Self-driving cars hitting red lights

[630land]

Imagine all the self driving cars that stop suddenly, and the riders are on the phones trying to contact Tech Support, and on hold. Like trying to fix home computer or whatever. Will be fun.

 

Yeah they're coming, but don't expect a "perfect world".

Edited April 25, 2018 by 630land

[J-150]

Imagine all the self driving cars that stop suddenly, and the riders are on the phones trying to contact Tech Support, and on hold. Like trying to fix home computer or whatever. Will be fun.

 

Yeah they're coming, but don't expect a "perfect world".

Have you tried turning it off and turning it on again?

[rperez817]

 

Yeah right. There will be a "autonomous vehicle insurance surcharge" required to have one.

 

Why would there be a surcharge?

[rmc523]

 

Why would there be a surcharge?

 

Uh because otherwise the insurance companies all go out of business. They'll find some way to keep their slice of the money pie.

[jniffen]

The IT Crowd - Hello IT Embedded

 

The IT Crowd - Truest moment about tech support

[Bob Rosadini]

 

Lawyers will not be the winners here - less accidents will mean less lawsuits. Other "losers" will be body shops and people waiting for organ transplants. Autonomous cars are coming and will result in less accidents.

Uh right-when the car makes the decision to hit five people at the bus stop vs taking the hit from the car crossing over the center line.

 

Again not saying it won't happen-but why not at a measured pace??? and agree- the minor fender benders caused by inattention will i'm sure go down-but I say, learn by gaining experience with relatively simple crash avoidance systems.

[MKX1960]

 

Why would there be a surcharge?

Kind of like when people started driving more efficient vehicles and less tax revenue coming in. Someone thought charging a per mile tax might be a good idea. If they can't get you one way, they'll come up with something else.

[Dave_SF]

The main economic driver for autonomous cars is the amount of money spent to pay drivers. In trucking, in Taxi, in Limo / Uber.

 

Uber reportedly pays somewhere near 75% of the fare to the driver. This includes car ownership and maintenance, but at least 50% of the fare cost is purely driver cost. If software could replace all those drivers, an Uber (and Taxi, and Limo) rides would cost half as much. At that kind of cost, it would be more economical for most people in metro areas not to own cars at all.

 

Of course there will be auto owners who want their own self-driving cars, and others who just want to drive themselves.

 

However, all of this presumes a world where autonomous driving cars are actually safe enough, and as a pretty informed software engineer, I think we're further from that then some (especially Elon Musk and the press) would have you believe.

[fordmantpw]

The main economic driver for autonomous cars is the amount of money spent to pay drivers. In trucking, in Taxi, in Limo / Uber.

 

Uber reportedly pays somewhere near 75% of the fare to the driver. This includes car ownership and maintenance, but at least 50% of the fare cost is purely driver cost. If software could replace all those drivers, an Uber (and Taxi, and Limo) rides would cost half as much. At that kind of cost, it would be more economical for most people in metro areas not to own cars at all.

 

I don't think fares would cost half as much. They may go down, but nowhere near 50%.

 

 

However, all of this presumes a world where autonomous driving cars are actually safe enough, and as a pretty informed software engineer, I think we're further from that then some (especially Elon Musk and the press) would have you believe.

 

It's great to have another software engineer on the forum who feels the same way. Welcome to the club!

[rmc523]

The main economic driver for autonomous cars is the amount of money spent to pay drivers. In trucking, in Taxi, in Limo / Uber.

 

Uber reportedly pays somewhere near 75% of the fare to the driver. This includes car ownership and maintenance, but at least 50% of the fare cost is purely driver cost. If software could replace all those drivers, an Uber (and Taxi, and Limo) rides would cost half as much. At that kind of cost, it would be more economical for most people in metro areas not to own cars at all.

 

Of course there will be auto owners who want their own self-driving cars, and others who just want to drive themselves.

 

However, all of this presumes a world where autonomous driving cars are actually safe enough, and as a pretty informed software engineer, I think we're further from that then some (especially Elon Musk and the press) would have you believe.

 

Would they lower fares? Or just keep all the money to themselves instead of paying a driver?

[tbone]

 

Would they lower fares? Or just keep all the money to themselves instead of paying a driver?

Ding, ding, ding!!!

[akirby]

Ding, ding, ding!!!

 

The only way they would lower fares is if a competitor was also using autonomous vehicles and decided to lower their prices. But if uber was only competing with driver services they'd just barely undercut those prices and pocket the rest.

 

Not that there is anything wrong with that - it's a standard business model. But it does explain the motivation.

[rperez817]

 

Would they lower fares? Or just keep all the money to themselves instead of paying a driver?

 

Could go either way. Uber, Lyft, Didi and other transportation network service companies need autonomous cars in order to survive. Paying human drivers as they do now incurs huge losses for these companies. They can't raise fares for customers too much, or they will lose lots of business.

 

Also numerous lawsuits have been filed over Uber and Lyft drivers' criminal behavior and dangerous driving. Autonomous cars can address the safety issues too. The sooner AVs are deployed, the more likely the transportation network service business will remain viable.

[rperez817]

However, all of this presumes a world where autonomous driving cars are actually safe enough, and as a pretty informed software engineer, I think we're further from that then some (especially Elon Musk and the press) would have you believe.

 

"Starting small" with autonomous vehicle testing but doing it as soon as possible could be the way to go. Drive.ai CEO S. Tandon said "We know there are hard problems. We know we will solve them over time. We know we want to do something today.”

 

Excellent Car and Driver article about Drive.ai's Autonomous Shuttle service that will kick off this July in Frisco, Texas in the DFW Metroplex. https://www.caranddriver.com/news/in-texas-driveais-self-driving-vehicles-will-take-office-workers-to-lunch

 

[gmic10]

 

I think you are right about that.

 

I express my angst about autonomous cars and then I'll probably live be 95 years old and wish I had one because I'm an inept driver.

 

However for now, I want to be an autonomous human.

 

 

Certainly agree with you on that. There are always two sides to the coin - want to do my own driving now, but the closer I get to the 80s the more it would be nice to have the option. Don't think the "auto" car could be any worse than a teenager on Sat. night.

[jpd80]

 

"Starting small" with autonomous vehicle testing but doing it as soon as possible could be the way to go. Drive.ai CEO S. Tandon said "We know there are hard problems. We know we will solve them over time. We know we want to do something today.”

 

Excellent Car and Driver article about Drive.ai's Autonomous Shuttle service that will kick off this July in Frisco, Texas in the DFW Metroplex. https://www.caranddriver.com/news/in-texas-driveais-self-driving-vehicles-will-take-office-workers-to-lunch

 

 

The problem is that regulators have agreed to beta testing on public roads without

fully understanding the tech and its limitations.

 

Any other vehicle type with such a glaring lack of inherent safety to the public (competent operator)

wold be immediately removed from public use but somehow, there is a huge perception gap with AVs.

We want them so badly that we're prepared to give away all the necessary checks and validation tests....

 

All the talk in the world about triple redundancy is useless if the basic system can't detect obstacles and

pedestrians it's supposed to avoid. Even some simple tests to prove that the system responds adequately

to avoidable objects that move into the vehicle's path.

 

And the reason Google and Uber want to field test without tests in place is because they know that

their systems are not perfect and most likely fail the expectations of a most basic test, avoiding pedestrians.

Edited May 12, 2018 by jpd80

[OX1]

I consider some things to be inevitable ... like:

- lawmakers sticking completely ignorant noses where they doN'T belong

- tech-types [fore-]seeing only what they want/like

- the rich not giving a sheise about the needs of the non-rich

&

- how many have to die to give up on it?

 

It's sad the crappy memorial they have at that site.

Just a tiny pole with a little blimp on it. Can barely see it.

[MKX1960]

Uber has pulled out of Arizona costing 300 jobs.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/feds-uber-self-driving-suv-132704038.html

[hoss96racing]

 

I don't think fares would cost half as much. They may go down, but nowhere near 50%.

 

 

 

It's great to have another software engineer on the forum who feels the same way. Welcome to the club!

 

I am a mechanical engineer and have worked for a supplier that is developing their own autonomous program. I don't see any point with current technology that true self driving cars will work... there will need to be major infrastructure put in place to guide the cars and let them know where they are and where they should be. there are too many variables and computers aren't smart enough yet. It will come someday but there needs to be set rules on how it will work and how the system be built.

[2b2]

I am a mechanical engineer and have worked for a supplier that is developing their own autonomous program. I don't see any point with current technology that true self driving cars will work... there will need to be major infrastructure put in place to guide the cars and let them know where they are and where they should be. there are too many variables and computers aren't smart enough yet. It will come someday but there needs to be set rules on how it will work and how the system be built.

maaaaaybe&other-than for very-limited-access Highways,

it's gonna HAVE to be something like a virtual-slotcars track or railroad

Edited May 25, 2018 by 2b2

[The Handler]

Finally is this a plan so people have to lease cars or use only Uber (lord hope not) and never own cars again.

Falling into the master plan I heard someone say in 2002, we'd never own a book, music, movie again, it will all be a monthly service.

It's a neo-feudal, company town kind of model.

Edited May 26, 2018 by The Handler

[jpd80]

maaaaaybe&other-than for very-limited-access Highways,

it's gonna HAVE to be something like a virtual-slotcars track or railroad

Start with freeways and have vehicles move together would be the best iniator

beyond intelligent cruise and and lane center but vehicles still need to interact

with each other and communicate electronically...still a long way to go.

[Bob Rosadini]

Haven't been following thread that closely but again, how about this scenario...driver less car detects vehicle crossing center line and about to hit head on. Two people standing on right curb line. Does autonomous vehicle pick the right option? Most drivers would I do believe.

[jpd80]

Be like the Arizona Uber and do nothing.....

Edited May 29, 2018 by jpd80

[fuzzymoomoo]

Be like the Arizona Uber and do nothing.....

Uber announced last week they are shutting down the self driving program.