A Quick Thought on Self Driving Cars.

"Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis" (Dwhite95)
06/13/2014 at 19:28 • Filed to: None

Semi-political light rant on self driving cars. Have some M cars.

A lot of people mention how self driving cars would put a lot of people out of work. And those people that would get put out of work would protest massively. But even before that many of those people who are at risk of losing their jobs are in unions. And if cars and trucks go driver-less it wouldnt be a stretch to think about trains, boats, and planes going that way too. So the self-driving car industry would be going against some incredibly powerful unions. Hypothetically these unions could bring massive sectors of the entire transit system to a halt. And even without that, the amount of political power many unions have could easily throw a massive wrench into the landscape of the industry. Maybe I'm over thinking it, but I think the political effects of self driving cars will be a significantly more difficult obstacle to overcome than the technical aspects of them.

DISCUSSION (5)

PanchoVilleneuve ST > Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis
06/13/2014 at 19:32

As a weird plus, people being called "Luddites" for opposing self-driving cars will, for the first time since the industrial revolution, be called Luddites in an accurate way, since the Luddites weren't upset about technology, they were upset about technology putting people out of work.

MyCarDrivesMe > Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis
06/13/2014 at 19:40

How many industries/people realistically will get put out of business though? You'll still need people to build cars so the UAW wouldn't care, and you'd still need people (maybe even more than now to ensure cars are 100% up to maintenance if they are self driving) to repair cars so mechanics will be happy. Truckers will lose their jobs, yes, but is their union really powerful enough to stop autonomous cars? As for planes and boats, aren't they largely automated for the most part anyways, yet we still prefer to leave a pilot / co-pilot in the cockpit / at the wheel? It's a lot more dangerous when auto-pilot fails on a plane at 30,000 then when a car's fails at 55 mph and still has the ability to pull over.

f86sabre > Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis
06/13/2014 at 19:41

Risk, liability and control. The powers that be will get them because the decrease the first two and increase the last.

Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis > MyCarDrivesMe
06/13/2014 at 19:48

I'd think it would trickle down, if you get someone comfortable with driverless cars, its inevitable it will move to other transportation industries. Nothing to back the next statement up, but self driving cars would make cars an appliance, meaning they would be kept longer than ever before putting a heavy hit on the auto industry, which at that point would concern the UAW.

MyCarDrivesMe > Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis
06/13/2014 at 19:53

Just speaking personally I'm more than okay with self-flying planes (more so then self driving cars), but I still like the idea of a pilot there just in case. Not sure how the rest of the population feels though.

I'm curious if they would be kept longer or not. Not so much question your statement as questioning the liability part of it. I feel like you'd see a move for tighter safety regulations on cars making it difficult to keep older cars 'up to spec.' I suppose there would be less accidents so less totaled cars to replace... but that's quite a hard bargaining point to make for the UAW.

Also, would more well off families be able to purchase more self driving cars because of the lack of a driver? What's stopping a richer family from buying each of their kids a self driving car to take them to soccer practice or school or friends houses?