Car Culture

[SimpleDon]

Sorry to derail.

 

[bilby]

It shouldn't be particularly difficult to establish a similar scheme for motor vehicle related property damage claims, in an environment where assigning fault to a person is rendered difficult or impossible due to the absence of a human driver in charge of the vehicle(s) involved. The cost of such a fund could either be drawn from a fuel tax or from a vehicle registration fee.

This is a good idea, except maybe the part about deriving the cost from fuel tax. Currently the cost to repair a Tesla is probably triple what it costs to repair an SUV yet goes 1000x farther on a gallon of gas. And just in general, newer models cost more to insure, but generally get better gas mileage than older models so there is a definite exposure rating mismatch. But that isn't necessarily a hurdle to such a fund. Current telematics already provide any insurer or government agency with exactly the right data to estimate a risk based cost per driver, they would just need to be mandatory on all vehicles.

No, the real hurdles are 2-fold:
1) Liability - Several states have no-fault laws regarding auto collisions, and while those do reduce auto insurance, they only apply to bodily injury. You can still be at fault for personal property damage. It would require a major overhaul of the US Tort system - by state - to enact (not saying it can't happen, and insurers would probably lobby against it, but it would most likely be the legal professionals that would be the biggest hurdle).

2) Medical Payments - Much easier to pull off a residual market plan like this one when all (most) healthcare bills are paid for by the state or are at least under some semblance of control.

If the US could address these 2 hurdles, eliminate 3rd party liability and add Universal Healthcare, Auto Insurance premiums would drop between 40-50% - and could easily be moved to the public sector as almost all 50 states already have a residual auto insurance market in place run by the state government.

aa

Why are you assuming that autonomous vehicles would only exist in the USA? We might also want them in the developed world too.

I agree that fuel tax is increasingly a poor proxy for vehicle miles (and therefore for risk of being involved in an accident); A fee charged as part of vehicle registration might be more appropriate.

 

[Bomb#20]

But that isn't necessarily a hurdle to such a fund. Current telematics already provide any insurer or government agency with exactly the right data to estimate a risk based cost per driver, they would just need to be mandatory on all vehicles.

This will have all sorts of advantages when coupled with self-driving cars. It will be a lot more efficient when cars can be remotely instructed to drive themselves directly from a Tehran gay bar to a police station as soon as an occupant asks to be driven home -- the police won't have to go to the trouble of finding him any more. And think of the fuel savings.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I hope the GPS systems in these SD cars are more accurate than the one I use. I pull in my driveway and the GPS thinks I'm on the road three houses further down.

That's bad. My GPS tells me how accurate it thinks it's fix is. The answer is usually 10 feet.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yea, at some point autonomous cars will be nearly flawless to the point that they're pretty common-place, but I'd prefer to drive until all of the human sacrifices due to coding errors are done.

I don't think I would want to ride in a fully autonomous car unless there were a switch to turn off the computer and allow for fully manual operation. I don't think it is possible for the coders to imagine all possible situations and code in solutions. Plus there are innumerable situations where a component failure could leave the occupants in serious danger. Maybe there are some people who have never had any problems with an electronic device and wouldn't understand but I doubt there are many.

This is sorta like our modern passenger aircraft. They can already automatically complete a full flight from takeoff to landing but they also have a pilot that can at any time turn off the automatic system and take manual control of the aircraft.

So far at least they are requiring a licensed driver at the controls just in case the car decides it can't handle the situation and throws control back to the human. There's also been one case of the computer failing to note a construction zone speed limit sign. (I'm curious to see if they beat this ticket based on a hidden sign--computers shouldn't be missing signs unless they are obscured. I'm also sure the computer has the relevant images in it's memory.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I hate automatic transmission. How do you feel what the engine is doing?

Why would I want to 'feel' what the engine is doing? What purpose does it serve?

Of the dozens of things an engine does, which of those do you wish were under manual control, and why?

When you are driving a manual you do need to feel what the engine is doing in order to handle shifting properly. With an automatic you don't need to feel it, though. I never used to like automatic transmissions because they fared pretty badly when you stomped on the gas to get out of the way of something. Now, however, I own a car with a CVT transmission. It handles stomping on the gas better than I could with a manual. It also actually has better gas mileage than the manual version. As far as I'm concerned it trumps the manual in everything but the price tag.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I hope the GPS systems in these SD cars are more accurate than the one I use. I pull in my driveway and the GPS thinks I'm on the road three houses further down.

SatNav systems use GPS, but are programmed with the assumption that you are on the road network, and that if GPS says you are close to, but not on, a road then the software assumes that there is a map error and/or loss of GPS accuracy.

My SatNav guesses that I am on the parallel road, rather than my driveway too, but my handheld GPS gets my location right to within three metres - so it's not the GPS that's wrong, it's the SatNav's software rules.

The best compromise for a system that should (as often as possible) give workable directions to a human driver is not the best compromise for an entirely autonomous vehicle.

Yeah, mine certainly does not properly understand parking lots. It knows I'm off the road but it thinks the correct approach is to head towards the closest road. It has no concept of where there might be an entrance, it has no concept that a parking lot might connect to two streets. (Mine's taken me 3 miles out of the way because it didn't understand that I could turn onto another street to reach a place that was pretty much on the corner and fully accessible from either street--it's just the street I was on had a center barrier and I had to proceed to the next light to U-turn.)

- - - Updated - - -

New Zealand has had universal no-fault compensation for personal injuries of all types since 1974, through the Government owned  Accident Compensation Corporation.

This is funded through a payroll tax (the ACC levy is currently 0.9%) to cover injuries at work; an income tax supplementary levy of 1.26%, to cover non-work, non-vehicle injuries to employed persons; a fuel levy of 6.9c per litre (to cover motor vehicle related injuries); and a contribution form general revenue to cover persons not employed. For accounting purposes, medical (malpractice and accidental) injuries are compensated from both the income tax levy and general revenue, depending on the victim's employment status.

The result of this is that any person who is injured in New Zealand is entitled to a compensatory payout from ACC, without having to establish fault.

It shouldn't be particularly difficult to establish a similar scheme for motor vehicle related property damage claims, in an environment where assigning fault to a person is rendered difficult or impossible due to the absence of a human driver in charge of the vehicle(s) involved. The cost of such a fund could either be drawn from a fuel tax or from a vehicle registration fee.

What gets the bad drivers off the road?

 

[Metaphor]

Why would I want to 'feel' what the engine is doing? What purpose does it serve?

Of the dozens of things an engine does, which of those do you wish were under manual control, and why?

When you are driving a manual you do need to feel what the engine is doing in order to handle shifting properly. With an automatic you don't need to feel it, though. I never used to like automatic transmissions because they fared pretty badly when you stomped on the gas to get out of the way of something. Now, however, I own a car with a CVT transmission. It handles stomping on the gas better than I could with a manual. It also actually has better gas mileage than the manual version. As far as I'm concerned it trumps the manual in everything but the price tag.

But that's my entire point. You don't need to feel anything when you have an automatic transmission. This is a good thing.

It is a good thing that an oven can sense when it has reached the set temperature and maintains it at that.
It is a good thing that aircon can sense the temperature in the room and turn itself down or off.
It is a good thing that refrigerators can sense the temp inside and regulate the on/off cycle.
It is a good thing that washing machines can sense the load and can regulate the amount of water needed.

All of these automations that don't rely on humans manually intervening and making decisions are good things.

Whenever a car enthusiast tries to tell me why a manual is better, I have to wonder what planet they're driving on. The planet certainly isn't earth, where zero percent of my commute time is based on the difference between my ability to get to 60km/hr from red traffic lights in an auto, versus the ability for a professional race car driver driving a manual transmission supercar.

In any case, the market has spoken. Even several 'car enthusiast' motoring brands no longer make some high end models with a manual transmission.

 

[bilby]

SatNav systems use GPS, but are programmed with the assumption that you are on the road network, and that if GPS says you are close to, but not on, a road then the software assumes that there is a map error and/or loss of GPS accuracy.

My SatNav guesses that I am on the parallel road, rather than my driveway too, but my handheld GPS gets my location right to within three metres - so it's not the GPS that's wrong, it's the SatNav's software rules.

The best compromise for a system that should (as often as possible) give workable directions to a human driver is not the best compromise for an entirely autonomous vehicle.

Yeah, mine certainly does not properly understand parking lots. It knows I'm off the road but it thinks the correct approach is to head towards the closest road. It has no concept of where there might be an entrance, it has no concept that a parking lot might connect to two streets. (Mine's taken me 3 miles out of the way because it didn't understand that I could turn onto another street to reach a place that was pretty much on the corner and fully accessible from either street--it's just the street I was on had a center barrier and I had to proceed to the next light to U-turn.)

You can report mapping errors to the maker of the SatNav; I have found that Garmin are generally very quick to respond to such reports, generally including a correction within a year of a report being lodged. They have even replied directly to me by email - from a real human being - to clarify issues raised and to let me know when such issues were due to systemic problems that were already being worked on. I haven't dealt with other manufacturers, but I imagine that they also have some kind of error reporting system - after all, GPS is the same for all the players in the SatNav market, so their main point of difference with their competition is in the quality of their maps, and they take it very seriously.

My Garmin Nuvi recognises the entrances, exits and internal layout of many parking lots; But where the lot has not been mapped, all it can reasonably do is aim for the closest mapped roadway, and then offer corrections once you are back within its mapping.

New Zealand has had universal no-fault compensation for personal injuries of all types since 1974, through the Government owned  Accident Compensation Corporation.

This is funded through a payroll tax (the ACC levy is currently 0.9%) to cover injuries at work; an income tax supplementary levy of 1.26%, to cover non-work, non-vehicle injuries to employed persons; a fuel levy of 6.9c per litre (to cover motor vehicle related injuries); and a contribution form general revenue to cover persons not employed. For accounting purposes, medical (malpractice and accidental) injuries are compensated from both the income tax levy and general revenue, depending on the victim's employment status.

The result of this is that any person who is injured in New Zealand is entitled to a compensatory payout from ACC, without having to establish fault.

It shouldn't be particularly difficult to establish a similar scheme for motor vehicle related property damage claims, in an environment where assigning fault to a person is rendered difficult or impossible due to the absence of a human driver in charge of the vehicle(s) involved. The cost of such a fund could either be drawn from a fuel tax or from a vehicle registration fee.

What gets the bad drivers off the road?

I don't understand the question - how would not having universal insurance for personal injuries get bad drivers off the road? There seem to be a number of unfounded and unspoken assumptions in your question; I can't see how it follows at all from the existence of the NZ ACC.

Bad drivers are taken off the road in NZ the same way they are anywhere - the cops pull them over for an offence; or a red-light or speed camera snaps them; or they are ticketed following a crash, and they accumulate demerits, and have their licence suspended or cancelled for severe and/or repeat offences. If they persist in driving unlicensed, they may have their vehicle confiscated, or face a custodial sentence, or both.

Looking around, the system seems to be largely ineffective worldwide - in the entire developed world, there seems to be no shortage of bad drivers for all to see; The developed nations all seem to be much the same in terms of driver ability (or its absence), while the developing world is far worse, due to a general lack of effective driver aptitude testing before a licence is issued, or a lack of enforcement of road rules, or both. I have driven in half a dozen different countries (all in the OECD), and in each of them there is a majority of mostly competent drivers, and a significant minority of people doing stupid things on the roads. Each country seems to have its own strengths and weaknesses, and its own non-legal norms and expectations; New Zealand doesn't strike me as having an unusually large proportion of bad drivers, nor can I see why it should.

 

[DBT]

Yes, what a terrible world where chores become mechanised and effortless.

Do you still wash your clothes in the river with a scrubbing board?

It may be a chore for someone who doesn't like driving, but that doesn't apply to not everyone. Some of us actually enjoy driving.

 

[DBT]

Another step closer to Bubble Wrap World where all forms of risk must be eliminated. Our technology, like an overzealous parent, is going to coddle us and keep us so very, very safe...car computer - 'don't you dare touch that steering wheel, little Johnny, it's much too dangerous for you!''

In this case, I'm all for it. The benefits overwhelmingly outweigh the increased sense of dependency on technology.

It's not a problem if it's optional, but it is a problem if it becomes mandatory...a nanny state mentality and so on.

 

[arkirk]

Yes, what a terrible world where chores become mechanised and effortless.

Do you still wash your clothes in the river with a scrubbing board?

It may be a chore for someone who doesn't like driving, but that doesn't apply to not everyone. Some of us actually enjoy driving.

You don't drive in downtown L A. You don't take the 101 to the valley. I agree with you, driving can be fun on relatively uncluttered roads.

 

[DBT]

Another step closer to Bubble Wrap World where all forms of risk must be eliminated. Our technology, like an overzealous parent, is going to coddle us and keep us so very, very safe...car computer - 'don't you dare touch that steering wheel, little Johnny, it's much too dangerous for you!''

I don't see why reducing the likelihood of accidents by such a wide margin is a bad thing. If it means less completely avoidable deaths, why not? If it means less stress and more free time, why not? To dismiss it merely as "another step closer to Bubble Wrap World" seems shortsighted at best. It's no different than wearing a seatbelt to prevent yourself from being ejected from a vehicle.

Depends on what people want in terms of driving experience or automation, rather than what we are told is compulsory.

 

[bigfield]

In this case, I'm all for it. The benefits overwhelmingly outweigh the increased sense of dependency on technology.

It's not a problem if it's optional, but it is a problem if it becomes mandatory...a nanny state mentality and so on.

The 'nanny state' criticism applies when the government enacts some law to protect people from themselves. Dangerous drivers don't need to be protected from themselves; they need to be prevented from killing pedestrians and other commuters.

Perhaps, as a compromise, die-hards will be allowed to drive but their licencing requirements will become far stricter to reflect a higher level of competency required. Many drivers who are on the orad today should never be allowed to get behind the wheel of a vehicle, such is their incompetence.

 

[DBT]

It's not a problem if it's optional, but it is a problem if it becomes mandatory...a nanny state mentality and so on.

The 'nanny state' criticism applies when the government enacts some law to protect people from themselves. Dangerous drivers don't need to be protected from themselves; they need to be prevented from killing pedestrians and other commuters.

Dangerous drivers need to be weeded out regardless of anything else. To ban something altogether because a small minority of participants may be incompetent or reckless is a nanny state mentality. That's how parents treat their little children. Most drivers are fairly competent....at least within reason. Relatively minor errors such as not indicating early enough, lane changing, keeping to the left lane, etc, can be quite irritating but also can be compensated for with defensive driving techniques.

Many drivers who are on the orad today should never be allowed to get behind the wheel of a vehicle, such is their incompetence.

If that is the case, this should be addressed.

 

[bigfield]

The 'nanny state' criticism applies when the government enacts some law to protect people from themselves. Dangerous drivers don't need to be protected from themselves; they need to be prevented from killing pedestrians and other commuters.

Dangerous drivers need to be weeded out regardless of anything else. To ban something altogether because a small minority of participants may be incompetent or reckless is a nanny state mentality. That's how parents treat their little children. Most drivers are fairly competent....at least within reason. Relatively minor errors such as not indicating early enough, lane changing, keeping to the left lane, etc, can be quite irritating but also can be compensated for with defensive driving techniques.

Drivers and pedestrians shouldn't have to protect themselves from vehicles ploughing through a red light, swerving across the road, swerving off the road etc. Defensive driving (and defensive walking?) is unlikely to help much in those instances, anyway.

Many drivers who are on the orad today should never be allowed to get behind the wheel of a vehicle, such is their incompetence.

If that is the case, this should be addressed.

At the moment it can't be addressed, because our economy depends on the ability of people to commute. It won't be politically or economically viable to remove large numbers of people from behind the wheel until they have a viable alternative.

 

[DBT]

Dangerous drivers need to be weeded out regardless of anything else. To ban something altogether because a small minority of participants may be incompetent or reckless is a nanny state mentality. That's how parents treat their little children. Most drivers are fairly competent....at least within reason. Relatively minor errors such as not indicating early enough, lane changing, keeping to the left lane, etc, can be quite irritating but also can be compensated for with defensive driving techniques.

Drivers and pedestrians shouldn't have to protect themselves from vehicles ploughing through a red light, swerving across the road, swerving off the road etc. Defensive driving (and defensive walking?) is unlikely to help much in those instances, anyway.

I didn't really want to get into a protracted discussion on this subject... my point was meant to be in relation to a ban on driving being imposed on car owners regardless of the wishes of car owners and road users in general, motor bikes, bicycles, etc.

If it was taken to a vote it may be more palatable, but not ideal for those who grew up with far greater freedoms than the conditions we are relentlessly moving towards.

Perhaps after all us old timers die out, the new generation may be well satisfied with the nurture of full automation and the security it provides, even if it may be to some degree an illusion.

 

[Metaphor]

Yes, what a terrible world where chores become mechanised and effortless.

Do you still wash your clothes in the river with a scrubbing board?

It may be a chore for someone who doesn't like driving, but that doesn't apply to not everyone. Some of us actually enjoy driving.

I don't doubt you.

I don't like cleaning but I like having a clean bathroom. If someone told me I could choose between having a clean bathroom by cleaning it every day, or I could have a clean bathroom that someone or something else cleaned for me everyday, I know which I'd choose.

 

[bigfield]

erhaps after all us old timers die out, the new generation may be well satisfied with the nurture of full automation and the security it provides, even if it may be to some degree an illusion.

What is illusory about it?

 

[SimpleDon]

Yeah, mine certainly does not properly understand parking lots. It knows I'm off the road but it thinks the correct approach is to head towards the closest road. It has no concept of where there might be an entrance, it has no concept that a parking lot might connect to two streets. (Mine's taken me 3 miles out of the way because it didn't understand that I could turn onto another street to reach a place that was pretty much on the corner and fully accessible from either street--it's just the street I was on had a center barrier and I had to proceed to the next light to U-turn.)

A self-drive car can't rely 100% on GPS obviously. It has to have some optical ability like a human has to recognize other cars, pedestrians, red lights, etc. My wife's Subaru has a pretty sophisticated collision avoidance system based on two video cameras separated by about 200 mm, binocular vision to provide depth of field, pointing forward from behind the top of the windshield, analyzed by a computer. It can determine the relative speed of the objects in its field of view and it can apply the brakes when it determines that the car is in danger of hitting a car or a stationary object in front of the car. This is a step beyond most of the collision avoidance systems that rely on lasers or microwave radar detection.

The Subaru system can also determine if you are maintaining your lane and even if you are day dreaming and don't realize that the car in front of you has moved because the light has turned green. It provides an intelligent cruise control that can match the speed of the car in front of you.

This is about 75% of the way that is required for a autonomous drive car system. The GPS deciding how to get where you are going and the optical system keeping you on the road in your lane and avoiding other cars and obstructions.