Driverless cars could change everything

[BWillie]

Originally Posted by DrunkBassGuitar

the problem with driverless cars and electric cars is that like they don't really solve any problems. like if your gripe is traffic then just making some cars electric or driverless doesn't change the number of cars on the road. it'd be like outlawing suvs and saying you can only drive compacts, it's still the same number of cars the cars are just different. the only way to really fix that problem is to reduce the number of cars on the road and the only really effective way to do that is basically making biking, walking and public transportation more convenient than driving. And doing that basically requires changing how we've built cities and towns for the last like 70 years in north america.

if the complaint is environmental/climate related then all electric cars do is just move the emissions of a car from the tailpipe to the powergrid, the carbon savings from a tesla from an ICE is about the same as a subcompact to an SUV. plus electric vehicles are massively heavy so that's more wear and tear on roads (the electric hummer weighs like 10,000 lbs lol) and you have to consider the environmental impact of batteries which isn't nothing.

Wear and tear to roads from leaking oil, gasoline and brake fluid is probably even worse. Its not like a electric sedan is as big of a difference than a car to a semi or even close.

Alos shitty people and bad drivers also cause traffic jam. A driverless society (which I acknowledge will not happen in my lifetime) you would have yo think lower traffic by a ton just due to efficiency.

[Lzen]

Originally Posted by BWillie

Wear and tear to roads from leaking oil, gasoline and brake fluid is probably even worse. Its not like a electric sedan is as big of a difference than a car to a semi or even close.

Alos shitty people and bad drivers also cause traffic jam. A driverless society (which I acknowledge will not happen in my lifetime) you would have yo think lower traffic by a ton just due to efficiency.

Uhhh......nope. The wear and tear on the roads (at least here in the midwest) has A LOT to do with salt on the roads in the winter.

[Lzen]

Originally Posted by DrunkBassGuitar

the problem with driverless cars and electric cars is that like they don't really solve any problems. like if your gripe is traffic then just making some cars electric or driverless doesn't change the number of cars on the road. it'd be like outlawing suvs and saying you can only drive compacts, it's still the same number of cars the cars are just different. the only way to really fix that problem is to reduce the number of cars on the road and the only really effective way to do that is basically making biking, walking and public transportation more convenient than driving. And doing that basically requires changing how we've built cities and towns for the last like 70 years in north america.

if the complaint is environmental/climate related then all electric cars do is just move the emissions of a car from the tailpipe to the powergrid, the carbon savings from a tesla from an ICE is about the same as a subcompact to an SUV. plus electric vehicles are massively heavy so that's more wear and tear on roads (the electric hummer weighs like 10,000 lbs lol) and you have to consider the environmental impact of batteries which isn't nothing.

I get your point about the number of cars being the same but I think you're missing one element. Driverless cars would be able to make traffic flow much more smoothly. No idiots who hold up traffic because they don't know how to hit the gas to get up to the flow of traffic. Or no idiots who are afraid to enter the roundabout.

Now, this is all assuming that the software is good and works well. My fear is that there are bugs in the software or that they are able to be hacked. Just think of the havoc one could wreak if all cars were driverless and they could be hacked. That's scary.

[SithCeNtZ]

Originally Posted by Lzen

Now, this is all assuming that the software is good and works well. My fear is that there are bugs in the software or that they are able to be hacked. Just think of the havoc one could wreak if all cars were driverless and they could be hacked. That's scary.

Two things here. The first is that yes, there will probably always be a bug, or something capable of going wrong. People are going to have to get over it and realise that a random software bug is still far less of a chance of death than a random drunk driver or some idiot who runs a red light. We can't let perfection be the enemy of better than what we have.

The second is that the hacking thing is completely nonsensical and a boogeyman from movies and TV shows. Basically every car today sold is mainly powered by a computer. Most modern safety functions of a car like adaptive cruise control and brake detection warnings are already run by a computer. Is there a massive wave of mysterious deaths due to cars doing random things? Of course not. Why would these magical hackers not be causing mayhem right now when it's certainly easier to do it today than it will be in a likely very highly regulated and monitored system 20 years from now? It's because "hacking" as people think of in the movies doesn't exist in this context. No one can upload a virus to your car and turn it into a death machine or else scorned ex-lovers would clearly resort to that rather than burying a body in a field somewhere with evidence all around.

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by SithCeNtZ

Two things here. The first is that yes, there will probably always be a bug, or something capable of going wrong. People are going to have to get over it and realise that a random software bug is still far less of a chance of death than a random drunk driver or some idiot who runs a red light. We can't let perfection be the enemy of better than what we have.

The second is that the hacking thing is completely nonsensical and a boogeyman from movies and TV shows. Basically every car today sold is mainly powered by a computer. Most modern safety functions of a car like adaptive cruise control and brake detection warnings are already run by a computer. Is there a massive wave of mysterious deaths due to cars doing random things? Of course not. Why would these magical hackers not be causing mayhem right now when it's certainly easier to do it today than it will be in a likely very highly regulated and monitored system 20 years from now? It's because "hacking" as people think of in the movies doesn't exist in this context. No one can upload a virus to your car and turn it into a death machine or else scorned ex-lovers would clearly resort to that rather than burying a body in a field somewhere with evidence all around.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I am pretty certain these driverless cars are networked (blue toothed, internet, whatever you want to call it), especially the cab company referenced in post 56 from San Francisco. I can not imagine any possibility of them turning a fleet of driverless cars loose without a central dispatch control.

Can you?

However, your normal consumer owned car, has a self contained, non networked computer. You would need to plug into it to hack it, similar to the service code reader.

Thus, the possibility of hacking driverless cars would be a very real possibility.

[Chief Pagan]

Originally Posted by HemiEd

Correct me if I am wrong, but I am pretty certain these driverless cars are networked (blue toothed, internet, whatever you want to call it), especially the cab company referenced in post 56 from San Francisco. I can not imagine any possibility of them turning a fleet of driverless cars loose without a central dispatch control.

Can you?

However, your normal consumer owned car, has a self contained, non networked computer. You would need to plug into it to hack it, similar to the service code reader.

Thus, the possibility of hacking driverless cars would be a very real possibility.

I generally think that some point in the future driverless cars will be an improvement over human drivers. But yes, if there are millions of Waymo Google cars or Uber driverless cars or any on demand driverless car service...

Yes, the network being hacked is one of those unlikely, but high risk scenarios that need to be taken seriously.

Having millions of cars being ordered to crash simultaneously is the Hollywood movie scenario.

But even just a situation where a hack shuts down tens of millions of cars that commuters count on every day would be serious.

The idea that any network that is online is 100 percent secure is laughable.

[Lzen]

Originally Posted by SithCeNtZ

Two things here. The first is that yes, there will probably always be a bug, or something capable of going wrong. People are going to have to get over it and realise that a random software bug is still far less of a chance of death than a random drunk driver or some idiot who runs a red light. We can't let perfection be the enemy of better than what we have.

The second is that the hacking thing is completely nonsensical and a boogeyman from movies and TV shows. Basically every car today sold is mainly powered by a computer. Most modern safety functions of a car like adaptive cruise control and brake detection warnings are already run by a computer. Is there a massive wave of mysterious deaths due to cars doing random things? Of course not. Why would these magical hackers not be causing mayhem right now when it's certainly easier to do it today than it will be in a likely very highly regulated and monitored system 20 years from now? It's because "hacking" as people think of in the movies doesn't exist in this context. No one can upload a virus to your car and turn it into a death machine or else scorned ex-lovers would clearly resort to that rather than burying a body in a field somewhere with evidence all around.

The comparison you used is not exactly correct. They are making cars now that they can use GPS to track you. Is this a way to hack? Is there another way for someone to hack in and gain control? I don't know but maybe. Your argument still has not convinced me. But I do agree that more driverless cars probably means fewer crashes because some idiot thought their phone was more important than, you know, actually paying attention to the road.

[|Zach|]

Originally Posted by DrunkBassGuitar

to reduce the number of cars on the road and the only really effective way to do that is basically making biking, walking and public transportation more convenient than driving. And doing that basically requires changing how we've built cities and towns for the last like 70 years in north america.

It really is a shame that every single civic and city planning decision is made with cars as the first priority. Great cities plagued by surface parking lot after surface parking lot.

[Otter]

I lean more towards getting unnecessary drivers off the road through remote work, delivery services, and walking while implementing driver less vehicles as a compliment to the primary solution mentioned above.

There are WAYYYY too many people who just suck at driving that are placing others in danger for no good reason.


BTW: Get off your cell phone. If you were that important that you need 24/7 connectivity you wouldn't be driving.

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by Otter

I lean more towards getting unnecessary drivers off the road through remote work, delivery services, and walking while implementing driver less vehicles as a compliment to the primary solution mentioned above.

There are WAYYYY too many people who just suck at driving that are placing others in danger for no good reason.


BTW: Get off your cell phone. If you were that important that you need 24/7 connectivity you wouldn't be driving.

Bingo!

On a recent trip we were taking to Indianapolis, a young lady in a mini van wasn't even hiding the fact she was texting/using her phone for many miles on I-44. She was actually holding it up near the rear view mirror like she was facetiming someone doing 75mph.

They should make a device, similar to those breathalyzer interlocks to keep the driver off of their phones.

[Dante84]

Check out Zoox.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by Dante84

Check out Zoox.

I want one of those. That's going to be my next car if they come available.

[|Zach|]

Not having to drive would be a dream. Literally life changing.

I have come to dislike it in the past 5 or so years. So many chances for bad and annoying things to happen that can cause people to get hurt or a ton of money come out of my pocket.

I would not need to drive a whole lot of my work commute was not 30-45 mins one day I can get away with most stuff being walkable or public transit adjacent during stretches off of days.

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

I bet it is. As I think about it, the umbrella policy isn't part of my homeowner coverage. It's a separate thing that's just billed on the same invoice each year.

Excellent!

Originally Posted by |Zach|

Not having to drive would be a dream. Literally life changing.

I have come to dislike it in the past 5 or so years. So many chances for bad and annoying things to happen that can cause people to get hurt or a ton of money come out of my pocket.

I would not need to drive a whole lot of my work commute was not 30-45 mins one day I can get away with most stuff being walkable or public transit adjacent during stretches off of days.

Up in the Chicago suberb I lived in for 18 years, I would ride my bicycle when the weather permitted, then just wheel it right into my office. It was kind of nice and only a little over a half a mile so I wouldn't get all sweaty on the way.

Then there is the other extreme like China, if I remember correctly, where you basically live at the factory, almost like a prison.

I guess it is the choice you make on where you want to live.