

 

This is not consumer driven, sure it's a nice feature to play with your phone while a computer "drives" your car

but the people peddling this crap have a vested interest in drivers being engaged on line and not focused on driving.

 

and it is entirely on their shoulders to prove that a machine can complete every trip with a safer driving score than a human

At the moment, those machines are a million miles behind the most incompetent driver imaginable on the road.

Edited August 19, 2016 by jpd80

[jcartwright99]

Perhaps we need to rethink why self drive cars are being pushed at the moment and who's doing the pushing?

 

This is not consumer driven, sure it's a nice feature to play with your phone while a computer "drives" your car

but the people peddling this crap have a vested interest in drivers being engaged on line and not focused on driving.

....

 

Not to sound like an old codger right now (I am 39) but the state of things right now has me worried. Speaking strictly about the automotive realm (and those places that touch it), we are in a sad state. Look, I am no Luddite but there are hidden agendas behind a lot of these government mandates. Those in our government who claim to be all for the electrification, heavy fuel mileage regulation, and autonomous driving are in the back pockets of those who are going to benefit from this. If you don't think that folks are going to make piles off cash this, all under the guise of safer technology, less dependence on foreign oil and so on, you are kidding yourself.

 

The media plays their role so well too. CNBC is the worst as they have to keep that stock price high by touting Musk Musk Musk all the time. In reality, we know from everything we see, Tesla is a turd that doesn't make money. While it's all marketed as the ludicrous speed and autopilot future, the business plan (is there one?) is all about conning more investors for money. When in reality, Musk won't be around to see if his outlandish claims because they will be bankrupt or bought before then. He is a snake oil salesman that sells high end electric cars, that are poorly built soon to be razor flip phones. Yet, all we hear about is the model 3 and how it will make ICE cars extinct. Wallstreet knows this and will short the sh*t of their stock. Don't even get me started on their NDA for fixing car issues and trying to skirt NHTSA and recalls.

 

How many stories do we see about Millennials won't drive, and nobody will own a car, uber, lyft driving (all pun intended) home that the automobile the way we know it is dying. All of these Silicon Valley tech companies want that. They want you to disengage with reality and stare at their app or screen. The more nefarious part is our own government. (*disclaimer, this may sound conspiracy theorist and I fully acknowledge that. I have no proof but this is just a thought.) Are these shiny tech objects here just to take away our attention that the middle class is dying, poverty is going up and wages are not. Removing the car out of the equation, frees up some cash for that American dream. The dream will always be just a dream for a growing number of folks. I digressed, sorry.

 

I could go on and on about who is going to cash in on the electric cars or infrastructure,overlooking the pollution factor and autonomy but it really comes back to this. To summarize, this isn't a free market and it hasn't been for a while. The consumers are having less and less of a choice of the products they want. Instead, the powers that control are instituting ways that they get the future they want and the money that goes with it.

[Biker16]

 

But not everyone lives in the city either. I live in a very density populated state with roughly 1.1 million people spread between two counties that roughly 1580 sq miles between the two of them and we still have lots of people driving their own cars and places to park them.

81.6% of Americans live in urbanized areas, that's 81.6% of 300+million people And growing.

 

How can we prevent future growth in congestion, air pollution and other negative impacts? When we cannot afford to add enough road capacity to keep up with demand. As urban areas grow?

 

Something has to give, which is driving the development of autonomous vehicles.

[akirby]

How can we prevent future growth in congestion, air pollution and other negative impacts? When we cannot afford to add enough road capacity to keep up with demand.

Self driving cars will not fix any of that.

[7Mary3]

Uber, on the other hand, desperately needs self-driving cars, or something else, in order to make their otherwise flawed business model succeed

 

Sure, it would work if they didn't have to pay the driver........

[Biker16]

Self driving cars will not fix any of that.

 

I am pretty sure the research says that you are incorrect in your assertion.

[akirby]

I am pretty sure the research says that you are incorrect in your assertion.

Explain how a self driving car will reduce congestion and air pollution.

[Havelock]

Explain how a self driving car will reduce congestion and air pollution.

They can safely draft. This reduces drag, polution, and fuel consumption on highways. 10 cars drafting would take up much less space than 10 human piloted cars with the proper safe distance between them. This reduces congestion. You can YouTube the demonstration GM ran in the 1990s if you need further explanations. Edited August 20, 2016 by Havelock

[akirby]

Theoretically, maybe. In real life - no way.

[mackinaw]

Theoretically, maybe. In real life - no way.

 

Sure it will. Not now, and not for another 25+ years. It will take that long for non-autonomous cars to cycle out of the system. But when the world of cars is truly autonomous, vehicle deaths will plummet and a lot of things we take for granted (traffic jams, etc.) will be a thing of the past.

I won’t be around to see it, I’m too old as it is, but the younger folks on this forum will see it.

Edited August 20, 2016 by mackinaw

[akirby]

The only way to reduce traffic jams and congestion is to reduce the number of cars on the road or increase the number of roads/lanes available. Driverless cars won't help when you're already packed bumper to bumper in stop and go traffic.

 

I get the safety benefit however you get that with automatic braking, lane keeping, etc even with a human driver.

[BORG]

The only way to reduce traffic jams and congestion is to reduce the number of cars on the road or increase the number of roads/lanes available. Driverless cars won't help when you're already packed bumper to bumper in stop and go traffic.

 

I get the safety benefit however you get that with automatic braking, lane keeping, etc even with a human driver.

 

 

Sorry, but this COMPLETELY wrong. Almost all traffic jams are exponential reactions to the inconsistency of human actions. Somebody slows down suddenly ahead because they swerved into a lane, all the traffic behind them responds exponentially to cause slow downs. A single human error grows exponentially. You can cram many times more cars onto fewer roads with automation, but it requires a complete system to be effective. And don't get me started on the slow reaction time at intersections and how that contributes to traffic jams. Automation could also rewrite how roads are designed, eliminating the need for full-stop intersections or legal u-turns (Michigan Lefts). Automation can also speed up cars significantly which again allows more cars on the road because they spend less time on the road. You can't just think in terms of automating cars to comply with exiting road rules, you can throw all of them out if everything is automated. There is a tremendous opportunity to improve efficiency, costs, and safety with automation and there is no doubt it's coming but I'm sure it will take the rest of my lifetime to see anything even close to that.

Edited August 20, 2016 by BORG

[akirby]

You've obviously never driven in Atlanta.

[RichardJensen]

 

 

exponential reactions to the inconsistency of human actions

 

Who will write the code behind self-driving vehicles?

[SoonerLS]

Who will write the code behind self-driving vehicles?

I heard a rumor about the acquisition of monkeys and typewriters...

Edited August 21, 2016 by SoonerLS

[BrewfanGRB]

I can't even get GPS (or Google Maps or any other mapping software) to pinpoint my driveway on the highway, let alone have a car show up at my door.

 

You raise a point here, that I was going to expand on. I live in an apartment on Main Ave. My building is deep within the complex but the building # is still XXXX Main Ave. Google Maps puts my building over block east of where I am. Aside from the fact it would be hard for Google to know where my building is anyway, it really makes no sense for where it "pins" my address.

 

But the other issue I found: Humans, when non-impaired, are actually pretty good drivers. They "know" how to get around things. What happens at an intersection controlled by a police officer? Google says its cars analyze intersections and that it can tell a car is going to run a red light before you know it will, can see bicyclists, etc. And I agree with them. But for example, when I leave a sporting event, busy intersections are controlled by a cop and you can't follow the rule of "when a traffic light is out, treat the intersection like a 4-way stop". So then what? Humans are good at sorting this out. I don't know how AI can--but I admit I'm NOWHERE CLOSE to being smart enough to know if can be done. If things were done based on what I know or understand, very little would get done.

 

I'm very torn here. Google's approach is reasonable--you have to take the driver out of it altogether because despite what I say above, nearly all crashes are caused by human error. The problem is, you can't "flip the switch"...you can't get to an "all-automated" environment, so how does an automated car deal with human drivers?

 

Tesla's current approach is intriguing because when the environment allows--high speed, but controlled--you can let the car do the work. It really is like autopilot. On an airliner, the pilot flying completes take off and landing, but nearly everything between is done by autopilot. So in complex environments, people are better. Like what happens when you need to park in a field to go to a concert, etc? It's going to be really hard to program the AI to figure that out. Plus, how does the "driver" tell the car that that is what he wants?

 

It's a very hard problem, I think for those that are committing to the fully automated approach.

[BrewfanGRB]

As a consumer I have no interest in buying a vehicle like this. I enjoy driving, so a completely autonomous vehicle sounds very unappealing, and certainly reduces the desire to own a vehicle.

 

I agree. I moved to where I now live within walking distance to work. I drive my car maybe once a week (go to Target, visit family, whatever). I've had my Fusion for 7 1/2 years--the longest I've owned any car and while I need to clean up credit cards before I could get a new car anyway, I'd sure like a new car. But I can't justify it. I can't justify $35k for a car I drive once a week and maybe 6000 miles a year.

 

And I like driving, so I sure as hell couldn't justify spending the same $35k on a box that drives me around. Now that I'm 40, I can see how people get old and cranky. But there's no way I've ever buying one of these. A Tesla with autopilot? Sure. But never something I can't drive myself.

[BrewfanGRB]

Even if the system worked 70% of the time.. that is still more attention and dependability than the average driver with a cell phone does when commuting.

 

Oh, please. You might be going for the "haha, I can poke fun at people using cell phones!" hyperbole but you're conflating, regardless. The safety rate of human drivers you're asserting here would mean a full-blown collapse of our vehicle transportation system. Hyperbole is one thing but being utterly ridiculous is another.

[BrewfanGRB]

 

Right. Given the extremely low crash rate per vehicle mile driven, and the even lower injury rate per vehicle mile driven, and the even lower fatality rate per mile driven, the whole 'self-driving' car thing is basically trying to solve a problem that, statistically speaking, doesn't even exist.

 

Exactly. Driving, while not exactly a particularly extremely safe activity, is still far safer than people think. And idiotic approaches like WisDOT's "Zero in Wisconsin" program doesn't help anything. Clearly, no one in the entire department has ever been taught about goal-setting because zero traffic fatalities is NOT achievable. Period. The End.

 

Autonomous vehicles would probably cull some low-hanging fruit--like people running red lights, rear-ending others because of inattention, etc.

 

But I think it can CREATE more problems. Like driving in snow. What happens in heavy snow and traffic? Smart drivers slow down and only go as fast as they're comfortable. Will an automated car do that? Will it go the speed limit and think it can slow when it detects a vehicle ahead, but can't stop because of conditions? Or lose control? I'm a tech guy. I don't want to be a naysayer. But I don't think I understand how you solve these problems.

[Bob Rosadini]

No doubt we will see this at some point. IMO however the rush to do this on an accelerated pace makes no sense. Mark Fields says Ford will have vehicles in five years without steering wheels!

 

Hey Mark. How about improving on your CAFE numbers, vehicle reliability, safety etc etc. Seems like this is another bandwagon that like lemmings, everyone is rushing to jump on board. Mark, how about hydraulic accumulators? Eliminating camshafts and replacing the mechanical valve train with electrically activated valves etc etc. so much to do and we want to let some idiot read a newspaper while he is driving-not that they don't do that today.

 

Biggest winners? The legal profession. Just what we need-more lawyers, more suits etc.

 

Oh and someone mentioned the benefits associated with improved traffic flow? How about for starters putting more camera controls to control traffic at intersections. In my small town with one state highway running through it-in addition to interstate- recently a camera system was installed to monitor one intersection. Now instead of light cycling 24 hours, it is responding to real activity. No more Jake brakes popping off at 3 AM when light goes red with no vehicle waiting.

 

Again-not saying it won't happen-but let's do it at a measured pace that makes sense.

 

When railroads can run safely with no human in the cab and when the open pit mines of the world have 100 ton haul trucks with no driver on board, time to do that in traffic.

[RichardJensen]

 

nearly all crashes are caused by human error

 

That will be the case with self-driving cars as well. Think about it.

Edited August 22, 2016 by RichardJensen

[silvrsvt]

 

That will be the case with self-driving cars as well. Think about it.

 

 

The only way self driving cars would be successful would be to ban all non-self driving cars. That isn't going to happen!