Master Index of Archived Threads


Self-driving cars considered (split from Small Things...)

41Forever Aug 02 2017 04:47 PM

I'm spending time at our version of the Department of Motor Vehicles this afternoon. Normally I can breeze in and out by using the kiosk, but transferring a registration today, so I had to take a number and be patient. A heartbreaking scene playing out. An elderly man, I'm guessing late 80s, is trying to renew his license and absolutely cannot pass the vision test. He has tried a number of times, with and without his glasses, and isn't even close. The clerk is being impressingly compassionate, explaining to him that he'll have to have his eyes checked and get new glasses and pass the vision test before she can renew his license. He seems generally confused by all of this. A couple things. This gentleman shouldn't be on the road. The confusion alone is troubling, compounded by the vision issues. He drove home today since the license doesn't expire for a week. That scares me a little. At the same time, I can't imagine how difficult it is for him to confront this. He's probably been driving for 60+ years. Giving up the license must be a painful concession to age. And this gentleman shouldn't be here by himself. He clearly needs someone caring for him, and that must be a difficult concession, too. And I get it. The reason I'm here is that my mother-in-law is giving up her car. She moved here to be closer to us, and my wife takes care of her, driving her wherever she needs to go and getting her what she needs. I don't know if the gentleman has someone like that. I hope so.

Ceetar Aug 02 2017 05:46 PM Re: Small Things Considered - 2017

Now consider self-driving cars. This guy would still be fully mobile, could go to the store, anywhere he wanted. Wouldn't be dangerous. Wouldn't even need to see anything.

41Forever Aug 02 2017 05:53 PM Re: Small Things Considered - 2017

Ceetar wrote: Now consider self-driving cars. This guy would still be fully mobile, could go to the store, anywhere he wanted. Wouldn't be dangerous. Wouldn't even need to see anything. Absolutely. The self-driving cars, which are closer than we think, will have all kinds of benefits.

Ceetar Aug 02 2017 06:01 PM Re: Small Things Considered - 2017

41Forever wrote: Ceetar wrote: Now consider self-driving cars. This guy would still be fully mobile, could go to the store, anywhere he wanted. Wouldn't be dangerous. Wouldn't even need to see anything. Absolutely. The self-driving cars, which are closer than we think, will have all kinds of benefits. The cars are basically here. It's the LAW that will take some time. Especially if you were to ban human driving entirely, then we're basically there. It's the human-robot interactions that are tricky. But there's crazy resistance to it, and will continue to be, from all sorts of people. Perhaps chief among them the police, who rely on creating traffic jams and harassing drivers for revenue and arrest numbers. "Oh, do I maybe smell pot? OUT OF THE CAR"

Benjamin Grimm Aug 02 2017 06:04 PM Re: Small Things Considered - 2017

I am definitely hoping that self-driving cars will be on the roads and available for my use by the time I'm 80. That's another 26 years from now, so I think I have a shot. (Hopefully it will happen considerably before that. In the next few years, my parents may very well be in a position to benefit from them.)

Ceetar Aug 02 2017 06:36 PM Re: Small Things Considered - 2017

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I am definitely hoping that self-driving cars will be on the roads and available for my use by the time I'm 80. That's another 26 years from now, so I think I have a shot. (Hopefully it will happen considerably before that. In the next few years, my parents may very well be in a position to benefit from them.) I like to joke that my daughters (3 Saturday) will never need to learn to drive, but we'll see I guess.

themetfairy Aug 02 2017 07:36 PM Re: Small Things Considered - 2017

Last year I wrote about my cousin. She's an older woman (my dad's first cousin, and a few years older than he is) who has a brain tumor. Talking to her is pleasant, but she basically has no short term memory - every time I call to her I'm starting from scratch. But the last few times I've spoken with her, including this afternoon, she thanked me for keeping in touch with her. So at this point she recognizes that I phone her on a regular basis. I'm finding that development to be heartwarming.

cooby Aug 02 2017 08:44 PM Re: Small Things Considered - 2017

You start to wonder about your neighbors (it's a very close neighborhood) when none of them call to tell you your car door's been hanging open all afternoon.

themetfairy Aug 02 2017 09:12 PM Re: Small Things Considered - 2017

OMG - is everything ok? Is anything missing from the car?

Chad Ochoseis Aug 02 2017 09:23 PM Re: Small Things Considered - 2017 Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Aug 02 2017 09:25 PM

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: Now consider self-driving cars. This guy would still be fully mobile, could go to the store, anywhere he wanted. Wouldn't be dangerous. Wouldn't even need to see anything. Absolutely. The self-driving cars, which are closer than we think, will have all kinds of benefits. The cars are basically here. It's the LAW that will take some time. Especially if you were to ban human driving entirely, then we're basically there. It's the human-robot interactions that are tricky. But there's crazy resistance to it, and will continue to be, from all sorts of people. Perhaps chief among them the police, who rely on creating traffic jams and harassing drivers for revenue and arrest numbers. "Oh, do I maybe smell pot? OUT OF THE CAR" Insurance companies, too. Even if it reduces accidents, they fear change, and they worry about the huge costs associated with trying to figure out whether an accident will be treated as an auto liability case (i.e. sue the driver, the way we usually do now) or a products liability case (i.e. sue the automaker), and the cost shifting of insurance coverage between consumers and producers. The courts will probably spend years figuring that out. And products liability cases tend to be more expensive, since they're usually much more heavily litigated. GM is much more concerned with its reputation as an automaker than you are with your reputation as a good driver, and they're much more able to pay to defend that reputation. I'm not so cynical as to believe that police departments actually want people to speed/drunk drive/text while driving in order to generate extra departmental revenue. In any event, there are plenty of ways to raise revenue without fines.

cooby Aug 02 2017 09:23 PM Re: Small Things Considered - 2017

No actually I'm the one that left it open...I had a yard sale a couple of weeks ago and was putting stuff in the car that didn't sell to take to Goodwill. I guess I got to messing around in the garage and plum forgot that I left the door open. Luckily it's garbage and recycle night, lol

themetfairy Aug 02 2017 09:40 PM Re: Small Things Considered - 2017

I'm not so cynical as to believe that police departments actually want people to speed/drunk drive/text while driving in order to generate extra departmental revenue. I am. And with the advent of speed cameras they get to do it at minimal cost to the departments. cooby - I'm glad you didn't lose anything :)

Rockin' Doc Aug 02 2017 10:26 PM Re: Small Things Considered - 2017

41Forever wrote: I'm spending time at our version of the Department of Motor Vehicles this afternoon. Normally I can breeze in and out by using the kiosk, but transferring a registration today, so I had to take a number and be patient. A heartbreaking scene playing out. An elderly man, I'm guessing late 80s, is trying to renew his license and absolutely cannot pass the vision test. He has tried a number of times, with and without his glasses, and isn't even close. The clerk is being impressingly compassionate, explaining to him that he'll have to have his eyes checked and get new glasses and pass the vision test before she can renew his license. He seems generally confused by all of this. A couple things. This gentleman shouldn't be on the road. The confusion alone is troubling, compounded by the vision issues. He drove home today since the license doesn't expire for a week. That scares me a little. At the same time, I can't imagine how difficult it is for him to confront this. He's probably been driving for 60+ years. Giving up the license must be a painful concession to age. And this gentleman shouldn't be here by himself. He clearly needs someone caring for him, and that must be a difficult concession, too. And I get it. The reason I'm here is that my mother-in-law is giving up her car. She moved here to be closer to us, and my wife takes care of her, driving her wherever she needs to go and getting her what she needs. I don't know if the gentleman has someone like that. I hope so. Welcome to my world. My partners and I are the people that end up seeing this type of individual as a patient when the DMV sends them away. Sometimes the person simply needs new glasses (or possibly cataract surgery) to improve their vision enough to drive. Sometimes, we can only improve their vision to a level sufficient for a restricted license (no night driving, no interstate highway driving, and sometimes limited to a certain radius of their home). In the worst cases, the person's vision can not be sufficiently improved to safely continue driving. It is never fun to tell someone that their vision can't be improved to a point where they can legally and safely continue to drive. It is the loss of independence that most bothers the majority of patients in this situation.

Ceetar Aug 03 2017 01:59 AM Re: Small Things Considered - 2017

Chad Ochoseis wrote: Insurance companies, too. Even if it reduces accidents, they fear change, and they worry about the huge costs associated with trying to figure out whether an accident will be treated as an auto liability case (i.e. sue the driver, the way we usually do now) or a products liability case (i.e. sue the automaker), and the cost shifting of insurance coverage between consumers and producers. The courts will probably spend years figuring that out. And products liability cases tend to be more expensive, since they're usually much more heavily litigated. GM is much more concerned with its reputation as an automaker than you are with your reputation as a good driver, and they're much more able to pay to defend that reputation. I'm not so cynical as to believe that police departments actually want people to speed/drunk drive/text while driving in order to generate extra departmental revenue. In any event, there are plenty of ways to raise revenue without fines. I mean, they're not camping out in towns just beyond where the speed limit drops from 45 to 35 and ticketing you for 42 because they think they're encouraging you to be a 'safer driver'. Especially not when they'll gladly and happily change that 7 mph $50 speed limit ticket into a $250 parking ticket.

MFS62 Aug 03 2017 02:03 PM Re: Small Things Considered - 2017

The Sci-fi Channel is showing a made-for-TV shark movie marathon in advance of the premier of the next Sharknado (5 ?) movie later this week. My cable movie guide told me that Trailer Park Shark Attack was on yesterday, following that all time classic Redneck Shark Attack. Glad I missed them. Later

metsmarathon Aug 03 2017 04:21 PM Re: Small Things Considered - 2017

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: Now consider self-driving cars. This guy would still be fully mobile, could go to the store, anywhere he wanted. Wouldn't be dangerous. Wouldn't even need to see anything. Absolutely. The self-driving cars, which are closer than we think, will have all kinds of benefits. The cars are basically here. i'm not sure how much i agree with that statement. much of the technology exists, sure, in that we have positioning systems and digital maps and sensors out the wazoo. but the cars still need to be smart enough to process all of that data properly, quickly, and accurately, in dynamic environments. oh, and they'll need to be sufficiently interconnected yet ALSO hacker/tamper-resistant. and that part will likely be the biggest challenge of them all. the real test is, how well does an autonomous car traverse a construction zone while moving at highway speeds, in traffic, while weather is happening. or maybe just drive through new york city. and we're nowhere near there yet. (per my current understanding) the law and insurance aspects of it are challenging, but really, it's just about making decisions with good reasons and sticking to it. the "does the autocar drive you off a cliff or run over a stroller?" question is secondary to "can the autocar do all the things a competent human driver can do?"

Edgy MD Aug 03 2017 04:33 PM Re: Small Things Considered - 2017

I also imagine a scenario when I am (or you are or your are) riding to work with a big meeting at 9:00 and the car just spontaneously pulls over. I can't get any info from the dashboard's LED display and I'm trying to get through to the service desk but am caught up in the voicemail tree. I'm led to believe that the car has a service issue and that sensor went off but nobody's really telling me nothing. I'm 62 by this time, so I don't know what gives. I'm past my prime (laughter) as a worker and the world is passing me by. But I recount the tale of my stalled car later in the week to my niece. She's in the know, and explains to me that it's more likely true that the nation was over its fuel consumption quota for the month, and mine was just one of 18,000 randomly picked cars to shut down for an hour. And all their passengers are calling the same help desk at the same time. I'm aghast, torn between conflicting values of #efficiency and #freedom. And I resolve to unplug from the machine and get back on my bike. But in my defeated 62-year-old heart, I know I won't.

metsmarathon Aug 03 2017 04:43 PM Re: Small Things Considered - 2017

your dystopian future is quaint. the car will simply use you as fuel and go on to pick up its' next scheduled ride. or you'll be in some sort of random ride-sharing commuter system. either one of those two hells.

d'Kong76 Aug 03 2017 05:20 PM Re: Small Things Considered - 2017

I ain't getting in no self driving car any time soon. The notion that we may share a busy street with them even in the next decade is kinda unforeseeable to me. And frightening.

Mets Willets Point Aug 03 2017 05:38 PM Re: Small Things Considered - 2017

d'Kong76 Aug 03 2017 05:42 PM Re: Small Things Considered - 2017

I'll never use Uber either, and it annoys me I can't delete it's app.

41Forever Aug 03 2017 05:46 PM Re: Small Things Considered - 2017

I'm going to suspect that in the early part of the last century, there were people who said things like, "I'm never going to get into one of those Model Ts. Besse and Big Red pull my carriage anywhere I want to go and we don't have to worry about getting a flat or running out of gas! Crazy people and their silly machines." The pace of change will be even faster than we expect. I remember thinking, "Why would I ever want to have a camera in my phone. That's stupid." There are unquestionably things to be worked out. The insurance question and stroller question are two I hear a lot. They'll get there. A lot of that work is being done right here.

Ceetar Aug 03 2017 05:53 PM Re: Small Things Considered - 2017

Mets Willets Point wrote: Is this trying to say it's all the same? because it's not. Tesla's new cars ARE self-driving, just disabled. d'Kong76 wrote: I ain't getting in no self driving car any time soon. The notion that we may share a busy street with them even in the next decade is kinda unforeseeable to me. And frightening. I mean, you've seen the people we're sharing streets with now right? Drunks, over-tired people, texting people, teenagers that have only been driving for 3 weeks. It's going to be the gun debate. Guns cause so much death but the sense of personal freedom/ownership argument or whatever. It's the same thing. only self driving cars on the road saves millions of lives. Improves quality of life for millions of older/non-mobile folk.

d'Kong76 Aug 03 2017 05:55 PM Re: Small Things Considered - 2017

I'm hardly a 'crazy people and their silly machines guy.'

Ceetar Aug 03 2017 06:10 PM Re: Small Things Considered - 2017

d'Kong76 wrote: I'm hardly a 'crazy people and their silly machines guy.' is this in reference to the guns or the cars? because again, very similar. [url]https://www.safercar.gov/v2v/index.html Mandating that cars talk to each other seems key, and is in progress. If it's one big hive, it resolves a lot of visibility issues, among other things.

d'Kong76 Aug 03 2017 06:14 PM Re: Small Things Considered - 2017

I was answering the spokesperson for The Great State of Michigan. Self driving cars save millions of lives? Exaggerate much for effect? I'm not getting into a gun thing, don't have the energy nor agree it's the same.

Ceetar Aug 03 2017 06:23 PM Re: Small Things Considered - 2017

d'Kong76 wrote: I was answering the spokesperson for The Great State of Michigan. Self driving cars save millions of lives? Exaggerate much for effect? I'm not getting into a gun thing, don't have the energy nor agree it's the same. well, depends how long we're talking! 30k or so last year, so over 30+ years, that's over a million! 30 thousand is a lot of people though.

d'Kong76 Aug 03 2017 06:30 PM Re: Small Things Considered - 2017

Thitty thousand lives were saved by self-driving cars? Wow. We're both contrarians, difference is I'm right more than you. :+)

Benjamin Grimm Aug 03 2017 06:35 PM Re: Small Things Considered - 2017

I think he's saying the number of people killed because of drunk, drowsy, or distracted drivers. No matter what, people are going to drive while they're drunk, drowsy, or distracted. Self-driving cars will remove the deadly from drunk, drowsy, and distracted.

Ceetar Aug 03 2017 06:46 PM Re: Small Things Considered - 2017

d'Kong76 wrote: Thitty thousand lives were saved by self-driving cars? Wow. We're both contrarians, difference is I'm right more than you. :+) self-driving cars should eliminate almost, if not all, collisions and automobile deaths.

Lefty Specialist Aug 03 2017 06:47 PM Re: Small Things Considered - 2017

I look at it this way, by the time self-driving cars are perfected, I'll be approaching the age where it wouldn't be a good idea for me to drive anyway. So, win-win.

d'Kong76 Aug 03 2017 06:51 PM Re: Small Things Considered - 2017

I was playing by that point. I predicted we'd be video phpBB'n by now, what do I know...

Ceetar Aug 03 2017 06:59 PM Re: Small Things Considered - 2017

[url]https://www.geek.com/tech/pirate-bay-co-founder-weve-lost-the-internet-to-capitalists-1710574/ interview with pirate bay founder, talks about some internet centralization stuff, but has a line about self-driving cars We’re super happy about self-driving cars, but who owns the self-driving cars? Who owns the information about where they can and can’t go? I don’t want to ride in a self-driving car that can’t drive me to a certain place because someone has bought or sold an illegal copy of something there.” Is a fair concern. What if a car refuses to go to Walmart, because the car's owner corporation also owns/invests in Target? Or more subtly, what if the algorithms subtly sent the crappier, slower, used cars to black neighborhoods and saved the new upgraded cars to the rich white folk? Or much like net neutrality, you have to pay more for 'fast lanes'. The people that pay more get the private, well-cleaned and kept cars, and the other people get the broken down ride-sharing buses.

Ashie62 Aug 03 2017 07:01 PM Re: Small Things Considered - 2017

Lefty Specialist wrote: I look at it this way, by the time self-driving cars are perfected, I'll be approaching the age where it wouldn't be a good idea for me to drive anyway. So, win-win. My driving years will be well well behind me.

seawolf17 Aug 03 2017 07:09 PM Re: Small Things Considered - 2017

Ceetar wrote: Is a fair concern. What if a car refuses to go to Walmart, because the car's owner corporation also owns/invests in Target? Or more subtly, what if the algorithms subtly sent the crappier, slower, used cars to black neighborhoods and saved the new upgraded cars to the rich white folk? Or much like net neutrality, you have to pay more for 'fast lanes'. The people that pay more get the private, well-cleaned and kept cars, and the other people get the broken down ride-sharing buses. There is no question in my mind that all three of those things would happen.

d'Kong76 Aug 03 2017 07:10 PM Re: Small Things Considered - 2017

My dream retirement car is a late 60's Mustang convertible, not a robot on four wheels. I may be dangerous, but I'll be happy.

41Forever Aug 03 2017 07:15 PM Re: Small Things Considered - 2017

d'Kong76 wrote: I'm hardly a 'crazy people and their silly machines guy.' I don't think I said you were. No offense meant, I promise.

Edgy MD Aug 03 2017 07:40 PM Re: Small Things Considered - 2017

41Forever wrote: I'm going to suspect that in the early part of the last century, there were people who said things like, "I'm never going to get into one of those Model Ts. Besse and Big Red pull my carriage anywhere I want to go and we don't have to worry about getting a flat or running out of gas! Crazy people and their silly machines." God bless those people. They were SO right.

Frayed Knot Aug 03 2017 07:54 PM Re: Small Things Considered - 2017 Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Aug 03 2017 08:55 PM

Edgy MD wrote: 41Forever wrote: I'm going to suspect that in the early part of the last century, there were people who said things like, "I'm never going to get into one of those Model Ts. Besse and Big Red pull my carriage anywhere I want to go and we don't have to worry about getting a flat or running out of gas! Crazy people and their silly machines." God bless those people. They were SO right. Because cities were SO much cleaner when horses were the main method of hauling and transportation.

Ceetar Aug 03 2017 08:17 PM Re: Small Things Considered - 2017

Frayed Knot wrote: Edgy MD wrote: 41Forever wrote: I'm going to suspect that in the early part of the last century, there were people who said things like, "I'm never going to get into one of those Model Ts. Besse and Big Red pull my carriage anywhere I want to go and we don't have to worry about getting a flat or running out of gas! Crazy people and their silly machines." God bless those people. They were SO right. Because cities were SO much cleaner when horses were the main method of hauling and transportation. P.S. this subject needs its own break off thread oh god now I'll never stop talking about it.

d'Kong76 Aug 03 2017 08:38 PM Re: Self-driving cars considered (split from Small Things...

"I know we parked right here, 57A." "Damn thing drove off again. Need to upgrade our Norton Carstayput."

themetfairy Aug 03 2017 08:39 PM Re: Self-driving cars considered (split from Small Things...

I gotta tell you, I'm phobic enough about driving that I would consider a self-driving car.

Ceetar Aug 03 2017 08:51 PM Re: Self-driving cars considered (split from Small Things...

I am/will/plan to write a silly little book/story that's future based, focusing a little on technology and how it's changed the world. self-driving cars have to feature strongly obviously. One of my sillier thoughts is the mob using them to dispose of dead bodies. Whack a guy in New York, use his phone to order a self-driving car for a trip to california and put him in it. The transportation of _things_ will be something to consider as well. We probably don't want cars, however efficient they may be, driving cross country to deliver a small package to someone. There will probably be types of cars, and some will be really small and maybe simply be small drones that fly above roads (to assure clear passage, tracking, access to power stations etc) to deliver small objects. Another presumably popular type of car would be the sex car. There's undoubtedly going to be a 'hotel bed' feel to a fleet of public cars. Who was in there last? what did they do? what stinky foods were they eating? But if it's strictly transportation and you don't even need to be strapped in anymore, it becomes a great place for two people to meet that don't have anywhere else to go. This will be great for spy movies too. your car pulls up but there's already someone in it waiting for a secret meeting with you. or the gun you need is waiting.

Frayed Knot Aug 03 2017 08:54 PM Re: Self-driving cars considered (split from Small Things...

Ceetar wrote: Another presumably popular type of car would be the sex car. There's undoubtedly going to be a 'hotel bed' feel to a fleet of public cars. Instead of the Mile High club you can brag about your entry into the Mile-a-Minute Club!

Ceetar Aug 03 2017 09:12 PM Re: Self-driving cars considered (split from Small Things...

Frayed Knot wrote: Ceetar wrote: Another presumably popular type of car would be the sex car. There's undoubtedly going to be a 'hotel bed' feel to a fleet of public cars. Instead of the Mile High club you can brag about your entry into the Mile-a-Minute Club! "He was done before we got to the corner" "I saw him drop off the blonde a block away before he picked me up" "We fell asleep and the car drove us to his house for his scheduled dinner date with his wife!"

Lefty Specialist Aug 04 2017 12:58 AM Re: Self-driving cars considered (split from Small Things...

Everyone seems to be assuming that all cars will be self-driving Ubers. I think people will still want to buy their own cars for the bells and whistles, if only to not smell the farts and body odor of the previous occupant. The individuality the American car represents won't fade away that easily. In cities it might be true, but in the burbs and rural areas it'll be less so. I'm more excited for the imminent arrival of electric cars. When we buy our next one, it'll gas up at an outlet. We've owned at least one hybrid since 2004, so we're ready to make the leap.

d'Kong76 Aug 04 2017 01:38 AM Re: Self-driving cars considered (split from Small Things...

I'm picturing a semi-self driving car one day. Auto-pilot on highways. Far more interested in discussing electric cars and the death of dependence on gas and oil.

Lefty Specialist Aug 04 2017 01:48 AM Re: Self-driving cars considered (split from Small Things...

There's going to be an explosion of electric cars in the next 5 years. Battery tech is getting cheaper, smaller and lighter by leaps and bounds. Need something a little bigger than the Chevy Bolt or the Tesla Model 3 but with that >200 mile range. A small SUV with good battery range will sell like hotcakes. They're coming, but they're not quite here yet.

Fman99 Aug 04 2017 02:09 AM Re: Self-driving cars considered (split from Small Things...

I'm in favor of anything that allows me to more safely jerk myself off while driving at high speeds.

Frayed Knot Aug 04 2017 02:41 AM Re: Self-driving cars considered (split from Small Things...

Lefty Specialist wrote: Everyone seems to be assuming that all cars will be self-driving Ubers. Yeah, I don't see auto-cars making private ownership extinct or even lessened. Ubers and such are making themselves a nice niche (if they can ever get their corporate bigwigs on a leash) but there's a ceiling on where they can go with it.

Edgy MD Aug 04 2017 02:43 AM Re: Self-driving cars considered (split from Small Things...

I haven't climbed into an Uber yet, except once or twice as a guest. I don't like the way those guys play ball.

Ceetar Aug 04 2017 03:12 AM Re: Self-driving cars considered (split from Small Things...

Frayed Knot wrote: Lefty Specialist wrote: Everyone seems to be assuming that all cars will be self-driving Ubers. Yeah, I don't see auto-cars making private ownership extinct or even lessened. Ubers and such are making themselves a nice niche (if they can ever get their corporate bigwigs on a leash) but there's a ceiling on where they can go with it. Well I mean, it'll take a while, but it'll probably end up being an unneeded expense. It will definitely take a while to transition from everyone driving their own vehicle to one where the seats don't face forward and there are more inches of TV screen than windshield. Certainly in rural areas it'll take longer, whereas anywhere parking is a concern it'll go quicker. All you people that deal with alternate side parking or renting a space... Cities will always have a car available for you within like 2 minutes. (an it'll be already warm in the winter, cool in the summer) That'll be the start, and then suddenly we'll realize that roads don't need to be as wide, we don't need parking lanes at all on many streets. because of cars talking to each other and merging efficiently, we probably don't need three lane roads. out in the suburbs, maybe a little slower, but we waste so much space and time on parking still. We'll still need places for these cars to 'sleep' but we don't need 500 parking spaces/towers next to every office building. A large portion of every residential home is driveway and garage. The driveway becomes green space. the garage can become more of a shed, or anything else. We've got two cars here. One I use 5 hours a week and it just sits there doing nothing otherwise. Waste. The other 'main' car gets a little more use, but still just sits there. hell, when we're in for the night and sleeping, why can't my car go off and shuttle drunk people home from the bars? Maybe that's a way it goes. We'll start by still owning cars but be able to 'lease' them to the fleet for a tax/gas rebate or something.

Lefty Specialist Aug 04 2017 10:46 AM Re: Self-driving cars considered (split from Small Things...

My garage is a shed already. I've parked a car in it twice in 25 years.

d'Kong76 Aug 04 2017 01:52 PM Re: Self-driving cars considered (split from Small Things...

Ceetar wrote: Well I mean, it'll take a while, but it'll probably end up being an unneeded expense. It will definitely take a while to transition from everyone driving their own vehicle to one where the seats don't face forward and there are more inches of TV screen than windshield. Certainly in rural areas it'll take longer, whereas anywhere parking is a concern it'll go quicker. All you people that deal with alternate side parking or renting a space... Cities will always have a car available for you within like 2 minutes. (an it'll be already warm in the winter, cool in the summer) That'll be the start, and then suddenly we'll realize that roads don't need to be as wide, we don't need parking lanes at all on many streets. because of cars talking to each other and merging efficiently, we probably don't need three lane roads. out in the suburbs, maybe a little slower, but we waste so much space and time on parking still. We'll still need places for these cars to 'sleep' but we don't need 500 parking spaces/towers next to every office building. A large portion of every residential home is driveway and garage. The driveway becomes green space. the garage can become more of a shed, or anything else. We've got two cars here. One I use 5 hours a week and it just sits there doing nothing otherwise. Waste. The other 'main' car gets a little more use, but still just sits there. hell, when we're in for the night and sleeping, why can't my car go off and shuttle drunk people home from the bars? Maybe that's a way it goes. We'll start by still owning cars but be able to 'lease' them to the fleet for a tax/gas rebate or something. I don't know where to start... the roads don't need to be as wide? Pardon me, I have to go pull my jaw off the floor. Decades and decades away, if ever.

d'Kong76 Aug 04 2017 02:05 PM Re: Self-driving cars considered (split from Small Things...

"Honey, why are there two used condoms and vomit in the car this morning?" "Oh, I outsourced it last night to pick up drunks."

metsmarathon Aug 04 2017 02:32 PM Re: Self-driving cars considered (split from Small Things...

i think the killer app will be to effectively offer automated ridesharing services to commuters. and that's where you'd see your space-saving come in as well. an automated people-shuttle. think a six-(or eight or ten) passenger minivan/microbus-esque thing where you don't have to climb over people and have enough elbow room to work or read or veg out or whatever on your way in to work, that picks you up at your home, and drives you to your work, without you having to do much of anything besides leave your house at the right time to catch your ride, and which follows an optimized route that minimizes travel time and distance for each of the six passengers. maybe each week it's the same group, maybe it mixes it up based on some sorting algorithm, and probably you'll need the ability to flag any fellow commuters for disruptive behavior, but that's the way of the future. we should all be ride-sharing in to work now anyways, but it's generally inconvenient to set up, organize, and operate. let the machines figure it out for us. oh, but i think you're overselling tesla's current autopilot capability. it can handle highway driving in uncongested traffic, but can it really do unpredictable city driving? navigate a busy mall parking lot? wend its way down rural tertiary roads? the robots drivers today are kinda like derek jeter as a shortstop - they do the ordinary things well enough, but they've got terrible range. humans fail spectacularly at the ordinary driving things, but are remarkably good at the more complicated judgemental/interpretive stuff that make driving such an adventure.

seawolf17 Aug 04 2017 03:02 PM Re: Self-driving cars considered (split from Small Things...

Fman99 wrote: I'm in favor of anything that allows me to more safely jerk myself off while driving at high speeds. Note to self: Politely decline fman's offer to carpool.

41Forever Aug 04 2017 03:07 PM Re: Self-driving cars considered (split from Small Things...

I'm surprised some of you guys went right for the negative on this. There are so many positive applications. Think about trying to park in Manhattan. Won't be a problem any more. Reduced need for massive parking garages and parking lots, reducing sprawl. That hour-long commute just became productive time without the danger of distracted driving. That two-day drive to Florida just became one day -- ish -- because you can snooze as the car drives right on through the night. It's a big deal here. The former bomber plant where Rosie the Riveter worked is becoming a four-season, year-round site for testing and developing. University of Michigan has a whole "city" -- think of the old Safety Town at Eisenhower Park on a massive scale -- for testing and developing in an urban environment. We're already seeing some of these elements, such as the cars that parallel park themselves. It's happening.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 04 2017 03:15 PM Re: Self-driving cars considered (split from Small Things...

I'm surprised too. I'm quite gung-ho on self-driving cars, and I hope that it happens soon, before I have to buy a new car for myself.

d'Kong76 Aug 04 2017 03:30 PM Re: Self-driving cars considered (split from Small Things...

Not necessarily being negative, just not buying that robots on wheels are going to transform the streets and highways into some kind of sci-fi utopia as soon as some of you seem to believe.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 04 2017 03:44 PM Re: Self-driving cars considered (split from Small Things...

Obviously, there's going to be a transitional period where some cars are operated by humans and some are self-driving, and that will have its own unique, and temporary, set of challenges. But as I said above, as long as people are determined to drive while drunk, drowsy, or distracted (and distracted is becoming more and more of a problem) then we need to move to self-driving cars, so that people can be as drunk, drowsy, or distracted as they like. I telecommute three days a week, but on the days I go into the office, it's a drive of 90 minutes to 2 hours. There have been plenty of days when I'd have loved to have been able to nap during that ride.

Frayed Knot Aug 04 2017 03:45 PM Re: Self-driving cars considered (split from Small Things...

Benjamin Grimm wrote: ... on the days I go into the office, it's a drive of 90 minutes to 2 hours. There have been plenty of days when I'd have loved to have been able to nap during that ride. Or, if you're FMan ...

metsmarathon Aug 04 2017 04:10 PM Re: Self-driving cars considered (split from Small Things...

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Obviously, there's going to be a transitional period where some cars are operated by humans and some are self-driving, and that will have its own unique, and temporary, set of challenges. i think that transitional period will last a long time. i do not foresee a remotely near future where individual ownership of, and manual control over, automobiles disappears. at least not for the wealthy.... Also, i'm gung ho for driverless cars. i think they'll be great. i just don't think we're quite there yet....

Fman99 Aug 04 2017 04:28 PM Re: Self-driving cars considered (split from Small Things...

metsmarathon wrote: maybe each week it's the same group, maybe it mixes it up based on some sorting algorithm, and probably you'll need the ability to flag any fellow commuters for disruptive behavior, but that's the way of the future. we should all be ride-sharing in to work now anyways, but it's generally inconvenient to set up, organize, and operate. let the machines figure it out for us. So, just based on this example, there was a woman who worked in my building who lived just a couple of streets down from me, who also was leaving for work around the same time as me, because I'd often see her getting in and out of her car both by her house and in my building. And she was, from all I could tell overhearing her come in and out of the building, a bitter old bitch, with nothing nice to say, ever. So, you ride share with that. I'll stick to a private ride and my own unique brand of extracurricular meditations, thanks.

Centerfield Aug 04 2017 05:15 PM Re: Self-driving cars considered (split from Small Things...

It's scary to think of putting my life, and that of my family, in the hands of a computer. Traveling 75 MPH on the highway. I guess I put my life in the hands of another person, someone I know nothing about, every time I take a taxi, bus, or plane. But for some reason it doesn't feel as dangerous. Sometime in the future, the young generation will think nothing of it. And think it's insane that there was a time when cars were manually operated. But until we get to there, there will be some bad speed bumps. Inevitably, there will be some tragic accident because of computer failure, and everyone will rail against it. And eventually, once we reach that point, people will cite the facts that robot cars are safer overall, etc. I don't know. There was a reason Luke turned off his targeting computer. He knew the force was better than any robot could do.

Ceetar Aug 05 2017 03:36 AM Re: Self-driving cars considered (split from Small Things...

Centerfield wrote: I don't know. There was a reason Luke turned off his targeting computer. He knew the force was better than any robot could do. Because he literally had super powers. 41Forever wrote: We're already seeing some of these elements, such as the cars that parallel park themselves. It's happening. nah. more than that. auto-breaking if someone stops in front of you. lane correction if you drift. These are real things. self-driving for highways ala cruise control is probably right around the corner. Yes, humans handle some of the crazy weird complicated decision making stuff, but all cars talking to each other via algorithm would eliminate the need for a lot of that. and faster. highways could operate at 100mph. merges would be seemless. cross traffic, even in manhattan, could cross without the need for physical traffic lights and criss cross as openings allow, with inches to spare.

41Forever Aug 05 2017 04:23 PM Re: Self-driving cars considered (split from Small Things...

Ceetar wrote: Centerfield wrote: I don't know. There was a reason Luke turned off his targeting computer. He knew the force was better than any robot could do. Because he literally had super powers. When my son was really young and first getting into super heroes, he'd be impressed when I could open something like a jar of peanut butter, I'd say, "Well, of course. I have super powers." Then one day, we were in a store and he noticed two clerks struggling to lift a box, and I overheard, "My Dad can help. He's got super powers." The clerks were amused, probably by my embarrassment.

Lefty Specialist Aug 05 2017 08:23 PM Re: Self-driving cars considered (split from Small Things...

The technology's coming, but actually turning control of cars over to something else isn't going to happen overnight. And think of the fight there'll be when some time in the future self-driving is mandated as a safety measure. That'll be something to see.

Edgy MD Aug 06 2017 02:02 AM Re: Self-driving cars considered (split from Small Things...

I'm more concerned with (1) the energy these cars will run on, and (2) the economic and societal shifts that will happen. Will we send out for dinner every night? Just send our cars to pick it up? Or maybe a mini-car. An autopilot wagon? And the last bastion of brick-and-mortar retail will crumble as drones deliver everything to your door. We grow more isolated and insulated and afraid of one another. Blah-blah-blah.

MFS62 Aug 06 2017 01:31 PM Re: Self-driving cars considered (split from Small Things...

This reminds me of something one of the astronauts said. I'll modify it a bit to fit the topic. When I drive down a highway at night at 65 miles per hour, I realize that the major steering and situation sensing components of my vehicle were built by the company that submitted the lowest bid. I'll drive myself, thanks. Later

A Boy Named Seo Aug 07 2017 08:17 PM Re: Self-driving cars considered (split from Small Things...

Speaking of algorithms... what about the ethics of the programming? What if in the face of an accident whose outcomes all have low probability for avoiding collision or potential injury, could any of us really feel secure the decision the computer made would always be to try to keep our families safe? Maybe the computer just tries for best possible outcome and that could be running the family Oldsmobile off the road into some ravine to avoid colliding with that school bus full of middle school kids. And accidents will happen, as long as machines require parts that can break, or are piloted by a program that can break. And talk about cyber security. You wanna unleash the mother of all terrorist attacks in 2077? Just hack the US Dept of Automated Automobiles or whatever. President Baron Trump is gonna have his lil hands full.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 07 2017 08:27 PM Re: Self-driving cars considered (split from Small Things...

. Pilotless planes could save airlines billions, but passengers aren’t willing to fly them yet

d'Kong76 Aug 07 2017 08:30 PM Re: Self-driving cars considered (split from Small Things...

A Boy Named Seo wrote: Speaking of algorithms... what about the ethics of the programming? What if in the face of an accident whose outcomes all have low probability for avoiding collision or potential injury, could any of us really feel secure the decision the computer made would always be to try to keep our families safe? Maybe the computer just tries for best possible outcome and that could be running the family Oldsmobile off the road into some ravine to avoid colliding with that school bus full of middle school kids. And accidents will happen, as long as machines require parts that can break, or are piloted by a program that can break. And talk about cyber security. You wanna unleash the mother of all terrorist attacks in 2077? Just hack the US Dept of Automated Automobiles or whatever. President Baron Trump is gonna have his lil hands full. USDAA! Brilliant.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Aug 07 2017 09:24 PM Re: Self-driving cars considered (split from Small Things...

Why is it creepier to us to have accidental deaths caused by robots, even if the numbers are almost certainly in favor of making the switch? It does seem like some ineffable deaths-caused-by-machines fear is at the heart of any and all resistance to the switch.

Edgy MD Aug 07 2017 09:54 PM Re: Self-driving cars considered (split from Small Things...

I would think it is well precedented standard of ethical reason and reasonable ethics to support the notion that we should have the right to live or die with our own hand on the stick of fate, as futile as that ultimately may be for all of us. Humans weigh the cost-benefit analysis by their own standards, which may be heroically selfless, solipsistically self-centered, or more likely somewhere in between, but computers weigh by a single standard, and though we may be assured it is the most ethical of standards, would you be shocked if a few republic credits changed hands, guaranteeing that Eric Trump would be steered clear of danger while hardly noticing a speed change and/or course deviation, while Govinda Havaldar and his mostly anonymous family of six were burned alive? Yeah, that kind of cynicism of governmental/bureaucratic motives and purity is largely Republican, and I'm framing the Republican president's family as a potential benefactor, but minuscule subroutines within a massive collection of data seems like a lovely little place for that sort of institutionalized privilege to hide. i mean, it's likely coming one way or another, but better we ask these questions now. The Havaldars deserve as much.

A Boy Named Seo Aug 07 2017 10:06 PM Re: Self-driving cars considered (split from Small Things...

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Why is it creepier to us to have accidental deaths caused by robots, even if the numbers are almost certainly in favor of making the switch? It does seem like some ineffable deaths-caused-by-machines fear is at the heart of any and all resistance to the switch. Even if being in control is an allusion, ceding that control to computer programs and artificial intelligence is kinda scary. And if you listen to Elon Musk, maybe we don't wanna give the robots too much of a brain.

Lefty Specialist Aug 08 2017 12:01 AM Re: Self-driving cars considered (split from Small Things...

Stephen Hawking is also very concerned that robots will take over within 100 years.

A Boy Named Seo Aug 08 2017 04:35 PM Re: Self-driving cars considered (split from Small Things...

Bill Gates, too. I heard Elon Musk say it once kinda like this: Say for example you have an advanced computer with incredible learning capabilities and its objective is to get rid of spam. Eventually the computer is going to learn that if you get rid of humans, you have no spam. That idea was met with a smattering of laughter, but his point was that there could be disastrous unintended consequences from helpful AI, let alone the inevitable other direction some Dr. Evil would try to take it. So yes, I think we're all fucked. :)

Ceetar Aug 08 2017 05:49 PM Re: Self-driving cars considered (split from Small Things...

Edgy MD wrote: I would think it is well precedented standard of ethical reason and reasonable ethics to support the notion that we should have the right to live or die with our own hand on the stick of fate, as futile as that ultimately may be for all of us. Humans weigh the cost-benefit analysis by their own standards, which may be heroically selfless, solipsistically self-centered, or more likely somewhere in between, but computers weigh by a single standard, and though we may be assured it is the most ethical of standards, would you be shocked if a few republic credits changed hands, guaranteeing that Eric Trump would be steered clear of danger while hardly noticing a speed change and/or course deviation, while Govinda Havaldar and his mostly anonymous family of six were burned alive? Yeah, that kind of cynicism of governmental/bureaucratic motives and purity is largely Republican, and I'm framing the Republican president's family as a potential benefactor, but minuscule subroutines within a massive collection of data seems like a lovely little place for that sort of institutionalized privilege to hide. i mean, it's likely coming one way or another, but better we ask these questions now. The Havaldars deserve as much. to the notion that we have the right to live or die with our own hand on the stick is..well, not anymore true today really than a self-driving future. We take trains, plains, trams, elevators, etc. automated. our cars are quite a bit automated even if the driving part isn't. Some machine misses a screw and the air bags don't deploy or your axel comes off. Sure, you were holding the steering wheel at the time, but 'control'? We're giving up a lot less of it then we think. Hell, you could get killed walking the street as a non driver by a human driver. This is the price of living in a society/community/civilization. The second notion is the net neutrality argument. and a very important one. That head to head collision argument about the algorithm choosing to kill your family is mostly a bogus one. With cars talking to each other, with all non-human drivers, it should never come to that. There should be a billion safe guards, because both cars will see that possibility coming as a result of 200 decisions earlier and make a different decision, even if that decision is to violently pull the car off to the side of the road so the other can barrel through. "What if something breaks?" you'll say. But it shouldn't. And the other car will know that the broken car isn't responding correctly, and treat it as AWOL appropriately. I don't know if this tech would ever be programmed for self-destruction in any case. It's not a central computer. Each machine would be operating independently to try to be as safe as possible. A car should not be able to alter the decision making process of another car. This is also good for anti-hack purposes. You'll never be able to send something out that will tell all cars "do this" or "here's an imaginary object hurling at you" or whatever. This way each hack has to be done individually. There is certainly danger in this, as in any terrorism, though it's certainly going to be harder and less effective then just buying a gun and shooting everyone.. And each and every other car, if not every intersection and object on the road is going to be equip to detect anomalies and flag them, and if necessary, alert the police.

d'Kong76 Aug 08 2017 06:17 PM Re: Self-driving cars considered (split from Small Things...

The cars talking to each other seems to be big on your defense but to me it's one of the most disturbing. The breakdown in 'conversation' for a few seconds would be catastrophic if/when there are a hundred cars in the vicinity of each other going 65 mph. What's to stop a hac- ker from sitting on an overpass and send some kind of jam signal he/ she wrote just to fuck with traffic because he/she get jollies from it?

Ceetar Aug 08 2017 06:33 PM Re: Self-driving cars considered (split from Small Things...

d'Kong76 wrote: The cars talking to each other seems to be big on your defense but to me it's one of the most disturbing. The breakdown in 'conversation' for a few seconds would be catastrophic if/when there are a hundred cars in the vicinity of each other going 65 mph. What's to stop a hac- ker from sitting on an overpass and send some kind of jam signal he/ she wrote just to fuck with traffic because he/she get jollies from it? is that technology possible? just 'jam all technology within 30 feet' or something? It'd probably do nothing, particularly on a highway. The cars would flag a weird spot of no communication and/or the jammer, and alert someone. They'd still visibly see each other and pretty much continue on their way as normal. Maybe at a busy criss-crossing intersection? Likely one street would continue roughly as normal with no interruptions, and the cross street would either go as visible openings open up (presuming this jammer can't also someone block their low-key radar/cameras to detect speed and movement?) or, what's most likely is things would grind to a halt if the cars didn't have enough data to operate. They'd do a quick diagnostic, figure out that the system is fine, and go into high alert mode. they'd switch channels, frequencies and if you weren't blocking those, they'd re-establish communication and quickly triangulate where the jam was coming from, and now you've got every camera pointed that way. It'd be very hard to jam this communication though in ways that are vastly easier or different than now. What's the difference going to an intersection with a jammer, a machine gun, a bomb? Hell, you could throw a big rock into a busy merge on say the West Side Highway and probably cause a 10-car accident. You could try to impersonate a car, if you could exactly replicate the way they communicate, the switching frequencies, the pace, the phrasing. But there's only so much you can do by pretending to be an obstacle. I'm not convinced this is going to be in any way easy to do.

Frayed Knot Aug 08 2017 06:44 PM Re: Self-driving cars considered (split from Small Things...

http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/08/technol ... index.html

d'Kong76 Aug 08 2017 07:01 PM Re: Self-driving cars considered (split from Small Things...

Ceetar wrote: is that technology possible? You'd know better than I. If you know the frequency of your local police department's car/HQ communications you can jam their radios by stepping on the signal by holding down the talk button on a cheap radio. That's an over-simplified example, just saying. Anything computer/robot/whatever re- lated will be focus of people looking to be disruptive. Why do teenagers in Russia hack into our power grid and not turn off the lights? To show they can, and to get their techie shits and giggles.

Ceetar Aug 08 2017 07:25 PM Re: Self-driving cars considered (split from Small Things...

I mean, V2V isn't really implemented yet from what I understand, so it's hard to say whether it's hackable. Right now all things that people do to mess with self-driving cars deal with mostly image manipulation, like reverse-captcha. Saw something recently about how stickers in the right place on stop signs trick them into thinking they're right turn signs or something. A lot of what I'm saying is probably wishful thinking, or the way I'd program it. I hope smart people are/will be involved. I also wonder if it will require this level of intelligent implementation to really take off anyway. I hope there's the proper amount of government regulation. Like something that makes the v2v communication less obvious. First thing that comes to mind is rotating frequencies so that you'd have to jam ALL of them, or known the order, to mess with it. And encryption. Sometime like those little halflife type cards that change numbers every minute or so. One of those programmed into each car, synced with a few government computers to constantly 'authorize' themselves for communication. Perhaps you could also keep a 'friends' list. keep a list of the MAC address or something of every car you interact with. This would help with identifying hackers, or at least give them another thing they have to manage.

A Boy Named Seo Aug 08 2017 07:46 PM Re: Self-driving cars considered (split from Small Things... Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Aug 08 2017 07:53 PM

Sure, in theory, KC's scenario is possible. If there's a network of anything needing to communicate with each other to function, if someone or something can access that network and launch a DDoS, the service can be disrupted. Cars wouldn't be able to communicate that there's something wrong because they can't communicate. This is where the AI can get scary.

Ceetar Aug 08 2017 07:51 PM Re: Self-driving cars considered (split from Small Things...

A Boy Named Seo wrote: Sure, in theory, KC's scenario is possible. If there's a network of anything needing to communicate with each to function, if someone or something can access that network and launch a DDoS, the service can be disrupted. Cars wouldn't be able to communicate that there's something wrong because they can't communicate. This is where the AI can get scary. Might completely shut down things, but that's not way different than "All trains out of Penn Station suspended because of stalled train in the tunnel" I wonder how a fleet of self-driving cars would affect the subway. Feels like you wouldn't really need it anymore.

A Boy Named Seo Aug 08 2017 07:58 PM Re: Self-driving cars considered (split from Small Things...

Ceetar wrote: A Boy Named Seo wrote: Sure, in theory, KC's scenario is possible. If there's a network of anything needing to communicate with each to function, if someone or something can access that network and launch a DDoS, the service can be disrupted. Cars wouldn't be able to communicate that there's something wrong because they can't communicate. This is where the AI can get scary. Might completely shut down things, but that's not way different than "All trains out of Penn Station suspended because of stalled train in the tunnel" I wonder how a fleet of self-driving cars would affect the subway. Feels like you wouldn't really need it anymore. It's different because you're assuming the all the cars would just stop. If there was a coordinated attack on a freeway full of automated cars, and they couldn't communicate with one other, or could only communicate with certain cars, you could have a shit-show of epic proportions.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 08 2017 08:03 PM Re: Self-driving cars considered (split from Small Things...

I don't think it's totally necessary for cars to communicate with each other. It would help avoid crashes, and make merges easier, but the same kind of thing can be done visually. Human drivers avoid crashes by seeing where the other cars are. I would think that if car-to-car communication broke down somehow, the onboard cameras and sensors would still work as a backup.

Ceetar Aug 08 2017 08:11 PM Re: Self-driving cars considered (split from Small Things...

A Boy Named Seo wrote: It's different because you're assuming the all the cars would just stop. If there was a coordinated attack on a freeway full of automated cars, and they couldn't communicate with one other, or could only communicate with certain cars, you could have a shit-show of epic proportions. I mean, I'd definitely have a "not enough information, slow and stop and pull over if possible" failsafe type thing in there, if it went blind. But you'd also have to hack the cameras. v2v won't be a hivemind thing where they're all moving in unison. self-driving cars on a highway would literally be the easiest thing. For one, they'd all be going the same speed, following the same road. They could still see each other. There would be little communication needed except for entering and exiting. lane changes would be minimal. But cars would have no sense of urgency. It's not like they'd see a coming exit and try to swerve through cars that aren't getting their signal to open a path. they'd keep getting a return code of 'lane change not possible. proceed' and then miss the exit and reroute.

seawolf17 Aug 08 2017 09:37 PM Re: Self-driving cars considered (split from Small Things...

[tweet:39fgwyjm]https://twitter.com/stonybrooku/status/894922337656729600[/tweet:39fgwyjm]