Car Culture

[bigfield]

Once driverless cars (or smart cars) become available (and affordable) for the general public, I predict that many countries with make 'manual control' illegal (or least tightly controlled).

This is because a lot of people are killed in collisions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

Driverless cars could potentially reduce the number of fatalities to zero, or at least restrict it to freak accidents involving pedestrians or critical system failures.

It has a lot in common with the politics of gun control. While many drivers are responsible and competent, many others are incompetent, negligent, or just stupid.

 

[Deepak]

I like to drive, but I'd have no problem renting track time if it meant I could nap or work during my commute.

 

[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!''

 

[Metaphor]

I hate driving. I hope driverless technology becomes a reality in the medium term. The social benefits would be astonishing. No more drunk driving. No more speeding. No more human error collisions. It would also assist older and disabled people to live far more independently.

The OP is right about the protests of car enthusiasts. They will not like driverless cars. (Hell, they don't even like automatic transmissions). They will not be a serious impediment, however. There will be three kinds of driverless car passengers, and one group of opt-outs.

i) Early adopters. This is the handful of people who can afford a driverless car as soon as they come out and have faith in the tech. The initial uptake will be slow.
ii) Early main wave. These people will consider and take up driverless cars when they see that computers are way better than humans at driving, and they'll get this empirical evidence from the early adopters.
iii) Late main wave. Almost everyone else.
iv) The 'over my dead body' brigade. These will include car enthusiasts and Luddites. One hopes their numbers are sufficiently small to not interfere with the benefits of driverless technology, and that the insurance market will reflect their dangerousness.

I personally can't wait for driverless to be so advanced that I can crawl into the backseat and take a nap while the car drives me around.

- - - Updated - - -

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!''

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

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

 

[Deepak]

I think you mean automatic transmission.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Will I need insurance or will the manufacturer now be liable?

 

[bigfield]

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.

 

[RavenSky]

Will I need insurance or will the manufacturer now be liable?

That is actually a good point

 

[Metaphor]

I think you mean automatic transmission.

I did mean that.

 

[Metaphor]

Will I need insurance or will the manufacturer now be liable?

Of course you'll need insurance, but the price will reflect the driverless tech in the car, not the age and gender of the human driver, as it does now.

Comprehensive insurance will still reflect non-crash aspects too, like how the car is garaged at night and the car theft rate of the area you live in.

 

[TV and credit cards]

There's some good information in this article:
http://www.iii.org/issue-update/self-driving-cars-and-insurance

RAND has suggested some kind of no-fault auto insurance system. Others foresee something akin to the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, a no-fault compensation program for vaccine recipients who suffer a serious adverse reaction when vaccinated. The legislation was passed in 1986 in response to the threat that life-saving vaccines might become scarce or even unavailable if manufacturers, overwhelmed by claims of injury, scaled back or terminated production.

In February 2014 federal agencies approved vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications systems that will allow cars to “talk” to each other so that they know where other vehicles are and can compensate for a driver’s inability to make the right crash avoidance decisions because of blind spots or fast moving vehicles. V2V communication uses a very short range radio network that, in effect, provides a 360-degree view of other vehicles in close proximity. The Department of Transportation estimates that safety systems using V2V communications will be able to prevent 76 percent of crashes on the roadway.

Automobile ownership appears to be on the decline, and more people in urban areas are opting for public transportation and shared rides. Some people wonder whether when all vehicles are self-driving anyone will actually own a car. Cars may belong to a company, municipality or other group and may be parked away from the center of the community in a location from which they can be summoned by phone.

 

[Axulus]

Will I need insurance or will the manufacturer now be liable?

That is actually a good point

Does it really matter? If the manufacturer is responsible, the cost of that will be passed on to the buyer. If the buyer is responsible, the car will be cheaper but it will be made up for with the required insurance.

 

[Metaphor]

Will I need insurance or will the manufacturer now be liable?

Does it really matter? If the manufacturer is responsible, the cost of that will be passed on to the buyer. If the buyer is responsible, the car will be cheaper but it will be made up for with the required insurance.

I think you've quoted the wrong post.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

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

 

[lpetrich]

Once driverless cars (or smart cars) become available (and affordable) for the general public, I predict that many countries with make 'manual control' illegal (or least tightly controlled).

I once read a science-fiction story about how automatic driving led to manual driving being outlawed. Isaac Asimov, "Sally", "Nightfall and Other Stories".

But driverless-car technology would have to be far in advance of what we now have. Google's cars use extremely detailed maps of where they go, and one ought to avoid having to go to such extremes. Ideally, a self-driving car ought to need only as much information as a human driver uses, though it could use extra information like radar.

 

[ZiprHead]

I think driverless cars are a long time away from being required. I do think modern automatic collision avoidance systems are already here and are about to be required on all new cars. Automatic braking, lane change avoidance and smart cruise control systems are all already in use today.

And you'll have to pry my brother-in-law's award-winning 73 Trans Am 455SD out of his cold, dead hands.

 

[skepticalbip]

I hate driving. I hope driverless technology becomes a reality in the medium term. The social benefits would be astonishing. No more drunk driving. No more speeding. No more human error collisions. It would also assist older and disabled people to live far more independently.
<snip>

But then so far I have had a hell of a lot more computer crashes than I have had car crashes due to my human driving. Fortunately none of my computer crashes were at sixty miles per hour.

 

[bigfield]

I hate driving. I hope driverless technology becomes a reality in the medium term. The social benefits would be astonishing. No more drunk driving. No more speeding. No more human error collisions. It would also assist older and disabled people to live far more independently.
<snip>

But then so far I have had a hell of a lot more computer crashes than I have had car crashes due to my human driving. Fortunately none of my computer crashes were at sixty miles per hour.

Embedded systems are far more reliable than PCs, and cars already have them.

 

[skepticalbip]

But then so far I have had a hell of a lot more computer crashes than I have had car crashes due to my human driving. Fortunately none of my computer crashes were at sixty miles per hour.

Embedded systems are far more reliable than PCs, and cars already have them.

Yes they do but they are not immune to failure. They have failed causing both deaths and property damage. Anti-lock brake problems on a Toyota almost got me once coming down a graveled mountain road - the good old manual parking brake was all that saved me.

 

[Toni]

I like the idea a lot, especially for commuting. I work long hours and have a long commute on top of that. If I had the option right now, I would definitely use mass transit for my commute now, even if it cost a bit more. Unfortunately, it's not available for me right now. I have seriously considered switching to another position to be able to take advantage of the limited mass transit available to me. A car that functioned on autopilot sounds like a great fit, if they allowed me to truly disengage and not rely on mental acuity. And if I could travel stress free during bad weather (rain, fog, sleet, ice, snow: significant snow falling or on the ground). Also necessary: the ability to detect and avoid wildlife and an occasional rock slide or flood across roads, which I must be on the alert for. And during this season: farm equipment.

Driverless cars--Assuming that they are affordable, and practical (i.e. can drive even in bad weather which abounds in winters in my area) I'd embrace it---as soon as I knew they were reliable and safer or as safe as what I drive now. Where I might be disinclined is for short errands as I frequently change my route, add stops or change the order or just decide not to go somewhere. Depending on how a driverless car would work in those circumstances, I might or might not be disinclined to use. The other thing that would be a factor is sometimes I vacation or just take shorter trips to more remote areas. Would they depend on access to some satellite connection? I know depending on where I am/where I am going, I may or may not have cell phone service (which also applies during my commutes). That is a consideration.