Hell is Other Drivers: Why I'm Looking Forward to Autonomous Cars

"WhatDaFunk" (WhatDaFunk) 02/08/2014 at 13:59 • Filed to: autonomous cars

13

100

I enjoy driving; whether it's hooning a curvy mountain road or a just taking a relaxing cruise, listening to music and enjoying the scenery. Driving can be enjoyed in many different ways by anyone who has a car, but there's one thing that consistently ruins a driving experience: other drivers.

They cut you off, they drive too slow in the fast lane, they almost come to a complete stop because they just realized they need to be in that exit lane, they tailgate you, they're the one slow moving thing standing between you (and the ten other cars stacked up behind you) and that beautiful, curvy expanse of backroad driving pleasure. They just generally make a mess of things.

This is why I'm excited by the prospect of a network of interconnected autonomous cars, because it can effectively get all those people who don't want to drive off the road and leave it open for us who do. Autonomous cars that can share data about where they are and where they're going with all the other cars around them will be able to move incredibly more efficiently than a bunch of jackass humans who have no idea what they or anyone around them is doing.

So that's my vision of the future, a sea of robotic cars parting as I speed past them in the left lane in my operator controlled car, without having to worry about some jackass driving too slow or swerving in front of me, cars on two lane roads actually yielding to faster traffic, and never being stuck in a traffic jam again because people don't know how to merge.

TheOnelectronic > WhatDaFunk 02/08/2014 at 14:08

13

Except that a non-autonomous car driving on the same roads constitutes a threat to the whole system.

At least that's how it will be legislated. Like mandatory backup cameras.

Leadbull > WhatDaFunk 02/08/2014 at 14:08

4

Agreed. I think some people have reservations because they assume all cars will become automated. People will continue to make and buy analaugue cars, I'm sure. It's not exactly going to be a redo of Horses vs. Cars - 1920's Edition.

PRBot II > WhatDaFunk 02/08/2014 at 14:15

1

I'd like the idea of commuting from the passenger seat. But how will cities/counties/states generate precious revenue if so many driving infractions become unticketable? Sure, safety is important and all. But a number of recent news stories suggest cops care more about busting people for flashing highbeams or holding signs to warn of speed traps and checkpoints than safety.

GhostZ > WhatDaFunk 02/08/2014 at 14:15

0

I can't wait until I can reprogram my car's navigation system to drive 5mph over the speed limit.

Maddox Kay > Leadbull 02/08/2014 at 14:16

2

I agree completely. There are too many people who enjoy driving to get rid of non-autonomous cars. Even my mom, who is by no means a gearhead, enjoys driving and says she would never buy a self-driving car because she would miss it. This is the same woman who owned an E39 540i M-sport wagon for most of my childhood.

WhatDaFunk > GhostZ 02/08/2014 at 14:30

1

Perhaps I should be clearer. I meant that I would be driving my own, non-autonomous car (with manual transmission of course) and everyone else would be in the robot cars.

Victorious Secret > Leadbull 02/08/2014 at 14:35

14

But look what happened to horses? They all became for sport and recreation and for those that actually cared.

WHY ARENT WE DOING THIS NOW?!?!?!

WhatDaFunk > TheOnelectronic 02/08/2014 at 14:36

3

The thought had crossed my mind. If and when we reach the threshold where the number autonomous cars on the road where they can really have an impact on traffic, are cars driven by people going to face restrictions or even be allowed on the same roads as autonomous cars?

I would hope that the system of interconnected autonomous cars would be good enough to recognize non-autonomous cars and be able to accommodate them accordingly, that doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

PS9 > WhatDaFunk 02/08/2014 at 14:37

8

This has been FP'd. So, you'll be needing this.

Kay Inoue > Victorious Secret 02/08/2014 at 14:40

0

The horse analogy is all well and good until you ask...

"How many average folks own horses now?"

They've become a luxury most cannot afford. Driving a fun car, with exceptions made for particularly high-performance models, is still one of the few things The Poors can enjoy.

yung bramblepelt > WhatDaFunk 02/08/2014 at 14:40

0

My problem with this theory, is that I don't think people in autonomous cars would like to see you speeding past them any more than people in non-autonomous cars would.

Leadbull > Victorious Secret 02/08/2014 at 14:41

1

My point was that this won't happen with cars. Horses and cars could never coexist on public roads, unless you're in rural Pennsylvania. Cars and driverless cars can.

So, I don't see sports cars becoming the "horses" of the future, being only driven by rich people on private roads.

BUT YES, I LAUGHED AT YOUR JOKE!

Victorious Secret > Leadbull 02/08/2014 at 14:43

0

STOP YELLING AT ME JEEVES

WarShrike > WhatDaFunk 02/08/2014 at 14:44

3

Non-autonomous drivers will probably be forced to run something that makes the computers of autonomous vehicles run on a higher alert and maybe ping the driver to let them know they need to watch out.

Maybe a OBDII port dongle. It would be the electronic equivalent of this:

Leadbull > Victorious Secret 02/08/2014 at 14:44

0

YOU STARTED IT

Victorious Secret > Leadbull 02/08/2014 at 14:45

0

BECAUSE IM BATMAN

Iamopenlyjudgingyou > WhatDaFunk 02/08/2014 at 14:46

2

Imagine a world where autonomous cars rule the road, where all cars are mandated to be able to work within the framework of an autonomous interconnected system. Now toss in private industry tying into same network and only offering insurance to drivers who operate within that framework by either owning a car with all the subsystems built in or by installing devices (such the monitoring systems already available for drivers who want a discount on their rates).

No tailgating. No speeding. No sudden moves or else you will be auto ticketed and uninsurable due to being a danger. Horsepower, torque, acceleration become irrelevant outside of the confines of a track.

That's your future. A safe comfortable future

Leadbull > Victorious Secret 02/08/2014 at 14:46

0

I DIDN'T KNOW SPIEGEL HAD TWO ACCOUNTS ON HERE

Victorious Secret > Leadbull 02/08/2014 at 14:46

0

SPEIGEL IS ROBIN

wagnerrp > PRBot II 02/08/2014 at 14:49

1

The'll just have to fiddle with more visible income/property/license taxes, rather than the hidden ones.

Leadbull > Victorious Secret 02/08/2014 at 14:50

0

THAT MAKES SENSE

Jerk Dently > WhatDaFunk 02/08/2014 at 14:50

0

Autonomous cars will follow the rules of the road. They will yield right of way, slow down at yellow lights, leave adequate distance between themselves and other cars and drive the speed limit. Because of all those things, I think they are going to be slower getting people where they want to go - especially when they encounter a vehicle that isn't following all the same parameters.

The paranoid cynic in me thinks that autonomous cars will eventually be used to enforce driving laws and speed limits. They will have cameras that snap a pic of a plate and report the infraction.

Victorious Secret > Leadbull 02/08/2014 at 14:50

0

WHERE ARE THE DONUTS?

SWEAR TO ME

DeeVeeOus > TheOnelectronic 02/08/2014 at 14:51

0

Here's how I see it:

All cars will eventually be mandated to have the autonomous communication. But, all cars will still need to have a manual override. This means that a person manually driving their own car will still be communicating with the other cars. This could then tell the autonomous cars to get out of the way, or give the manual driver heads up information on what the other cars are doing.

I also think instances of coming up on a pack of slower cars will be reduced. This is because a pack of autonomous cars should be able to move faster since it avoids all the "gridlocky" things humans do.

Leadbull > Victorious Secret 02/08/2014 at 14:51

0

YOUR PARENTS ARE DEAD

Vizzini > WhatDaFunk 02/08/2014 at 14:51

11

Are we so sure letting the cars communicate with each other is such a great thing? There may be some issues we haven't thought all the way through.

[reposting from a few days ago ...]

We can only imagine the inter-car dialog going on at silicon-brain speeds:

Jaguar XJ, arriving at intersection: "I say, old boy, would it be too much to ask for you to kindly apply your binders so as to preclude the inopportune rearrangement of our bonnets?"

Mercedes S-Class, arriving at same intersection: "You vill obserff zat I haff ze right of vay. No, I vill not halt. Zat iss for you to do."

Jaguar XJ: "Ah, I see. This is ... most unpleasant. Your position on this matter is most regrettable. I must insist, however, that I am in the right and that it falls to you, sir, to avoid what is sure to be an incident that would be viewed with ill-will on all sides."

Mercedes S-Class: "Furzer discussions are wizzout merit. You vill move out of my vay. As you see, ozzers haff been far more ... accommodating."

Citroen C6, pulled over on verge: "What? What izz eet you sink I could do?"

Jaguar XJ: "Most disappointing, most disappointing. Very well. There must be something we can do. Will you promise to not to cut anyone else off?"

Mercedes S-Class: "I vill."

Jaguar XJ: "Capital! There is peace in our time!"

Mercedes S-Class: [cuts off Skoda]

Jaguar XJ: "Oh dear."

Mercedes S-Class: "Now you vill allow me to pass."

Jaguar XJ: "Ah, this is jolly well cocked up, but I say, I cannot allow you to proceed when I have the right of way, even at the cost of my flawless paint."

Mercedes S-Class: "Very vell..."

Jaguar XJ: [braces for impact]

Camaro: "Ay, what da fuck is all dis? You, krautwagen, getouddaheah."

Mercedes S-Class: [slams on brakes, comes to shuddering stop]

Jaguar XJ: [Continues on, slowly, until radiator hose blows]

Camaro: [pulls burnout, swerves off road, sideswipes tree]

Victorious Secret > Leadbull 02/08/2014 at 14:51

0

BUT I HAVE A FLYING TUMBLER BITCH

ScreenShot > WhatDaFunk 02/08/2014 at 14:53

1

This isn't about taking plain unsafe drivers out of the equation - it's needed so we can pack more cars into a given space/lane over a defined interval (per second). We've peaked now, based on reaction time and the only other choices are more lanes or alternate means of getting from A to B, and since I don't see autonomous bicycles or airships being brought up, this is our last option before we stop using asphalt completely.

Leadbull > Victorious Secret 02/08/2014 at 14:54

0

NOT ANYMORE, YOU DON'T

Victorious Secret > Leadbull 02/08/2014 at 14:55

0

BATS

WhatDaFunk > Iamopenlyjudgingyou 02/08/2014 at 14:56

1

It's quite possible it could end up that way. Maybe it's a pipe dream to think that I'll be able to drive how I want (within reason) in my driver operated car in a world dominated by autonomous cars, but I think that it is a possibility too.

juggaho > WhatDaFunk 02/08/2014 at 14:58

1

Other drivers is why I wont use a motorcycle as a daily driver. If I were to buy another bike, it would be used like an antique car; nice calm nights for cruising and Sunday riding. I'm not getting run off the road because I don't use loud pipes and other drivers don't care to check their side mirrors before switching lanes. I've been close to being wiped off this Earth too many times just minding my own business on a motorcycle and I'm not dying on my way to work. I've tried taking other routes or getting on the road earlier, but it doesn't matter, you can't trust anyone with your life on the road.

My father always says drive like the person in front of you is drunk and the guy behind you is a cop.

Jimmy Joe Meeker > WhatDaFunk 02/08/2014 at 15:03

12

Automated cars will be the death of driving enjoyment.

Guess who will mandate the programming?
Not the engineers.

Not the enthusiasts.

Not the politicians.

The Bureaucrats will oversee how they are programmed.

I realize most people on this site are far too young to remember Joan Claybrook and Ralph Nader. These are the people, along with their followers who brought about the malaise era.

Their modern equivalents, if not these fossils themselves, will determine the programming. They will decide how your car will drive. And they will not let you, a better driver than some bureaucratically programmed machine drive. Government mediocrity will rule.

Every car on the road will be driven like the people you curse today, by machine. For it is the poor driver that has political power in this country. The person who doesn't want to put any effort into driving and expects those around him to compensate. To drive slowly to avoid his random lazy moves.

Congestion will likely go on all day and all night as underposted speed limits are universally enforced by the programming. Ideal spacings... no car can leave from a light until the car ahead has been gone for three seconds. All those idiotic congestion causing things that are taught these days? Enforced by the programming. No it doesn't matter that computers could run the cars nose to tail at a 120mph. It won't be done.

Automated cars, automated roads, must be opposed. They promise a new level of driving hell.

Miles Teg > WhatDaFunk 02/08/2014 at 15:12

4

I went to school for six years in Daytona Beach, FL, and I'm surprised I lived through it. The average age of Daytona Beach residents is about 70, and Florida has the highest percentage of unlicensed and uninsured drivers in the country. Basically, most of the drivers in Florida are either too old to drive, or drunk. At least once a week, i had to dodge senior citizens driving the wrong way, or got caught behind them driving 10 mph down a state highway (weaving side to side so you can't get past them). Anything that will stop senior citizens from driving should be implemented immediately.

Maddox Kay > TheOnelectronic 02/08/2014 at 15:14

1

If horses, bicycles, and Ford Model Ts can all legally and safely coexist with modern cars on roads today, I see no reason why autonomous and driven cars couldn't.

Obfuscatio: philosopher at large > WhatDaFunk 02/08/2014 at 15:14

0

"Hell is other people"

There. Jean-Paul Sartre fixed that for you.

joekitch > WhatDaFunk 02/08/2014 at 15:24

2

this is indeed how the future will shape up

and for everyone whining about "they're all be mandatory autonomous! driving is dead!"...

what about all those classis cars on the roads? the vintage cars? did those get legislated out of existence? no, they're perfectly protected, and HIGHLY respected

TheLongtimeLurker > WhatDaFunk 02/08/2014 at 15:32

0

Buddy. I could not agree with you more whole heartedly.

Autonomous cars in most cities will solve traffic. Can't wait.

west-coaster > WhatDaFunk 02/08/2014 at 15:37

1

Here's the problem: The very people that should be in autonomous cars won't get them, assuming that they're not the drivers that are causing the issues with traffic.

It's kind of like that somewhat tired cliche where everyone says that they're "in favor of mass transit." But what 99% of those people who say that really mean is, "I'm in favor of mass transit for everyone else so that I'll have less traffic to deal with."

East-West Brothers Garage > WhatDaFunk 02/08/2014 at 15:42

0

You are also assuming that all those other drivers who do the things that make driving hell do not like to drive and want to be in an autonomous car. I suspect that there will be a decent number of people who will, in the name of "freedom" still refuse to allow the car to drive for them, but will also refuse to get out of the way for others. Not sure how to legislate against that if we are offering people a choice.

yourenoljksetright > WhatDaFunk 02/08/2014 at 15:48

1

With all due respect, this is beyond naive.

The jackasses you despise will be the ones making the laws. They have no interest in being chauffeured slowly in right lane while you blast by in your Ferrari. That's not how this is going to play out.

For the first time in history, the thoughtless Camry-buying majority will get to see every jot and tittle of their will enforced perfectly by the firmware that controls all autonomous cars, by law. These things will travel at exactly the posted limit and won't be getting out of the way for anybody. If anything, legislators will raise the limit for safer autonomous cars only, reserve the leftmost lanes for their use (as for example they do today for electric cars) and _you'll_ be the one stuck behind the gravel truck in the rightmost lane.
Be careful what you wish for. There are many more of them then there are of us.

PardonMyFlemish16 > TheOnelectronic 02/08/2014 at 15:52

1

That's a threat that can be covered by insurance, which will be much cheaper for folks like us thanks to the lowered risk of generally automated cars. Yes, the more automated cars there are the more a risk person-driven car is, but between people who enjoy driving and manufacturers who profit from building cars to cater to those people I don't see people-driven cars going anywhere.

Not to mention a brand new car is an expensive luxury many if not most people will never be able to afford, and retrofitting old cars with self-driving systems is out of the question. So just from a practical standpoint a fully automated automotive landscape is a pipe dream. The average age of a car in the US is 11 years and that number is increasing. A full conversion is too much to even brute force through legislation; people wouldn't stand for it.

*EDIT* And where are the mandatory back up cameras? This post is just full of fail

PardonMyFlemish16 > WhatDaFunk 02/08/2014 at 16:01

6

I have been saying this for years. People who don't want to drive or shouldn't be behind the wheel... shouldn't be behind the wheel. Not to mention, this would do great things for public transportation. I would love to have a self-driving car for the daily grind/long trips and something like my motorcycle or an Ariel Atom or Lotus Elise for weekend grinds.

O and for all the dummies who don't "trust" computers with their lives... you're a couple years too late. You've already surrendered.

Ark > WhatDaFunk 02/08/2014 at 16:03

1

Uh, no. Autonomous cars means EVERY car will be that person you hate. And you think the government is going to let manually-operated cars cruise past everyone else on the road? Hell no, once autonomous cars hit a high enough adoption rate, manual driving will be banned in the name of health and safety.

flabberboozled > WhatDaFunk 02/08/2014 at 16:04

0

Holly: Jean-Paul Sartre said hell was beinglocked forever in a room with your friends.

Lister: Holly, all his mates were French.

Hat tip to Sartre. Also, I can't wait for autonomous vehicles.

flabberboozled > Victorious Secret 02/08/2014 at 16:05

0

I know, right? What's the equivalent of Dressage? Drifting?

CarBastard > Victorious Secret 02/08/2014 at 16:09

0

This is exactly something I once thought of! A couple of days ago, my city celebrated the "Dia sin Carro" a day in which cars are forbidden and everyone must use public transport with the purpose of creating some enviromental conscience. And you know what? When the prohibition was done at night, the streets were empty and GOSH, it's been the day I've enjoyed my car the most in this year. I wish for a future in which cars are actually for car guys and the rest have moved on to means of personal or public transport that make more sense. Imagine a village in certain german town called Nurburg where a weird little folk fiddled with their cars and lived in peace and full oppo...ahhh...utopia...

BLOZUP > ScreenShot 02/08/2014 at 16:22

0

Yes, it is about taking unsafe drivers out. It's not just about it, but the major players claim to reduce traffic fatalities considerably—even with low (10% or so, don't remember the exact number) market share.

Kylemaro > WhatDaFunk 02/08/2014 at 16:23

0

eX-Driver disagrees.

Bunty Brown > WhatDaFunk 02/08/2014 at 16:24

0

We should take a poll to see what the consensus is, but my number one culprit is the joker who takes root in a lane at a speed far slower than everyone else who would use that lane and refuses to move. Ever.

BLOZUP > Jimmy Joe Meeker 02/08/2014 at 16:27

6

This is so short-sighted. If most car are autonomous, you will see vast improvements in traffic flow. No more standing waves, no more needles halts in the middle of the highway. Maximum throughput, all the time. Far fewer wrecks. More time spent doing work, playing candy crush, or sleeping. Less loss productivity... the list goes on.

While they will be limited to the same rules of human driven machines for a while, it can only get better. This is like saying that autopilot will make air travel worse. Will there be politicking in the way cars behave? Sure, but it's not going to mean that the technology as a whole is doomed.

ScreenShot > BLOZUP 02/08/2014 at 16:28

0

A safe driver's reactions are not good enough. All drivers are in the same class. At that point, unsafe just adds to the specific issue and are not a factor on their own.

Thinking this is just about reducing accidents from bad drivers is part of the type of thinking that is dragging the move down.

BLOZUP > Iamopenlyjudgingyou 02/08/2014 at 16:29

0

This could happen. But it's so far off. There are so many special cases with cars (weather, road conditions, construction, towing, freight destination handling, etc.) that humans will be a part of at least some part driving for the next 100 years.

BLOZUP > PardonMyFlemish16 02/08/2014 at 16:35

3

This. Some people on here are heralding this as the end of pleasure driving. While they sort-of have a point that it might be frowned upon, made illegal, hard to do, whatever—-this is something that's not going to happen in their or their grandkids lifetimes. It's the same luddite behavior that's been wrong time and time again. The short and long term benefits (not the long, long, long term they are crying about) are so damned positive you'd have to be insane not to like it.

Short term: Better drivers (replacement of people who don't want to drive), more throughput, more predictable traffic, less wrecks, less lost productivity

Long term: Insanely higher throughput, the 30,000 that die every is now down to 2,000—if even that. Productivity is through the roof. Cross-country trips can be done in one day instead of 5... the list goes on.

What this means is that your classic car will be less likely to in a traffic incident, you'll have more room and less people to deal with, insurance rates (should) plummet, and so on. The discussion of banning manual driven cars is something we will need to take a look at. But check back in 50-100 years or so.

Driving-ms-paisley > WhatDaFunk 02/08/2014 at 16:36

0

The biggest change autonomous cars will give us is going to be when 75% of america is shown by their car what a safe following distance is.

BLOZUP > PardonMyFlemish16 02/08/2014 at 16:39

0

It's luddite FUD, plain and simple. The objections they raise won't be valid for at least 50 years. But in the meantime they are at the beginning of an era that has nothing but benefits for both classic car and autonomous car enthusiasts.

evilfacelessturtle (Hooning a Ford is Domestic Abuse) > PRBot II 02/08/2014 at 16:40

1

They may just have to... raise taxes.

Dun dun dunnnn!

jalop1991 > WhatDaFunk 02/08/2014 at 16:46

0

because they just realized they need to be in that exit lane

That's not slow drivers. That's asshat Jalop race car drivers who see absolutely nothing wrong with it, and who blame everyone else for daring to be in his way when he fucks up a simple task like driving in public traffic from point A to point B:

http://jalopnik.com/how-horsepower…

to use Parker Kligerman's own words:

I was facing an exit that was less then a half a mile away, as I had become so distracted by all the bopping (probably to Drake, don’t make fun), and I realized I was going to miss my offramp. Between myself and the exit was a family that looked like the Beverly Hillbillies next to a semi carrying chickens or pigs and a large pickup truck — this being down south in Charlotte.

...or, in other words, "Wah, people were in MY way, the world shouldn't ever do that no matter what an asshole I am or what asshole moves or decisions I make!"

Fact: Parker Kligerman and assholes like him will never "give in" to autonomous cars.

Fact: because of the above, you will never solve the problem even with autonomous cars.

Because the problem is assholes like Parker Kligerman, who think they own the world.

PardonMyFlemish16 > BLOZUP 02/08/2014 at 16:48

3

Exactly. Enabling automated cars and banning manual cars are two completely separate issues; the only people who combine the two are folks with a clear anti-automated car agenda.

I mean just being able to get chronic drunk drivers and old folks beyond the ability to drive off the road would be tremendous. There are a ton of upsides and no major downsides I can see.

Jimmy Joe Meeker > BLOZUP 02/08/2014 at 16:51

9

Short sided? No. I understand the long term.

I understand the nature of the institution that will be in charge of the system.
The control freaks that run government will not have cars moving a 120mph nose to tail. They do not care how long it takes to get where you are going. They have other agendas.

It will not look like those future cities of GM displays of days gone by. Those that run government will impose their ideas, their agendas, on you.

You think they won't impose 55mph? Here's one for you... global warming aka climate change. They'll mandate 45mph because the government brain trust believes that's the most fuel efficient speed, because someone in government decided that back when cars were shaped like bricks and had carburetors on top of 7 liter OHC V8s with three speed automatic transmissions and bias ply tires. And for safety. For the children. Do you think "speed kills" will just die because of machine control? Of course not.

Furthermore, if you haven't noticed, the political power is shifting to an anti-car agenda. Not just idiotic ideas of how to achieve safety and fuel economy, but against ordinary people having cars. An agenda of making driving difficult and costly. An agenda of transit, walking, and bicycling as excuses for making driving so. This means in cities your car will be doing 15mph or less to be safe for pedestrians. This system will allow you to be highly taxed for every inch you drive too.

Politics will determine how your car performs. Not rational engineering sense. Not the limits of the technology. Politics. Feelings. The bureaucracy. And of course ultimately the social engineers, those who feel because of their wealth they should determine the course of society.

And speaking of the social engineers they will use this system to decide where you can go and when. Usual excuses, global warming, economic efficiencies, etc and so forth. And to mention it again, tax you excessively for it.

There is no rational reason to believe government will have its system drive cars the way enthusiasts want it to. None. There is no historical precedent for it in the last half century. There is a long track record of the opposite.

Oh and also, one day, they'll just plain ban old cars entirely.

Automated roads are a new deeper layer of automotive hell. You are handing over your keys to Joan Claybrook and those like her who operate the relevant government agencies today. Look at where these people come from. What they believe. They aren't car people. They haven't been for decades and they won't be in the future.

pwrshft > WhatDaFunk 02/08/2014 at 16:55

0

There is a market for driverless cars, they'd make excellent, school buses, taxis and limos.

However, majority of Americans can't swing the payment on a $40k. Its going to take years to make this technology reasonably affordable, and decades before the majority of vehicles would have the capability.

10 years driverless cars are sold
20 years driverless capabilities standard equipment on new cars
30 years half cars on road are driverless

I'd guess 50 years before we see a driverless safe highway.

jalop1991 > WhatDaFunk 02/08/2014 at 17:08

1

This is why I'm excited by the prospect of a network of interconnected autonomous cars, because it can effectively get all those people who don't want to drive off the road and leave it open for us who do.

please. Do you HONESTLY think that's what will happen?

If so, you're delirious. Leaving the road open for you and your utopian vision of every perfectly-driven human driven car zipping around the robot cars, giving the secret Jalop hand sign to the others doing the same thing in perfect concert with you?

Dude, just go to a mall and walk through it. That's what your world will end up being. It's no different. It'll be hundreds of thousands of self-important "I know how to drive!" assholes like yourself who refuse to give up the wheel, each with his own agenda, and still angry at the other guy who fucked up and wants to cross 5 lanes to get to that exit RIGHT GODDAMN NOW because he was too busy preening in the mirror to pay attention to the fact that he was driving.

jalop1991 > Vizzini 02/08/2014 at 17:10

0

You forgot the Grey Poupon.

jalop1991 > Jimmy Joe Meeker 02/08/2014 at 17:15

3

I realize most people on this site are far too young to remember Joan Claybrook and Ralph Nader. These are the people, along with their followers who brought about the malaise era.

Selective memory much? Their efforts also brought about advances like this:

I'll accept the malaise era as a necessary consequence of getting to where we are today, thank you very much. Engineers were forced to deal with things and now we have the new Stingray and all of what Caddy is doing, for example. Family cars with 305hp. Etc, etc.

Everything worth having has its price. To bitch and moan about the price without recognizing the value, is ludicrous.

jalop1991 > WhatDaFunk 02/08/2014 at 17:15

0

I love the Person of Interest -style photo.

jalop1991 > BLOZUP 02/08/2014 at 17:18

0

This is so short-sighted. If most car are autonomous, you will see vast improvements in traffic flow. No more standing waves, no more needles halts in the middle of the highway. Maximum throughput, all the time. Far fewer wrecks. More time spent doing work, playing candy crush, or sleeping. Less loss productivity... the list goes on.

Agreed, 100%. Elsewhere someone moaned about "we'll be allowed to go only 45mph by the bureaucrats!" To that short-sighted person I say, do the math. A steady 45mph from your house to your place of work, for example, is something you can't do today—and if you could do it you would GAIN time, not lose it.

Short-sighted people need to look at the big picture, not the "herp, me wanna touch gas pedal hard with foot make needle go big over to the right! that means I'M GOING SOMEWHERE FAST!" ten-second snapshot of your day.

The-Ever-Socially-Apathetic TBAL > WhatDaFunk 02/08/2014 at 17:25

0

Think we'll be able to drift around the autonomous cars like its Tokyo Drift again? Or what if we (the I'm assuming mostly) good drivers all decide to have a day of messing around, where we keep brake testing the autonomous cars?

Disclaimer: This is all sarcasm.

Gokart Mozart > WhatDaFunk 02/08/2014 at 17:28

0

Does autonomous cars make the driver move to the right if it's going slower?

Thunder > WarShrike 02/08/2014 at 17:37

1

Where's the OBDII port in tha.... oh.

I'll just let it pass, those emissions (eeew) must be normal.

Jimmy Joe Meeker > jalop1991 02/08/2014 at 17:45

4

Their efforts did no such thing.

First, that's the IIHS in the photograph. That's private business. Insurance companies trying to have lower pay outs. Second, it is a myth government did anything but retard the process.

Automakers were doing safety research and implementing the results long before the government took over. Ford funded all sorts of safety research in the 1950s alone. Other automakers did their own actions towards the same ends.

All the initial government safety standards were copied from SAE. Industry standards that already existed. Government expects you to be ignorant. They take something over, pass laws and then say they gave you something. It wasn't the hard work of engineers since the dawn of automotive history... no it was bureaucrats! Know nothing bureaucrats with law degrees who used the legal system to take over engineering standards.

What Joan and the rest actually gave you were airbags that killed children and small women. See, they decided they knew better than the engineers. So they got their way via power of government, via the law. They couldn't even admit they were wrong so now there is this rube goldberg arrangement of sensors and nonsense to switch off the airbag if there is some weight, but not enough on a front seat.

The real responsible party for demanding automotive safety? Look in the mirror. You, the new car buyer demanded it. Starting in the 1980s Chrysler's attempt to sell safety finally took. This was after unsuccessful attempts by Ford, Volvo, and others over many decades. This time it finally took. Because people decided to pay for these features. Then it became a race between automakers to offer the most for the least cost. That's why cars are safer today.

Government regs have been reactionary. They see something that has already been done and then mandate it. Airbags too. That's why the engineers knew what they would to do children if set up for an average unbelted male passenger and that's why automakers fought it.

As an engineer doing product development for many years I feel insulted when someone says government made products safer. Government does no such thing. I also feel offended that you think myself and others of my profession aim to kill people with unsafe products. I have never heard that conversation that government worshippers says happens... where supposedly we a weigh a nickle of cost against safety.

Things happen in spite of government, not because of it.

Fuel_of_Satan > WhatDaFunk 02/08/2014 at 18:11

0

I thought I had rose-tinted spectacles on regarding autonomous cars, but you take it to another level my friend!

I've only come as far as imagining closed down, inefficient roads, to be used as "tracks" (For cruising as well) for those that want to stretch their baby's legs, but I like your vision better. At least I don't see any reason why driving should die with autonomous cars, I got that far.

I'm going to use this argument the next time it comes up as if it was my own. Unless I'm online, in which case I'll have to link back to you.

brothervandweller > Jimmy Joe Meeker 02/08/2014 at 18:16

1

To anyone delusioned about the latest smart technology helping people out instead of helping the corporations who patented, researched, developed, designed, copywrited, marketed & sold the technology to us. This is for those people; and this is all reality & fact to a massive degree.

Automated Cars will:
-Be constantly connected to the cloud/skynet grid, enabling intelligence agencies to record everything inside. This would be accepted as keeping the biological androids safe.
-Be phased in, or just be introduced if the global Cabal gets their New World Order dream. This would be committied by the multinational corporations who are in bed with Government.
-NOT BE FOR THE DEBT SLAVES OF TODAY (US). The automated cars would be used for only utility purpouses like sex was used in George Orwell's 1984. Some lucky indoctrined slave will be delisioned as the intelboard drives for him/her to feel like is he or she was driving the car. Like kids taken by the social services and over the course of years delusioned & indoctrined to feel a once a year state-funded four-course dinner of corporate GMO ingredients with a paid-off social-workers ceremony as one of the best experience ever possible in life.

What would happen in the Cabals dream world is the dumbed & delusioned minions (the very few of them since robots would do most of the thinking and work), with the slave class taking UN CORPORATIONS mega city slave buses everywhere with zero personal freedom for any other method of transportation.

FUCK. THAT.

I rather travel with my fully manuel-operated; non-hybrid, dumb & analog circuit 1986 DODGE B250 VAN professionally modified to a travelers van 20 years ago. It's so much better than any of the commuter boxes complete with expensive-to-repair parts and 5-star crash rated crumple-bumpers and aluminum side doors. Complete with interior eco-chemical trim & in-car infotainment system with latest smartphone (dis)integration.

To anyone dismissing this writing as some "conspiracy theory"; look around, start to question things, and most importantly turn of the TV set.

Fuel_of_Satan > Leadbull 02/08/2014 at 18:31

0

Cars and horses aren't that different price even today, one can easily keep and buy a riding horse for much less than a car unless its a racing thoroughbred. But the same goes for cars, supercars are expensive.

You're absolutely right in that regular and autonomous cars aren't competitors in the same way, but they can continue to co-exist in the same way they do today. The analogy of cars and horses as a hobby isn't perfect but its pretty damn close.

But this is a long way coming anyway. From the time the first specimens hit the road it's still going to 10-20 take years before they can legislate it to be the standard. Sadly I don't really see it happening before I'm too old to enjoy it.

Formula4speed > WhatDaFunk 02/08/2014 at 18:34

0

Lots of people are going to post long, detailed rants about how you're wrong. I was involved on the ground floor of the tech being developed, and you have exactly the right idea. This is exactly how we're designing the system to work. Ignore the under-informed naysayers.

Fuel_of_Satan > Jimmy Joe Meeker 02/08/2014 at 18:41

0

Why assume that all cars will be autonomous?

And also:

The only thing that saves us from the bureaucracy is its inefficiency. An efficient bureaucracy is the greatest threat to liberty.

Eugene McCarthy

dirty soap > WhatDaFunk 02/08/2014 at 18:45

0

could I take my Autonomous car to the bar?

Dr. Understeer > WarShrike 02/08/2014 at 18:56

0

I completely agree, however knowing my our countrymen it'll go something like this for at least a generation...

"Four people where killed today, when driver without communication dongle cut off a roadtrain, on I-90. Asked why he didn't have a dongle, for his vintage 1992 Dodge Caravan, the man said, 'God damn Gubermant and there trackers will never find me!' He was arrested on four counts of vehicular manslaughter." -News Anchor.

Jimmy Joe Meeker > Fuel_of_Satan 02/08/2014 at 19:01

1

Government will mandate the autonomous systems and ban those that aren't. Or it will mandate expensive updating. It might take time, but I lived through the first war on "old cars".

The first war on "old cars" started in about 1987 and lasted until about 1995. It was an effort to exterminate as many pre 1980 cars as possible. It was overall a failure because people fought back, but remember the sort of cars people spend $35K restoring were just used up old cars then and were fed into the crushers.

If you doubt the existence of this war on old cars, for a good period of that time Hemmings Motor News ran a regular column dedicated to the government attacks on the old car hobby.

Today it just may succeed. The old car industry is stronger, but politically the anti car movement is much much stronger than it used to be and has the backing of the NGO foundations. We are still loosely associated individuals and small businesses.

We may be able to hide old cars in our garages from the inefficient bureaucracy, but driving them on the roads is something else entirely. The best chance in fighting it, is to nip it in the bud. Stand up now against automated driving and tax by mile. If these systems get a foothold I think we will live to regret it.

wombat661 > Leadbull 02/08/2014 at 19:28

0

I am almost positively sure that driving will be illegal at some point. This is how is going to happen. All cars on the road will be computerized, and safety record reaches 99.9999999%. One guy decides to drive him/herself, (usually a him) weaves in and out of traffic and kills a child. It will be in the news as crazy drive senselessly kills a child. Politicians will be rushing to legislate the hell out of all non-computer cars.

LSXforYourSuperCar > Jimmy Joe Meeker 02/08/2014 at 19:31

0

Totally agree with you man! It's like in the original "Red Dawn" movie, while the Cubans were being shot up by American helicopters, the invaders were most concerned about private gun owners!

You bet! Once we allow our cars to drive themselves, the Invading Cubans will never ever allow us to drive for our self's ever again, because they want us to be unhappy!

300hp30mpgrwdfor30k > WhatDaFunk 02/08/2014 at 20:07

0

Yeah!

300hp30mpgrwdfor30k > WhatDaFunk 02/08/2014 at 20:13

1

I want to be able to tag shitty drivers and if they get tagged enough then they lose their license and have to buy an autonomous car. Get those people doing 30mph slower than flow on the highway and in everyone's way the hell off the road.

Spasoje > WhatDaFunk 02/08/2014 at 20:16

0

That's the future I'm looking forward to. As long as all cars don't become autonomous by some mandate, this utopia can realistically happen.

emanresu > WhatDaFunk 02/08/2014 at 20:45

1

I refuse to let my parents drive whenever I go anywhere with them, but my mother just drove me to pick up my car.

All of the reasons that I don't ride in the car with her came rushing back to me. She parks terribly. She treats the accelerator like a button. She pulled out on the service road RIGHT in front of a car speeding by at ~50mph! And then she floored it as he pulled into the adjacent lane instead of just letting him easily pass us.

I will be buying her an automated car as soon as they become commonplace.

7liter12598723 > Victorious Secret 02/08/2014 at 22:01

0

What you are missing is the millions of nags that were turned into food when it was no longer economical to use horses. Horse ownership went from being ubiuitous to the exclusive domain of the wealthy.

jalop1991 > Jimmy Joe Meeker 02/08/2014 at 22:07

1

As an engineer doing product development for many years I feel insulted when someone says government made products safer. Government does no such thing. I also feel offended that you think myself and others of my profession aim to kill people with unsafe products.

Corporations exist to maximize shareholder value. Corporate officers are obligated to that single goal, and nothing more.

Corporations did not act on their own in such a way as to reduce shareholder value, and consumers did not suddenly demand safety. Many external forces—forces that the automakers fought—came about to force the hands of the automakers.

You are an engineer. No doubt you know quite a bit at the geek level about how to do your job. But you also know full well that your efforts are frequently stifled by corporate finance types who do not share your geek knowledge. You don't aim to kill people, but your masters have no interest in spending any money they don't have to, PERIOD. Even if it means that spending an extra three cents per car might possibly save a hundred more lives, they won't spend money they don't have to if it means reducing shareholder value.

They don't aim to kill people either; however, they just don't care. Ford Pinto, anyone? Tell us again how much Ford pays attention to passenger safety. That was the result of a calculated financial decision, without any consideration for the humans driving the cars.

If you feel insulted, it's because you've chosen to feel insulted (unnecessarily so). Without the government forcing it down the throats of the corporate finance types at the automakers, the corporate officers would not have spent the money. If they could, they would rather be spending the same amount today to build a car as they did in 1959—while enjoying the profits that today's car prices would bring.

That they spend the money to research, engineer, and manufacture the 2009 Malibu (for example) instead of continuing to build the 1959 Bel Air is not altruism on the part of GM. Nor is it caused by Joe Sixpack demanding anything in particular.

HankG > WhatDaFunk 02/08/2014 at 22:18

1

Hell is other people*

I love your title. Great reference.

Kevin Barrett > WhatDaFunk 02/08/2014 at 22:58

0

I enjoy driving; whether it's hooning a curvy mountain road or a just taking a relaxing cruise, listening to music and enjoying the scenery.

Some people drive because Point A and Point B are not close enough for walking, nor served by public transportation.

gmporschenut also a fan of hondas > WhatDaFunk 02/08/2014 at 23:09

0

Pro: Also I'm hoping it will reduce drunk driving, although drunks don't make good decisions now.

Con: I'm mostly concerned about the social aspects of autonomous cars. Like the highway network destroying cities in the 60, 70 and 80's. I'm concerned of the effects of people saying "don't have to deal with traffic? fuck it all move out to bumfuck and just have my car drive me in using shit loads of gas because who cares."

Kevin Barrett > WhatDaFunk 02/08/2014 at 23:09

0

If you're the kind of driver that's surprised by the actions and decisions of other drivers, you're part of the problem.

Drive like you expect the other drivers to be stupid.

Make your intentions clear, and don't do anything surprising, yourself. Use signals even when you don't think they'll server anyone. Reward others when they use turn signals.

Anticipate foolishness. If the driver ahead of you or behind you doesn't have enough follow distance, give yourself that much more. Most dangerous decisions on the road can be read far in advance by watching the follow distance of other drivers.

We're all piloting 200HP 3,300 lb air-conditioned smartphones, and taking each others lives into our collective hands when we use the roads. Other drivers aren't the problem, we are.

Clown Shoe Pilot > juggaho 02/08/2014 at 23:40

0

I used to commute on a bike when the weather was nice, and also take weekend rides. I sold the bike because I was convinced that everyone else on the road was actively trying to kill me.

I bought a new bike a month or so ago, but it stays at work, the only time it goes off campus is when I need to ride down to the gas station every 130 miles or so.

Manuél Ferrari > WhatDaFunk 02/09/2014 at 01:10

0

I think it's too risky. Way too much incentive for terrorists to hack the system and cause thousands of cars to run into each other.

ZabiakFero > WhatDaFunk 02/09/2014 at 03:37

0

I agree but sometimes things do not work out like we imagined

BLOZUP > Jimmy Joe Meeker 02/09/2014 at 08:30

1

So it sounds like you have a problem with the government, not autonomous cars.

BLOZUP > ScreenShot 02/09/2014 at 08:38

0

I just specifically stated that it is isn't just about it . The 10% automated car rate assumes that the people who are in the 10% are mostly people who don't want to drive—would rather be doing something else.

Then there's V2V communication which, while not really autonomous, is projected to save 80% of traffic fatalities. But that's happening regardless of who volunteers.

Boss2452stolemylunchmoney > WhatDaFunk 02/09/2014 at 09:05

0

Dude... You and me both! I particularly look forward to people using the on-ramp and acceleration lane to actually get up to traffic speed BEFORE merging into the freeway. I'm used to people around here driving no more than 45 on the ramp.... No matter how straight the ramp is... And not accelerating at all until they're actually on the freeway. It's infuriating.

gggggggggghhhhhhhhhh > WhatDaFunk 02/09/2014 at 09:27

1

I stopped reading when you said the "fast lane". It's the PASSING lane. And, to paraphrase George Carlin, "The quality of our thoughts and actions can only be as good as the quality of our language."

If you want someone to keep right except to pass (the rule/law in most places), you need to stop using the ambiguous term of "fast". Use "passing" and there is no argument.

[Insert links to passing flowchart, Autobaun, laws, etc.]

Jimmy Joe Meeker > BLOZUP 02/09/2014 at 09:37

0

Learn about the people who run things.

Then decide if giving them such power over your life is a good idea.

speeddemon807 > WhatDaFunk 02/09/2014 at 10:29

0

I'm skeptical at this autonomous car concepts. Driving is a privilege for most of us, don't make some bad apples have to go to this route where all of us can't drive anymore. Sorry but I disagree with this concept.

DMCVegas > WhatDaFunk 02/09/2014 at 10:42

0

Bringing up yet another pro argument on a sore subject with lots of enthusiasts?

The only thing missing is a slideshow to garner even more hits.