# To understand Uber's predicament, you have to understand self-driving cars.



## tomatopaste

When Uber launched in 2009, self-driving cars were still stuff of science fiction. In fact self-driving cars caught Uber off guard. About two years ago smart people around the world began to realize - hey this thing is really going to work.

Two years ago is also when Uber began their doomed entry into the world of self-driving cars. What else happened two years ago? Uber slashed fares.
Self-driving cars upended Uber's entire game plan, now they find themselves between a rock and a hard place. They know they can't play, and definitely won't win the the costly self-driving game, so they're hoping to create value with the largest customer base. In the end it's not gong to work. At this point they're just trying to buy time while they come up with a new game plan. Thus the 180 days of window dressing.

First commercially available self-driving cars will be on the road in less than five years. Within 20 years, everything is self-driving.

*Here are the numbers:* (and this is just for the U.S.)
1. Three trillion miles driven in the U.S. annually.
2. Those creating the technology think they can get the cost down to ten cents per mile.
3. That's 300 billion dollars annually. Over a trillion dollars worldwide. ANNUALLY!

The short version: 




The long version:


----------



## Atom guy

Self driving cars solve no actual transportation problem. Neither does Uber. Ride share cars actually cause MORE traffic congestion, not less, because unlike a solo driver in their own car who drives to a destination then gets off the road for 8 hours, the ride share car remains on the road all day, and all those empty miles between fares is excess congestion that otherwise wouldn't exist.


----------



## Lissetti

Yep! I know that's the future. I'm in school right now getting my Bachelor's degree in computer science. Formerly I've been a semi truck driver, and I've spent most my teens restoring and rebuilding VW's, such and the one in my profile pic, my 1968 Bug. I'm going to take all this former experience, and my computer science degree, and be an Antonomous Vehicle software engineer. It's the future. It will become a norm. Also I'll do side work in robotics, such as Amazon's Kiva 800, Robo-Stow, and the drones.


----------



## Notch Johnson

Self driving cars are coming, and while some may hit the road in only five years I suspect they are ten years away from wide spread use.


----------



## tomatopaste

Atom guy said:


> Self driving cars solve no actual transportation problem. Neither does Uber. Ride share cars actually cause MORE traffic congestion, not less, because unlike a solo driver in their own car who drives to a destination then gets off the road for 8 hours, the ride share car remains on the road all day, and all those empty miles between fares is excess congestion that otherwise wouldn't exist.


Self-driving cars solve almost every transportation problem:

1. parking
2. traffic
3. cost
4. road rage
5. drunk driving
6. accidents/fatalities
7. Mobility for the disabled/elderly/kids


----------



## Atom guy

tomatopaste said:


> Self-driving cars solve almost every transportation problem:
> 
> 1. parking
> 2. traffic
> 3. cost
> 4. road rage
> 5. drunk driving
> 6. accidents/fatalities
> 7. Mobility for the disabled/elderly/kids


Parking - yes
Traffic - definitely not - these cars will be in continuous motion on the streets instead of parked most of the day
Cost - highly unlikely - all the autonomous equipment will not be cheap
Road rage - for the people in these cars yes, for the human drivers, no
Drunk driving - yes, but drunks may have a hard time communicating with the car
Accidents - only when all cars are autonomous
Mobility for disabled/elderly/kids - doubtful. These groups are most in need of autonomous cars, but the least able to use the technology.


----------



## Cableguynoe

tomatopaste said:


> Self-driving cars solve almost every transportation problem:
> 
> 1. parking
> 2. traffic
> 3. cost
> 4. road rage
> 5. drunk driving
> 6. accidents/fatalities
> 7. Mobility for the disabled/elderly/kids


Having an inflatable doll instead of a wife also solves a ton of problems


----------



## tomatopaste

Cableguynoe said:


> Having an inflatable doll instead of a wife also solves a ton of problems


Day drinking again I see


----------



## koyotemohn

Self driving cars will cause lots of injuries/accidental death for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Also you need a lot more than waze and some cameras in a hi power CPU. You need a massive server and a whole lot of miles on the road as the cars and server "learn" each city and highway zone. Add in road maintenance and construction and rush hour congestion and general intengibles.

Not just that...but hackers can disrupt the server or take over a drone.

5 years? 

Minor tests are happening now. It's more like 25-50 years....and even then human companions should be a mandate.

Had Uber been smart...they could have partnered with a company and syphoned some of those learning/algorithms of a vehicle...maybe at a discount to the car owner/operator. 

It's a great fanciful concept. How many people will have to be injured or hurt by autonomy before humans realize we still need a whole lot of humanity in the equation of being a driver?


----------



## Uberingdude

Self-driving cars will have to have their own Road in order to succeed.


----------



## swingset

Uberingdude said:


> Self-driving cars will have to have their own Road in order to succeed.


+1.

Liability and navigation are the achilles heel....no solution for either of those presently.


----------



## Cableguynoe

koyotemohn said:


> It's more like 25-50 years....


Things move a lot faster these days.


----------



## Uberingdude

swingset said:


> +1.
> 
> Liability and navigation are the achilles heel....no solution for either of those presently.


My car has sensors for cruise control and other things. When it is raining hard the sensors stopped working. I don't know how they would overcome this with self-driving cars.


----------



## Atom guy

Uberingdude said:


> My car has sensors for cruise control and other things. When it is raining hard the sensors stopped working. I don't know how they would overcome this with self-driving cars.


Today I came across a single traffic cone with caution tape around it tied to a fence on the side of the road, blocking one lane of a 2 lane road. IDK how an autonomous car would even notice that, let alone understand what it means. There are millions of variables these systems would have to understand. As advanced as they seem, these systems are still very primitive.



swingset said:


> +1.
> 
> Liability and navigation are the achilles heel....no solution for either of those presently.


For all the effort in getting autonomous cars to be able to see and understand the road ahead, current maps are woefully incomplete and inaccurate. I would see ride are passengers having to hunt for their cars on a regular basis with current maps.

Today I did a pick up on a road that was on the map, but not part of the gps directions. Luckily the passenger had dealt with this before and called me while I was headed towards him. The gps would had me stop on the side of the road about a mile away from the actual destination, and when I finally got there his house was set way back from the road on a long driveway. Good luck AI. Ubers navigation also had me go down a dead end road that it believed took me to my destination. The road was so dead end that you couldn't even see where the road used to be.


----------



## swingset

Cableguynoe said:


> Things move a lot faster these days.


The lawyers and government don't, tho. That's the hurdle.


----------



## tomatopaste

Atom guy said:


> Parking - yes
> Traffic - definitely not - these cars will be in continuous motion on the streets instead of parked most of the day
> Cost - highly unlikely - all the autonomous equipment will not be cheap
> Road rage - for the people in these cars yes, for the human drivers, no
> Drunk driving - yes, but drunks may have a hard time communicating with the car
> Accidents - only when all cars are autonomous
> Mobility for disabled/elderly/kids - doubtful. These groups are most in need of autonomous cars, but the least able to use the technology.


Traffic definitely yes. Freeway traffic is caused by someone hitting his brakes, then a chain reaction happens. Eventually all cars will be communicating with each other. In the morning all lanes could be going toward downtown. Reverse in the evening.

Cost yes. Avg person uses their car 4 percent of the time.

The car will have a speaker and the human at the call center will talk to the drunk. If still having issues after 30 seconds, the car will just run over the drunk. Next problem.

Accidents. 95 percent of all accidents are human error. The more human you take out of the equation the fewer accidents.

Mobility. What? Please show your work.



koyotemohn said:


> Self driving cars will cause lots of injuries/accidental death for pedestrians and bicyclists.
> 
> Also you need a lot more than waze and some cameras in a hi power CPU. You need a massive server and a whole lot of miles on the road as the cars and server "learn" each city and highway zone. Add in road maintenance and construction and rush hour congestion and general intengibles.
> 
> Not just that...but hackers can disrupt the server or take over a drone.
> 
> 5 years?
> 
> Minor tests are happening now. It's more like 25-50 years....and even then human companions should be a mandate.
> 
> Had Uber been smart...they could have partnered with a company and syphoned some of those learning/algorithms of a vehicle...maybe at a discount to the car owner/operator.
> 
> It's a great fanciful concept. How many people will have to be injured or hurt by autonomy before humans realize we still need a whole lot of humanity in the equation of being a driver?


Watch the videos. Self-driving cars are already better and safer drivers than humans. Minor test? Google runs 3 million miles of simulations per day.



Atom guy said:


> Today I came across a single traffic cone with caution tape around it tied to a fence on the side of the road, blocking one lane of a 2 lane road. IDK how an autonomous car would even notice that, let alone understand what it means. There are millions of variables these systems would have to understand. As advanced as they seem, these systems are still very primitive.
> 
> For all the effort in getting autonomous cars to be able to see and understand the road ahead, current maps are woefully incomplete and inaccurate. I would see ride are passengers having to hunt for their cars on a regular basis with current maps.
> 
> Today I did a pick up on a road that was on the map, but not part of the gps directions. Luckily the passenger had dealt with this before and called me while I was headed towards him. The gps would had me stop on the side of the road about a mile away from the actual destination, and when I finally got there his house was set way back from the road on a long driveway. Good luck AI. Ubers navigation also had me go down a dead end road that it believed took me to my destination. The road was so dead end that you couldn't even see where the road used to be.


The maps they're using for self-driving cars make make waze and google maps look primitive



Atom guy said:


> Today I came across a single traffic cone with caution tape around it tied to a fence on the side of the road, blocking one lane of a 2 lane road. IDK how an autonomous car would even notice that, let alone understand what it means. There are millions of variables these systems would have to understand. As advanced as they seem, these systems are still very primitive.
> 
> For all the effort in getting autonomous cars to be able to see and understand the road ahead, current maps are woefully incomplete and inaccurate. I would see ride are passengers having to hunt for their cars on a regular basis with current maps.
> 
> Today I did a pick up on a road that was on the map, but not part of the gps directions. Luckily the passenger had dealt with this before and called me while I was headed towards him. The gps would had me stop on the side of the road about a mile away from the actual destination, and when I finally got there his house was set way back from the road on a long driveway. Good luck AI. Ubers navigation also had me go down a dead end road that it believed took me to my destination. The road was so dead end that you couldn't even see where the road used to be.


You obviously didn't watch the videos. I would suggest you watch the videos.



Uberingdude said:


> My car has sensors for cruise control and other things. When it is raining hard the sensors stopped working. I don't know how they would overcome this with self-driving cars.


That's ok. The engineers do.


----------



## koyotemohn

You can't simulate a bunch of kids getting crippled or killed on a school bus due to a malfunctioning a.i. with 3 million simulations per day. I know that deep learning on high end mainframes is fascinating and makes you want to run back and start your python classes in earnest. 

A.i. Can get hacked, corrupted or make a good math on paper ....really bad results in regards to civic policy.

Just like your assertion that human error is the primary cause of accidents, accidents will still happen with as a.i. Proliferate into the transportation sector. 

Uber cannot use google's technology anyhow...due to their dubious acquisition of the intellectual brain trust property.

I know tha everyone is super certain that this will happen in the near future.

I don't buy it.

I'm not saying that it will never happen. I just don't think Uber is run responsibly enough to implement that kind of technology.

I'm not against automation. I just think that people get infatuated real easy with what is on the horizon instead of dealing with what is happening now.


----------



## Cableguynoe

koyotemohn said:


> I'm not saying that it will never happen. I just don't think Uber is run responsibly enough to implement that kind of technology.


Don't forget it's not just UBER that thinks this is close to happening. Google is all in also

I don't believe a company like Google would be working on this if they didn't believe it was possible. 
I understand Google has money to lose, and if they completely fail at this they'll still be ok. 
But I just don't see them getting behind a 50 year plan. Not even a 20 year plan. 
They obviously know a lot more than us and they believe it's possible. 
So that leads me to believe that this is closer than we think.


----------



## swingset

tomatopaste said:


> The maps they're using for self-driving cars make make waze and google maps look primitive


Lol. Cool aid. No, they're not more accurate, they're just more detailed. Too much involving mapping is predicated on voluntary reporting that never gets done. Just because a map is accurate to identify a street/building is not synonymous with the ADDRESS and occupancy being correct. We all know this as drivers....how many times does the app guide us to something that isn't there, or is closed, or abandoned? That's not fixable with more $$ and tech....if people don't report it, it doesn't get updated. It's a two way system, and NO ONE has a fix for this. Johnny Robot showing up to the wrong place, or guided to the middle of a bridge that's supposed to be his building is going to happen. A lot. There's a solution to this (guidance to pin/physical location of the phone), but that requires an incredibly adaptive guidance tech, and pax who will facilitate the robot's needs....likely? Lol.



Cableguynoe said:


> So that leads me to believe that this is closer than we think.


Remember the optimism built around Segways? "They'll build cities around them!". Well, they're stupid gadgets now and a frivolity, nothing more.

Just because a lot of people are pushing a tech doesn't mean society will embrace it tomorrow or that the legal & government road blocks won't be substantial.

Look at it in the simplest terms possible. If you screw up behind the wheel, who gets sued? Raytheon who made your ECU? Chevy? Nope, you.

Who gets sued EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. an autonomous car makes a bad ethical decision and someone gets hurt? Or, the sensors are fouled or dirty and it mows over an Amish family? Or it can't detect a crowd of people wearing black in the rain and blows through them? That's Google or the maker, every time. How many lawsuits can they withstand? Remember, zero liability from owners or operators, 100% on the maker. That stuff is not going to be commonplace, but it's going to happen as these things go prime time and teething issues are worked out.

I think autonomous vehicles will happen, absolutely, but it's not just around corner. Point to point maybe...across a desert to a distributor? Sure. Not doing what we do every night in a crowded bar district where that alley that used to be a drop off point is now off-limits. There's no way they're even close to that kind of decision making and accurate mapping detail to make that work. Our infrastructure just won't allow it. Not yet.


----------



## tomatopaste

Cableguynoe said:


> Don't forget it's not just UBER that thinks this is close to happening. Google is all in also
> 
> I don't believe a company like Google would be working on this if they didn't believe it was possible.
> I understand Google has money to lose, and if they completely fail at this they'll still be ok.
> But I just don't see them getting behind a 50 year plan. Not even a 20 year plan.
> They obviously know a lot more than us and they believe it's possible.
> So that leads me to believe that this is closer than we think.


The guy is these videos, Chris Urmson, says within five yrs. He also says they are very close. He is one of the top engineers, if not THE top engineer, in self-driving cars.


----------



## Cableguynoe

swingset said:


> Lol. Cool aid. No, they're not more accurate, they're just more detailed. Too much involving mapping is predicated on voluntary reporting that never gets done. Just because a map is accurate to identify a street/building is not synonymous with the ADDRESS and occupancy being correct. We all know this as drivers....how many times does the app guide us to something that isn't there, or is closed, or abandoned? That's not fixable with more $$ and tech....if people don't report it, it doesn't get updated. It's a two way system, and NO ONE has a fix for this. Johnny Robot showing up to the wrong place, or guided to the middle of a bridge that's supposed to be his building is going to happen. A lot. There's a solution to this (guidance to pin/physical location of the phone), but that requires an incredibly adaptive guidance tech, and pax who will facilitate the robot's needs....likely? Lol.
> 
> Remember the optimism built around Segways? "They'll build cities around them!". Well, they're stupid gadgets now and a frivolity, nothing more.
> 
> Just because a lot of people are pushing a tech doesn't mean society will embrace it tomorrow or that the legal & government road blocks won't be substantial.
> 
> Look at it in the simplest terms possible. If you screw up behind the wheel, who gets sued? Raytheon who made your ECU? Chevy? Nope, you.
> 
> Who gets sued EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. an autonomous car makes a bad ethical decision and someone gets hurt? Or, the sensors are fouled or dirty and it mows over an Amish family? Or it can't detect a crowd of people wearing black in the rain and blows through them? That's Google or the maker, every time. How many lawsuits can they withstand? Remember, zero liability from owners or operators, 100% on the maker. That stuff is not going to be commonplace, but it's going to happen as these things go prime time and teething issues are worked out.
> 
> I think autonomous vehicles will happen, absolutely, but it's not just around corner. Point to point maybe...across a desert to a distributor? Sure. Not doing what we do every night in a crowded bar district where that alley that used to be a drop off point is now off-limits. There's no way they're even close to that kind of decision making and accurate mapping detail to make that work. Our infrastructure just won't allow it. Not yet.


Why did it have to be an Amish family? 
You know as well as I do that it's more likely to me a Latino family. Lol. But I like your style. Amish will never read this.

You made some good points about liability. 
That is definitely going to be interesting when something tragic happens, which will happen. 
No matter how safe it is, just like planes fall, these cars will crash.

Another thing I've thought about is a stat that is not really a stat. 
Despite all the tragic car accidents we hear about, how many were avoided because a driver made a quick and smart decision. 
I know I have. 
And I'm not taking about the ones where we prevent a knucklehead from hitting us which would only hurt property. I can think of a few times that if I had not acted quickly, several wouldn't be here, including myself. 
There's no statistic for that. 
Will these cars be that good?
I guess in time we'll find out.


----------



## koyotemohn

Cableguynoe said:


> Don't forget it's not just UBER that thinks this is close to happening. Google is all in also
> 
> I don't believe a company like Google would be working on this if they didn't believe it was possible.
> I understand Google has money to lose, and if they completely fail at this they'll still be ok.
> But I just don't see them getting behind a 50 year plan. Not even a 20 year plan.
> They obviously know a lot more than us and they believe it's possible.
> So that leads me to believe that this is closer than we think.


Google is a whole lot different ball game than Uber. Google will apply it to realistic ventures. Like freight transport.

A.i. Controlled Public transportation seems good on paper and in a lab. Nodal scaleable implementation of this is just not happening for several reasons. In 10 years it is much more feasible to have an a.i. Work in conjunction with a human than to have an a.i. Shoulder everything.


----------



## R James

I'm not a luddite, but I'm skeptical. On highways - ok. But I see a lot of very difficult problems to overcome in a city like Seattle. Because on a daily basis downtown I have to figure out how to navigate through cones instead of lane markings, how to follow a cop's hand signals that are waving me through a red light, how to deal with pedestrians who are crossing when they shouldn't. Plus buses, trolleys, bikes, joggers, skateboarders, runaway pets, etc. When you go through a tunnel your cell service and mapping get all screwed up. Many times you have to do quasi-illegal maneuvers to get where you're going.

There are some left turns where you can NEVER make the turn legally, because you have to first get stuck in the intersection until the light goes red and then make a really fast left turn. 
There are some lanes where the lane markings are overlapping other lane markings and it's not always easy to tell where you're supposed to be. 
What if internet access goes down?
What if it's snowing and you can't see lane markings at all?

I just think there are TONS of situations that a computer is nowhere near ready to figure out. But we'll see.


----------



## tomatopaste

swingset said:


> Lol. Cool aid. No, they're not more accurate, they're just more detailed. Too much involving mapping is predicated on voluntary reporting that never gets done. Just because a map is accurate to identify a street/building is not synonymous with the ADDRESS and occupancy being correct. We all know this as drivers....how many times does the app guide us to something that isn't there, or is closed, or abandoned? That's not fixable with more $$ and tech....if people don't report it, it doesn't get updated. It's a two way system, and NO ONE has a fix for this. Johnny Robot showing up to the wrong place, or guided to the middle of a bridge that's supposed to be his building is going to happen. A lot. There's a solution to this (guidance to pin/physical location of the phone), but that requires an incredibly adaptive guidance tech, and pax who will facilitate the robot's needs....likely? Lol.
> 
> Remember the optimism built around Segways? "They'll build cities around them!". Well, they're stupid gadgets now and a frivolity, nothing more.
> 
> Just because a lot of people are pushing a tech doesn't mean society will embrace it tomorrow or that the legal & government road blocks won't be substantial.
> 
> Look at it in the simplest terms possible. If you screw up behind the wheel, who gets sued? Raytheon who made your ECU? Chevy? Nope, you.
> 
> Who gets sued EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. an autonomous car makes a bad ethical decision and someone gets hurt? Or, the sensors are fouled or dirty and it mows over an Amish family? Or it can't detect a crowd of people wearing black in the rain and blows through them? That's Google or the maker, every time. How many lawsuits can they withstand? Remember, zero liability from owners or operators, 100% on the maker. That stuff is not going to be commonplace, but it's going to happen as these things go prime time and teething issues are worked out.
> 
> I think autonomous vehicles will happen, absolutely, but it's not just around corner. Point to point maybe...across a desert to a distributor? Sure. Not doing what we do every night in a crowded bar district where that alley that used to be a drop off point is now off-limits. There's no way they're even close to that kind of decision making and accurate mapping detail to make that work. Our infrastructure just won't allow it. Not yet.


Again, watch the video. The self driving cars are already doing everything you say they can't do. 
Cars making U turns in front of him
Bird flying right in front of him
Woman on electric wheelchair chasing a duck in circles in front of the car
Child riding electric car in middle of street
Bike running red light in front of car
Traffic cones
Guy jumps out of of truck as car passes
Car makes right turn cutting SD car off​The self driving cars handled everyone of these with no problems



R James said:


> I'm not a luddite, but I'm skeptical. On highways - ok. But I see a lot of very difficult problems to overcome in a city like Seattle. Because on a daily basis downtown I have to figure out how to navigate through cones instead of lane markings, how to follow a cop's hand signals that are waving me through a red light, how to deal with pedestrians who are crossing when they shouldn't. Plus buses, trolleys, bikes, joggers, skateboarders, runaway pets, etc. When you go through a tunnel your cell service and mapping get all screwed up. Many times you have to do quasi-illegal maneuvers to get where you're going.
> 
> There are some left turns where you can NEVER make the turn legally, because you have to first get stuck in the intersection until the light goes red and then make a really fast left turn.
> There are some lanes where the lane markings are overlapping other lane markings and it's not always easy to tell where you're supposed to be.
> What if internet access goes down?
> What if it's snowing and you can't see lane markings at all?
> 
> I just think there are TONS of situations that a computer is nowhere near ready to figure out. But we'll see.


Watch the video. The self driving car recognized the hand signals the cop is making to stop and then proceed. They're already dealing with buses on the side of the road, birds flying in front of them. Bikes, pedestrians, dogs, kids, everything. They are on the streets night and day and every scenario they run into goes into the system. They are learning and getting better everyday.



Cableguynoe said:


> Why did it have to be an Amish family?
> You know as well as I do that it's more likely to me a Latino family. Lol. But I like your style. Amish will never read this.
> 
> You made some good points about liability.
> That is definitely going to be interesting when something tragic happens, which will happen.
> No matter how safe it is, just like planes fall, these cars will crash.
> 
> Another thing I've thought about is a stat that is not really a stat.
> Despite all the tragic car accidents we hear about, how many were avoided because a driver made a quick and smart decision.
> I know I have.
> And I'm not taking about the ones where we prevent a knucklehead from hitting us which would only hurt property. I can think of a few times that if I had not acted quickly, several wouldn't be here, including myself.
> There's no statistic for that.
> Will these cars be that good?
> I guess in time we'll find out.


These cars will be ten times better. They have night vision, humans don't. Their reaction time is a fraction of that of a human. The can see in all directions at the same time.


----------



## swingset

tomatopaste said:


> Again, watch the video.


I did. Didn't change my opinion or point at all. You're drunk on futurism. It's not happening in 5 years.

The road blocks aren't the tech. It's ethics, liability, infrastructure, nature, government, and real world guidance.

You can structure a test and demonstration to make miracles. Murphy lives in the real world.


----------



## koyotemohn

swingset said:


> I did. Didn't change my opinion or point at all. You're drunk on futurism. It's not happening in 5 years.
> 
> The road blocks aren't the tech. It's ethics, liability, infrastructure, nature, government, and real world guidance.
> 
> You can structure a test and demonstration to make miracles. Murphy lives in the real world.


Thank you.


----------



## ABC123DEF

And when the internet goes down? Are they totally hack proof? Computers sitting still on desks crash and entire networks go down...so you know moving computers at 80mph with human lives inside aren't going to run with 100% perfection.


----------



## grayspinner

When self-driving cars are implemented, uber will no longer be necessary. You'll just call up your self-drivig car. 


More realistic commercial uses would be companies that offer fleets of SDCs and you subscribe to a fleet. Or maybe communities would own self-drivig cars and you can access through your HOA (like a community pool or fitness center). 

This technology is coming, I've driven many people who are working in this industry - and they have nothing to do with uber. The DOT is working on chips in everything to improve a cars ability to identify, locate & navigate. 

Eventually, cars will be designed very differently - they will weigh less if they don't have all the safety features needed now. Roads can be designed differently too - they can be more narrow & don't need to hold the same weight. 

There will be many changes as this progresses & our kids are ready to embrace this. 

But no matter what, when SDCs are a reality, there will be no need for a service like Uber.


----------



## Terysmit

koyotemohn said:


> Self driving cars will cause lots of injuries/accidental death for pedestrians and bicyclists.
> 
> Also you need a lot more than waze and some cameras in a hi power CPU. You need a massive server and a whole lot of miles on the road as the cars and server "learn" each city and highway zone. Add in road maintenance and construction and rush hour congestion and general intengibles.
> 
> Not just that...but hackers can disrupt the server or take over a drone.
> 
> 5 years?
> 
> Minor tests are happening now. It's more like 25-50 years....and even then human companions should be a mandate.
> 
> Had Uber been smart...they could have partnered with a company and syphoned some of those learning/algorithms of a vehicle...maybe at a discount to the car owner/operator.
> 
> It's a great fanciful concept. How many people will have to be injured or hurt by autonomy before humans realize we still need a whole lot of humanity in the equation of being a driver?


They rather steal the technology


----------



## brianboru

A few people tossing jack rocks on the highways could shut down an entire city. So could a few people with short range emp devices. Or they could spray paint the camera lenses at traffic stops. There is no end to the possible mischief.


----------



## Trebor

Atom guy said:


> Self driving cars solve no actual transportation problem. Neither does Uber. Ride share cars actually cause MORE traffic congestion, not less, because unlike a solo driver in their own car who drives to a destination then gets off the road for 8 hours, the ride share car remains on the road all day, and all those empty miles between fares is excess congestion that otherwise wouldn't exist.


Self driving cars would technically be able to pull themselves off the road and park somewhere when it not in use and not complain about sitting in a parking lot, turned off and not using the a/c.

Ride share does add congestion, but not true self driving cars.

When the law requires that every car on the road must drive itself, I am betting traffic will be very, very minimal. Even at large events, traffic will flow better. Why? Theoretically every car will be driving the same speed (presumably, the car will not be able to speed). We wont have idiotic drivers cutting across 5 lanes of traffic since the car will already know where to go and wont forget to get over in time. The cars will network with each other and be able to communicate when they are braking. The main problem will likely be pedestrians getting in the way, causing the car to stop. That should be fun at large events. But could be solved if somehow everyone followed the rules, especially when it comes to jaywalking.


----------



## R James

tomatopaste said:


> Again, watch the video. The self driving cars are already doing everything you say they can't do.
> Cars making U turns in front of him
> Bird flying right in front of him
> Woman on electric wheelchair chasing a duck in circles in front of the car
> Child riding electric car in middle of street
> Bike running red light in front of car
> Traffic cones
> Guy jumps out of of truck as car passes
> Car makes right turn cutting SD car off​The self driving cars handled everyone of these with no problems
> 
> Watch the video. The self driving car recognized the hand signals the cop is making to stop and then proceed. They're already dealing with buses on the side of the road, birds flying in front of them. Bikes, pedestrians, dogs, kids, everything. They are on the streets night and day and every scenario they run into goes into the system. They are learning and getting better everyday.
> 
> These cars will be ten times better. They have night vision, humans don't. Their reaction time is a fraction of that of a human. The can see in all directions at the same time.


Can it tell the difference between a cop waving you through a red light, and a homeless guy who has no business in the intersection doing it? : )



Trebor said:


> Self driving cars would technically be able to pull themselves off the road and park somewhere when it not in use and not complain about sitting in a parking lot, turned off and not using the a/c.
> 
> Ride share does add congestion, but not true self driving cars.
> 
> When the law requires that every car on the road must drive itself, I am betting traffic will be very, very minimal. Even at large events, traffic will flow better. Why? Theoretically every car will be driving the same speed (presumably, the car will not be able to speed). We wont have idiotic drivers cutting across 5 lanes of traffic since the car will already know where to go and wont forget to get over in time. The cars will network with each other and be able to communicate when they are braking. The main problem will likely be pedestrians getting in the way, causing the car to stop. That should be fun at large events. But could be solved if somehow everyone followed the rules, especially when it comes to jaywalking.


What about if you need to get someone to the emergency room? Can you MAKE the car speed?


----------



## swingset

One time I was riding my motorcycle and two dogs came out between two parked cars in front of me. At the same time, a cardboard box blew across the street from the other direction, both so close to me I couldn't avoid one or the other. What would a computer do with that information?

Would it know instinctively and instantly that the cardboard box has no mass and is preferential to hit than two live (and smaller) creatures? That's what I did, and I rolled right through it without issue. Dogs lived.

This isn't a super far-fetched thing. Human ethics make these decisions every day behind the wheel, from traffic cops to pedestrians, etc. Again, computers can no doubt one day cope with the roads. But, the issue isn't if they will get there, it's will present litigious, fear-based government allow them to teethe and rack up a body count. It's not just around the corner. Companies cannot shield themselves from the liability.

As long as that's the case, this is futurism with limited venue to perform. It's a long way off, not 5 years. You're drunk on optimism to believe so.


----------



## Trebor

R James said:


> Can it tell the difference between a cop waving you through a red light, and a homeless guy who has no business in the intersection doing it? : )
> 
> What about if you need to get someone to the emergency room? Can you MAKE the car speed?


These are things they are working out which is why the self driving cars of today tell you to only do it on the freeway, and to be ready to take over at any moment.

I would imagine though that if a homeless guy is using the appropriate hand gestures, then the car will follow his direction. (traffic management is a universal language.)

as for speeding to an emergency room? That is still illegal, and unless your doing 120 in 30mph zone.. your not going to see a huge difference when it comes to traveling 5 miles down the road. Furthermore, you really dont see ambulances going much over the speed limit anyhow. Maybe 15-20mph on the highway, but it makes it hard for paramedics to work on someone when your bouncing up and down the road.- - emergency centers are popping up everywhere in major cities. Its only a a matter of time before they are in small towns, but if you live in a rural area, that requires you to travel 30mph down the road, and speeding will actually make a difference, you are likely getting a life flgiht anyways if it is that much of an emergency. Now, with less traffic on the road, the ambulance will be able to get you to the hospital quicker, not to mention, it will probably send a signal to the cars in front of them to get out of the way, and the cars will listen, unlike humans that cant be bothered to pull over for a few seconds to save someone's life. Of course, eventually nanobots/robots will come to your aid and stable you enough so a hospital ride is not an emergency anymore.


----------



## sirius black

SD cars can, and probably will, work for ride share, catering to people who are too cheap to pay for parking, too lazy to look for parking, too lazy to walk, or planning to get too drunk to drive. The other portion of the ride share market are those that find it less expensive to Uber than to own a car and pay for the upkeep and insurance that goes along with it (Mostly city dwellers). For everyone else - They'll find it frustrating that an SD car won't break traffic laws. SD won't go 1 MPH over the speed limit for liability reasons, though people are used to going 10+ MPH over all the time. SD won't coast through a stop sign, or won't stop and go at a red light at 3am when there's no traffic, or they won't accelerate so fast it puts a pax back in their seat...... People break traffic laws habitually, and they LOVE that they can do it, consequences be damned. They plan their time based on going from A to B in as little time as possible. Yes, SD cars will be fairly common in the near future, but we're a long, long way away from them being the majority of vehicles on the road.


----------



## brianboru

sirius black said:


> SD cars can, and probably will, work for ride share, .


Do you think rideshare companies are going to invest in fleets of SD cars? If not, do you think people will buy a SD car and then Uber it out?


----------



## sirius black

brianboru said:


> Do you think rideshare companies are going to invest in fleets of SD cars? If not, do you think people will buy a SD car and then Uber it out?


Well, Rideshare companies seem to be the ones leading the charge, followed by tech companies, and that makes sense since they'd be the primary parties to stand to make $ off of them. I don't think a majority people would invest in their own SD car, or even pay for it as an option. You don't hear average Joe hoping for the day he can plop his rump in the car and have it slowly cart him to his destination. Why, the only reason to do that would be so he could be constantly on the twitter machine during his commute, and he already does that now while paying little attention to actually driving, and he doesn't need to pay a premium for technology he's not going to use, just like lane departure warnings, or adaptive cruise control.

I'll add - The best way for SD cars to get a majority of the market, and maybe the only way, is to force lawmakers into believing SD is the Safest form of transportation, and even then, you're still 10+ years away from that step to getting most non-SD cars off the road.


----------



## brianboru

sirius black said:


> Well, Rideshare companies seem to be the ones leading the charge, followed by tech companies, and that makes sense since they'd be the primary parties to stand to make $ off of them. I don't think a majority people would invest in their own SD car, or even pay for it as an option. You don't hear average Joe hoping for the day he can plop his rump in the car and have it slowly cart him to his destination. Why, the only reason to do that would be so he could be constantly on the twitter machine during his commute, and he already does that now while paying little attention to actually driving, and he doesn't need to pay a premium for technology he's not going to use, just like lane departure warnings, or adaptive cruise control.


The rideshare companies can't make money leasing cars. I doubt they will invest money in buying and maintaining a fleet of vehicles. I cannot imagine that people will buy a SD car and then Uber it out. The markets for SD vehicles seem to be companies that already have fleets and people who might want it as an option for their own travel.


----------



## Steve B..

One thing that concerns me is the criminal element. Say I want to rob some folks. Me and my buddy go down to the street. He steps in front of the car and the car stops, I walk up to the side and break the window and rob you. Or I step in the street and use hand signals to direct the car to a more convenient area for my buddy to rob you. Hows the car know it's a cop directing traffic and not a criminal?

I also wonder about the environmental implications. Sure there are going to be huge benefits to having the self driving cars but it's also going to be so much easier to go places. My family is 600 miles away. I visit a couple times a year because it's a pain in the butt to get there. If I could get in the car Friday night and wake up there Saturday morning then I'm going to visit once a month if not more often.


----------



## WeirdBob

Atom guy said:


> Drunk driving - yes, but drunks may have a hard time communicating with the car


_Approximately 3:30 am on a Saturday Night / Sunday Morning_

Me: "May I help you?"
Drunk Guy: "I need a cab"
Me: "OK, where are you located?"
DG: "I'm at a house"
Me: "What's the address?"
DG: "I'm at a house in Ann Arbor. Send me a cab."
Me: "OK sir, but I need an address."
DG: "I'm at a house. Send a cab. When is it going to get here?"
Me: "Is there someone there I can speak with to get the address?"
DG: "Send me a cab. Have them knock on the door. When will it get here?"
Me: "I'm sorry, sir. I can't have my drivers knock on every door in Ann Arbor looking for you. I need an address."
DG: "Send me a cab. Have them knock on the door. When will it get here?"

_Click.
_
What are the odds that this individual would have successfully been able to use a smartphone app to request a RoboCar and set a destination? And arrive there without vomiting or soiling himself?


----------



## R James

What does a self-driving car do when someone barfs? Does it even know? 

And can it tell the difference between a piece of cardboard in the road (run it over) and a piece of plywood (slow down) and a pallet (avoid)? Or the difference between a downed power line (avoid) and a tree branch (maybe)? Or a turtle (avoid) and a snake (run over)?

Also - mark my words - the companies that make the technology will lobby Congress for laws absolving them of liability in crashes - or severly limiting liability. They'll argue that in order to move society forward they must be free from the threat of lawsuits. And they'll get what they what from Congress because they're corporations and we're just people.


----------



## heynow321

the unimaginable costs and infinite unforeseeable unprogrammable non simulatable situations out there that drivers deal with every day will never allow this crap to happen. A small aircraft crashed on a highway in Everett wa recently. how is a SDC going to handle that?

I love it when the reddit-tarded children here post about people in 'call centers' just sitting around being on call to "handle" situations that cars can't handle. Do you understand how god damn ridiculously expensive that would be? not to mention issues of liability, training, pay, insurance, communication technology failing, the list goes on forever. jesus the lack of critical thinking around these parts is downright terrifying. No wonder millennials are such a travesty and have posted record low SAT scores.



brianboru said:


> A few people tossing jack rocks on the highways could shut down an entire city. So could a few people with short range emp devices. Or they could spray paint the camera lenses at traffic stops. There is no end to the possible mischief.


don't forget some kids with a laser pointer can blind the lidar systems. or even lower tech, some kids with spray paint turning a 60 mph sign into an 80 mph sign. computers cant tell the difference.


----------



## nomad_driver

Cableguynoe said:


> Don't forget it's not just UBER that thinks this is close to happening. Google is all in also
> 
> I don't believe a company like Google would be working on this if they didn't believe it was possible.
> I understand Google has money to lose, and if they completely fail at this they'll still be ok.
> But I just don't see them getting behind a 50 year plan. Not even a 20 year plan.
> They obviously know a lot more than us and they believe it's possible.
> So that leads me to believe that this is closer than we think.


Google also thought that computerized glasses were a good idea.

Google can't even get their browser to work right and I'm supposed to let them drive my car? Pass.


----------



## sirius black

nomad_driver said:


> Google also thought that computerized glasses were a good idea.


Actually, the glasses *are* widely used in the medical field. Someone in a remote office is transcribing everything that's happening while a doc wearing them is doing the exam. Extremely useful w/ Oncology docs and others that have loads of data to chart.

BUT - To your other point, they're not immune to problems, which is masked by the huge cash flow they have. No "ordinary" company would be able to operate and throw $ at things like they do (Uber is trying, though). Difference is, Google finds ways to make a return on *some/most* of their investments. I don't think this is one of them. I see Google's position as making sure they're in front and in it just enough to be able to cash in if it actually takes off.

Maybe the next generation will enjoy being carted around without giving a thought to how they're getting there. I just don't see SD being *the* mode of transportation for at least 20 years. How many people dumped $3,500 extra into a car that parallel parks itself ? Yeah, it's cool, but it's a worthless option. People with money to burn will get to play with it. MAYBE if it could be added inexpensively it would catch on, but that's years and years away. Which means the only "big" market is Ride Share/Taxi/Transportation, and as noted earlier, it's not a given that they could make any money off of fleets of cars. Shipping might stand to make more $ than people moving from all of this - Tractor Trailers that go from coast to coast, 24/7, with nothing but fuel stops just might be the niche, but they're also 10x scarier if they go out of control.


----------



## tomatopaste

swingset said:


> I did. Didn't change my opinion or point at all. You're drunk on futurism. It's not happening in 5 years.
> 
> The road blocks aren't the tech. It's ethics, liability, infrastructure, nature, government, and real world guidance.
> 
> You can structure a test and demonstration to make miracles. Murphy lives in the real world.


It's happening in less than five years. In fact it's already here.

https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/08/c...ous-ride-hailing-service-for-employees-in-sf/

These GM employees are using Cruise Anywhere for all their transportation needs. They're using a self driving taxi service to go anywhere in SF they want to go. No Uber, no BART, no Lyft, no rickshaws. Just a self driving taxi service. Yes, the human behind the wheel is a kind of 'spotter' in case something goes wrong. But it's not going wrong, it's working. Google/Waymo is doing the same thing in Phoenix.

And every hour of every day it's getting better. It won't take five years. That I can tell you.



WeirdBob said:


> _Approximately 3:30 am on a Saturday Night / Sunday Morning_
> 
> Me: "May I help you?"
> Drunk Guy: "I need a cab"
> Me: "OK, where are you located?"
> DG: "I'm at a house"
> Me: "What's the address?"
> DG: "I'm at a house in Ann Arbor. Send me a cab."
> Me: "OK sir, but I need an address."
> DG: "I'm at a house. Send a cab. When is it going to get here?"
> Me: "Is there someone there I can speak with to get the address?"
> DG: "Send me a cab. Have them knock on the door. When will it get here?"
> Me: "I'm sorry, sir. I can't have my drivers knock on every door in Ann Arbor looking for you. I need an address."
> DG: "Send me a cab. Have them knock on the door. When will it get here?"
> 
> _Click.
> _
> What are the odds that this individual would have successfully been able to use a smartphone app to request a RoboCar and set a destination? And arrive there without vomiting or soiling himself?


Zero. So what's the problem?



heynow321 said:


> the unimaginable costs and infinite unforeseeable unprogrammable non simulatable situations out there that drivers deal with every day will never allow this crap to happen. A small aircraft crashed on a highway in Everett wa recently. how is a SDC going to handle that?
> 
> I love it when the reddit-tarded children here post about people in 'call centers' just sitting around being on call to "handle" situations that cars can't handle. Do you understand how god damn ridiculously expensive that would be? not to mention issues of liability, training, pay, insurance, communication technology failing, the list goes on forever. jesus the lack of critical thinking around these parts is downright terrifying. No wonder millennials are such a travesty and have posted record low SAT scores.
> 
> don't forget some kids with a laser pointer can blind the lidar systems. or even lower tech, some kids with spray paint turning a 60 mph sign into an 80 mph sign. computers cant tell the difference.


My Waze app alone makes mph signs obsolete. The mapping software used by self driving cars is Waze times 100



R James said:


> What does a self-driving car do when someone barfs? Does it even know?
> 
> And can it tell the difference between a piece of cardboard in the road (run it over) and a piece of plywood (slow down) and a pallet (avoid)? Or the difference between a downed power line (avoid) and a tree branch (maybe)? Or a turtle (avoid) and a snake (run over)?
> 
> Also - mark my words - the companies that make the technology will lobby Congress for laws absolving them of liability in crashes - or severly limiting liability. They'll argue that in order to move society forward they must be free from the threat of lawsuits. And they'll get what they what from Congress because they're corporations and we're just people.


The answer to your list of horribles is yes.
All companies try to limit their liability. Don't really see anything new here.



grayspinner said:


> When self-driving cars are implemented, uber will no longer be necessary. You'll just call up your self-drivig car.
> 
> More realistic commercial uses would be companies that offer fleets of SDCs and you subscribe to a fleet. Or maybe communities would own self-drivig cars and you can access through your HOA (like a community pool or fitness center).
> 
> This technology is coming, I've driven many people who are working in this industry - and they have nothing to do with uber. The DOT is working on chips in everything to improve a cars ability to identify, locate & navigate.
> 
> Eventually, cars will be designed very differently - they will weigh less if they don't have all the safety features needed now. Roads can be designed differently too - they can be more narrow & don't need to hold the same weight.
> 
> There will be many changes as this progresses & our kids are ready to embrace this.
> 
> But no matter what, when SDCs are a reality, there will be no need for a service like Uber.


All true. GM is already using Cruise Anywhere in SF for some of their employees. I see them expanding it to the public, those willing to sign up, within the year. Uber and Lyft are already obsolete.

https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/08/c...ous-ride-hailing-service-for-employees-in-sf/


----------



## tomatopaste

heynow321 said:


> the unimaginable costs and infinite unforeseeable unprogrammable non simulatable situations out there that drivers deal with every day will never allow this crap to happen. A small aircraft crashed on a highway in Everett wa recently. how is a SDC going to handle that?
> 
> I love it when the reddit-tarded children here post about people in 'call centers' just sitting around being on call to "handle" situations that cars can't handle. Do you understand how god damn ridiculously expensive that would be? not to mention issues of liability, training, pay, insurance, communication technology failing, the list goes on forever. jesus the lack of critical thinking around these parts is downright terrifying. No wonder millennials are such a travesty and have posted record low SAT scores.
> 
> don't forget some kids with a laser pointer can blind the lidar systems. or even lower tech, some kids with spray paint turning a 60 mph sign into an 80 mph sign. computers cant tell the difference.


I think I'm going to have this engraved on a plaque.

"infinite unforeseeable unprogrammable non simulatable situations out there that drivers deal with every day will never allow this crap to happen"

This is video of a self-driving Cruise (GM) vehicle operating at night in San Francisco. With ZERO! human interaction. Can someone tell me where you can encounter a more challenging driving environment anywhere on planet earth? Bueller? Bueller?


----------



## tomatopaste

R James said:


> Can it tell the difference between a cop waving you through a red light, and a homeless guy who has no business in the intersection doing it? : )
> 
> What about if you need to get someone to the emergency room? Can you MAKE the car speed?


I imagine it will treat the homeless guy like humans do. It will first stop, then when it realizes it's just a homeless guy, it'll run him over. Just like we do now.


----------



## tomatopaste

tomatopaste said:


> I think I'm going to have this engraved on a plaque.
> 
> "infinite unforeseeable unprogrammable non simulatable situations out there that drivers deal with every day will never allow this crap to happen"
> 
> This is video of a self-driving Cruise (GM) vehicle operating at night in San Francisco. With ZERO! human interaction. Can someone tell me where you can encounter a more challenging driving environment anywhere on planet earth? Bueller? Bueller?


This is the part of human nature that's always intrigued me. People who can't be bothered to educate themselves and have no idea what they're talking about, yet talk anyway


----------



## Adieu

Cableguynoe said:


> Don't forget it's not just UBER that thinks this is close to happening. Google is all in also
> 
> I don't believe a company like Google would be working on this if they didn't believe it was possible.
> I understand Google has money to lose, and if they completely fail at this they'll still be ok.
> But I just don't see them getting behind a 50 year plan. Not even a 20 year plan.
> They obviously know a lot more than us and they believe it's possible.
> So that leads me to believe that this is closer than we think.


Google has 2 successful products and 2 semi-successful products

Fully:
1. Ad driven search engine, horrible at search great at selling ads = just what they intended
2. Data miner masquerading as free cellphone OS

Half-successful:
1) Gmaps - had to buy out and dumb down their more successful competitor, but great privacy violating location and route miner

2) Gmail - bad mail client, antitrust liability...good data mine tho



ABC123DEF said:


> And when the internet goes down? Are they totally hack proof? Computers sitting still on desks crash and entire networks go down...so you know moving computers at 80mph with human lives inside aren't going to run with 100% perfection.


And when Ahmed from Al-Queda straps a suicide vest on some kid, sticks him in the car, and dispatches it to the Pentagon????

Or Marvin and Jose decide they wanna jack its rims?

Or Vlad the pimp decides to put some trafficked 14yo girlie in the vehicle and run it as a mobile rolling brothel??

And hey, you think it will ascertain if its occupant is a serial killer casually capping people through the window, slinging dope from the back seat, or using it to abduct children for rape or organ harvesting?????


----------



## heynow321

yeah...but...see...it'll have cameras...and millions of people monitoring every camera in every car to watch for the bad guise! 

lol god...


----------



## Adieu

heynow321 said:


> yeah...but...see...it'll have cameras...and millions of people monitoring every camera in every car to watch for the bad guise!
> 
> lol god...


I got a better business model already!!!

Free pool rides in exchange for footage for reality TV!!!!!!!#


----------



## Cableguynoe

Adieu said:


> Half-successful:
> 1) Gmaps - had to buy out and dumb down their more successful competitor, but great privacy violating location and route miner
> 
> 2) Gmail - bad mail client, antitrust liability...good data mine tho


Half successful? Are you joking?

Do you have any idea how many people use Gmail worldwide on a daily basis? 
How about how many people use Google maps daily, even before acquiring waze?

Just because you don't like something doesn't make it any less successful.


----------



## R James

Trebor said:


> These are things they are working out which is why the self driving cars of today tell you to only do it on the freeway, and to be ready to take over at any moment.
> 
> I would imagine though that if a homeless guy is using the appropriate hand gestures, then the car will follow his direction. (traffic management is a universal language.)
> 
> as for speeding to an emergency room? That is still illegal, and unless your doing 120 in 30mph zone.. your not going to see a huge difference when it comes to traveling 5 miles down the road. Furthermore, you really dont see ambulances going much over the speed limit anyhow. Maybe 15-20mph on the highway, but it makes it hard for paramedics to work on someone when your bouncing up and down the road.- - emergency centers are popping up everywhere in major cities. Its only a a matter of time before they are in small towns, but if you live in a rural area, that requires you to travel 30mph down the road, and speeding will actually make a difference, you are likely getting a life flgiht anyways if it is that much of an emergency. Now, with less traffic on the road, the ambulance will be able to get you to the hospital quicker, not to mention, it will probably send a signal to the cars in front of them to get out of the way, and the cars will listen, unlike humans that cant be bothered to pull over for a few seconds to save someone's life. Of course, eventually nanobots/robots will come to your aid and stable you enough so a hospital ride is not an emergency anymore.


Perhaps, but if I were driving a loved one to the emergency room for a serious injury, I'd certainly run red lights if there was no traffic coming in the other direction.


----------



## ABC123DEF

tomatopaste said:


> This is the part of human nature that's always intrigued me. People who can't be bothered to educate themselves and have no idea what they're talking about, yet talk anyway


Talking anyway is one of the basic freedoms afforded by the Constitution...whether we agree or disagree with what anyone says. Just understand that!


----------



## Trebor

R James said:


> Perhaps, but if I were driving a loved one to the emergency room for a serious injury, I'd certainly run red lights if there was no traffic coming in the other direction.


We all would (I would hope at least) but it does not make it legal.

For cars to be full autonomous though, there will probably be a law stating that if you are found driving manually you would get ticketed. May ruin a chance of a override option, but it should. Humans are bad at driving.


----------



## Adieu

Trebor said:


> We all would (I would hope at least) but it does not make it legal.
> 
> For cars to be full autonomous though, there will probably be a law stating that if you are found driving manually you would get ticketed. May ruin a chance of a override option, but it should. Humans are bad at driving.


Thatll be the day I pack up my crap and move to a decent state...Like Colorado, Idaho, or South Dakota


----------



## Cableguynoe

Trebor said:


> When the law requires that every car on the road must drive itself, I am betting traffic will be very, very minimal.


This will not happen in our lifetime. 
We might see self driving cars take over public transportation. But it will take decades and decades to get people to get rid of their personal car. 
A single mother driving a paid off 1990 Toyota Tercel to take her kids to school, pick them up, take them to baseball practice, go grocery shopping, etc etc cannot afford to pay for a ride every time. No matter how cheap it is, can't possibly be cheaper than driving yourself in a paid off, low maintenance car.



R James said:


> Also - mark my words - the companies that make the technology will lobby Congress for laws absolving them of liability in crashes - or severly limiting liability.


If this happens, how high do you think their insurance premiums will go?
Because when someone gets killed in one of these cars, the family WILL get paid. 
Insurance companies aren't in the business of losing money.


----------



## Trebor

Cableguynoe said:


> This will not happen in our lifetime.
> We might see self driving cars take over public transportation. But it will take decades and decades to get people to get rid of their personal car.
> A single mother driving a paid off 1990 Toyota Tercel to take her kids to school, pick them up, take them to baseball practice, go grocery shopping, etc etc cannot afford to pay for a ride every time. No matter how cheap it is, can't possibly be cheaper than driving yourself in a paid off, low maintenance car.
> 
> If this happens, how high do you think their insurance premiums will go?
> Because when someone gets killed in one of these cars, the family WILL get paid.
> Insurance companies aren't in the business of losing money.


If your 90 years old, you will not see it but I gurantee there will be a law on the books in 20 years max.

Governent subsidies will persuade mom.

1) remember the hdtv converter box? Someone may very well come out with a one size fits alll add on via upgrsding the cars computer and external sensors and cameras. Most 2017 cars already come equipped with adaptive steering via optional add on. These will be the tercels of today in 20 years, so it wont be hard to add a device similar to the converter box. Dont forget the governent gave vouchers for hdtv boxes

2) cash for clunkers - mom will give up the car when the price is right. Remember, they already have laws in place to up the gas mileage. In 10 years they may end up requiring all cars to be electric. If your state has emissions testing, you should know its hard to find an inspection station (and it costs more) that is able to test cars pre obd II. Same concept.

Insurance wont be really needed since cars will not crash nearly as much. Hell, it maybe included with the price of the car from the manufacturer. Accidents are usually human error.



Adieu said:


> Thatll be the day I pack up my crap and move to a decent state...Like Colorado, Idaho, or South Dakota


The law will likely be federal. Although, farm land is typically exempt.

If your worried about not being able to speed down the highway, your not supposed to and thats what tracks are for.

We will likely see speeds on highways increase since the cars can control themselves and there will be hardly any traffic/accidents. They wont cut each other off or slow down to find something.


----------



## Cableguynoe

Trebor said:


> Insurance wont be really needed since cars will not crash nearly as much.


Unless they're getting rid of all deer, black ice, and stupid bicyclists, insurance will be needed.

And what do they do for the people that live 45 minutes up a mountain? They have to move and everyone lives in the city?


----------



## Trebor

Cableguynoe said:


> Unless they're getting rid of all deer, black ice, and stupid bicyclists, insurance will be needed.
> 
> And what do they do for three people that live 45 minutes up a mountain? They have to move and everyone lives in the city?


People will still have their own cars. These cars will be self driving though. -- someone else said no one will own cars.

I forgot about those freaks of nature accidents but that can be acts of nature insurance. Still likely less. As for black ice, less accidents will come from this since the computer wont freak out and buckle under pressure.


----------



## ABC123DEF

Trebor said:


> People will still have their own cars. These cars will be self driving though. -- someone else said no one will own cars.
> 
> I forgot about those freaks of nature accidents but that can be acts of nature insurance. Still likely less. As for black ice, less accidents will come from this since the computer wont freak out and buckle under pressure.


I've never known a computer or any tires that defeated ice. Once a car has no traction, it has NO traction...self-driving or not.


----------



## Cableguynoe

Trebor said:


> People will still have their own cars. These cars will be self driving though. -- someone else said no one will own cars.


Different people have been saying different things about how they think it will be when self driving cars are out there.

If I can have my own, then I really don't care if it's self driving.
Use it as I wish during the day, then send it to make money for me in the evenings 
I'll rent it out to family's for weekend getaways.


----------



## Spotscat

Cableguynoe said:


> Having an inflatable doll instead of a wife also solves a ton of problems


Excellent point!

Are lifelike sex dolls going to replace humans of the opposite sex (or same sex, depending on what you're into) as sex partners?

Admittedly, they do offer advantages over human partners -

No fear of rejection
No fear of STD's
No fear of accidental pregnancy
No emotional commitment
Ability to satisfy your deepest desires/fantasies
Ability to be customized to your specifications
Lack of jealousy - no relationship problems
Does this mean that 20 years from now we're all gonna be bangin' sex dolls? Probably not. I also see the same applying to driverless cars.

I'm sure that some will embrace the new technology and think it's the greatest thing ever! Others will prefer the "old school" method. There are times that being chauffeured somewhere is the way to go. There are other times when I enjoy putting the top down and the feeling of a five-speed manual transmission in my hand.


----------



## Fubernuber

Lissetti said:


> Yep! I know that's the future. I'm in school right now getting my Bachelor's degree in computer science. Formerly I've been a semi truck driver, and I've spent most my teens restoring and rebuilding VW's, such and the one in my profile pic, my 1968 Bug. I'm going to take all this former experience, and my computer science degree, and be an Antonomous Vehicle software engineer. It's the future. It will become a norm. Also I'll do side work in robotics, such as Amazon's Kiva 800, Robo-Stow, and the drones.


Just one problem with this future. In the future a robotics engineer will be dispatched by an ap at 30 cent per minute. I commend you on getting educated but computer science will one day be a path to what is possibly a min wage job. Stick to engineering. Structural and mechanical. Those will always have barriers to entry. Any nerd can become a programmer. Also programming is a really tough job and not always rewarding even to those worth their salt


----------



## heynow321

tomatopaste said:


> I think I'm going to have this engraved on a plaque.
> 
> "infinite unforeseeable unprogrammable non simulatable situations out there that drivers deal with every day will never allow this crap to happen"
> 
> This is video of a self-driving Cruise (GM) vehicle operating at night in San Francisco. With ZERO! human interaction. Can someone tell me where you can encounter a more challenging driving environment anywhere on planet earth? Bueller? Bueller?


no major construction with police directing traffic/guys with stop/slow signs, no rain, no snow, no ice, no major car accidents, no ambulances/firetrucks/ems, no downed power lines, no large tree branches blocking the road (that a human driver could just get out and move real quick). no other situations that can happen, rarely, but still happen that human drivers can successfully deal with.

I'd suggest everyone watch this video at half speed so you can really see how many times this thing ****s up or takes actions that would cause massive slowdowns.

1:01 - the car stalls and can't seem to figure out what the parked car on the right is doing despite having plenty of room to get by on the left. do shit like this during rush hr and it will cause major back ups.

1:30 - the car doesn't choose to go around a left turning car despite having plenty of room to do so, will cause back ups and be incredibly frustrating for passengers.

1:52 - the car waits for the light to cycle to turn right instead of turning right on a red despite having opportunities to do so. that will piss off passengers and further increase traffic.

2:48 - the car just stops in the middle of the road and seems to be confused by the car on the left despite having open road in front of it. awesome for traffic and passengers.

2:54 - "stop 2" the car just blocks the lane despite having plenty of room to pull over 10 feet in front of it. Other drivers will love that!

3:00 - another missed opportunity to turn right safely but instead it just sits there.

3:26 - another botched right turn despite having plenty of room.

4:09 - the thing just stops in the middle of a wide open road with nothing blocking it! how the **** is that safe?

4:00 - 4:30 - the thing is not accelerating nearly as fast as the rest of traffic allowing a ton of cars to get in front of it with the huge gaps it's creating. Hope passengers have all the time in the world to get to where they're going.

4:47 - the thing just stops in the middle of the lane before a green light with no obstructions. again, how safe.

5:25 - "stop 3" blocks the lane again despite having an open parking spot right in front of it.

5:46 - plenty of room to move forward but it decides to stop and block the lane while a car in front is turning left.

6:11 - could have easily made the light safely, chose to stop. how frustrating for a potential passenger.

8:01 - the thing is obviously confused by the cars around it and slows down despite having wide open road in front of it allowing more cars to jump in front of it. Sure hope these passengers aren't in a hurry.

8:15 - unable to make a right on the red light despite having a huge opportunity to do so. guess we just aren't turning right on reds anymore.

8:27 - "stop 5" blocks the lane again despite having a parking spot RIGHT next to it that any human could have easily pulled into.

You kiddies don't seem to understand that just b/c it didn't plow into a building or run anyone over doesn't mean it can safely or efficiently drive. That entire ride would have been incredibly frustrating for any passengers. Luckily for the rest of us, these cars will be so easy to bully and cut off.


----------



## Trebor

ABC123DEF said:


> I've never known a computer or any tires that defeated ice. Once a car has no traction, it has NO traction...self-driving or not.


but people crash from black ice because they slam on the brakes or try and turn the steering wheel because they are freaking out. A computer which loses traction will simply keep the car straight and not hit the brakes. It will be interesting to see how it reacts when the car spins out of control. Theoretically it will stop itself as quickly as possible (more quicky than a human) and turn into the spin like we are taught (if I remember correctly) Granted, I am not from a winter area, so I am probably not qualified to speak. I have spun out of control because of water, but I also turned the steering wheel in a counter spin (which I did recover and went to the same spot 5 times that day to practice, before I event got my license lol) I did not follow the actual rules though which is to turn into the spin. If the car ends up crashing,I guarantee it will be a better outcome than if a driver had to try and control the car, Given, it does not try and turn itself off a cliff. It will be very interesting to see how the car manufactures deal with these situations. Admittedly, self driving cars did not make me think about black ice.

With that said, I did live in Chicago during the winter and what did I do as it was snowing and I felt I was hitting ice and I did not know I had to change to "winter tires"? I simply slowed down. I was always the slowest car on the road. Its possible that the cars will get weather updates and if there is flooding on the road, or snow on the road with icy conditions, they will slow down. Dont forget the cars will be talking with one another. (I read they are working on a database somewhere) that will allow all cars from all manufacturers to send information about the road over. Is there a piece of wood in the road? The first car may swerve to avoid it, but the second car will know automatically. Same thing with ice. The first car may hit and be like oh crap I thin that was ice and send that info via the network for all the other cars. In a perfect world, this will update the city and they will drive themselves over to that spot and de ice the road.



heynow321 said:


> no major construction with police directing traffic/guys with stop/slow signs, no rain, no snow, no ice, no major car accidents, no ambulances/firetrucks/ems, no downed power lines, no large tree branches blocking the road (that a human driver could just get out and move real quick). no other situations that can happen, rarely, but still happen that human drivers can successfully deal with.
> 
> I'd suggest everyone watch this video at half speed so you can really see how many times this thing &%[email protected]!*s up or takes actions that would cause massive slowdowns.
> 
> 1:01 - the car stalls and can't seem to figure out what the parked car on the right is doing despite having plenty of room to get by on the left. do shit like this during rush hr and it will cause major back ups.
> 
> 1:30 - the car doesn't choose to go around a left turning car despite having plenty of room to do so, will cause back ups and be incredibly frustrating for passengers.
> 
> 1:52 - the car waits for the light to cycle to turn right instead of turning right on a red despite having opportunities to do so. that will piss off passengers and further increase traffic.
> 
> 2:48 - the car just stops in the middle of the road and seems to be confused by the car on the left despite having open road in front of it. awesome for traffic and passengers.
> 
> 2:54 - "stop 2" the car just blocks the lane despite having plenty of room to pull over 10 feet in front of it. Other drivers will love that!
> 
> 3:00 - another missed opportunity to turn right safely but instead it just sits there.
> 
> 3:26 - another botched right turn despite having plenty of room.
> 
> 4:09 - the thing just stops in the middle of a wide open road with nothing blocking it! how the &%[email protected]!* is that safe?
> 
> 4:00 - 4:30 - the thing is not accelerating nearly as fast as the rest of traffic allowing a ton of cars to get in front of it with the huge gaps it's creating. Hope passengers have all the time in the world to get to where they're going.
> 
> 4:47 - the thing just stops in the middle of the lane before a green light with no obstructions. again, how safe.
> 
> 5:25 - "stop 3" blocks the lane again despite having an open parking spot right in front of it.
> 
> 5:46 - plenty of room to move forward but it decides to stop and block the lane while a car in front is turning left.
> 
> 6:11 - could have easily made the light safely, chose to stop. how frustrating for a potential passenger.
> 
> 8:01 - the thing is obviously confused by the cars around it and slows down despite having wide open road in front of it allowing more cars to jump in front of it. Sure hope these passengers aren't in a hurry.
> 
> 8:15 - unable to make a right on the red light despite having a huge opportunity to do so. guess we just aren't turning right on reds anymore.
> 
> 8:27 - "stop 5" blocks the lane again despite having a parking spot RIGHT next to it that any human could have easily pulled into.
> 
> You kiddies don't seem to understand that just b/c it didn't plow into a building or run anyone over doesn't mean it can safely or efficiently drive. That entire ride would have been incredibly frustrating for any passengers. Luckily for the rest of us, these cars will be so easy to bully and cut off.


What you are failing to understand is that we are in the early stages and the feedback they gained from this drive is already being looked at. Theoretically, the next drive this car should do, will have all of those problems you pointed out (and likely more, since your not a perfect driver) fixed by the next software update. Admittedly, I did not watch this video and skimmed over your list, but I saw you mentioned a few times that the car had room, could of made the turn but waited, kept a slower speed (probably speed limit) but your whole problem was passengers would be mad for waiting. Doing so, you have proved a point of mine, the majority of the accidents that occur because humans suck and are basically impatient. How many times have you been almost hit by someone who does not want to wait for you to pass and they pull out in front of you? How many accidents have speeders caused? These cars being overly cautious, are simply driving how we should drive. How many times has someone THOUGHT they had enough time to get through the yellow light? Yellow means to slow down, in case you forgot.


----------



## heynow321

slow =/= safe. the problem is that car was breaking the rules of the road creating hazard that a human driver wouldn't do. how much of your life do you want to waste on the road? 

humans are not bad drivers based on the trillions of miles we've driven. the accident rate is incredibly low considering how much we drive and in all the crazy conditions we do it in.


----------



## tomatopaste

heynow321 said:


> no major construction with police directing traffic/guys with stop/slow signs, no rain, no snow, no ice, no major car accidents, no ambulances/firetrucks/ems, no downed power lines, no large tree branches blocking the road (that a human driver could just get out and move real quick). no other situations that can happen, rarely, but still happen that human drivers can successfully deal with.
> 
> I'd suggest everyone watch this video at half speed so you can really see how many times this thing &%[email protected]!*s up or takes actions that would cause massive slowdowns.
> 
> 1:01 - the car stalls and can't seem to figure out what the parked car on the right is doing despite having plenty of room to get by on the left. do shit like this during rush hr and it will cause major back ups.
> 
> 1:30 - the car doesn't choose to go around a left turning car despite having plenty of room to do so, will cause back ups and be incredibly frustrating for passengers.
> 
> 1:52 - the car waits for the light to cycle to turn right instead of turning right on a red despite having opportunities to do so. that will piss off passengers and further increase traffic.
> 
> 2:48 - the car just stops in the middle of the road and seems to be confused by the car on the left despite having open road in front of it. awesome for traffic and passengers.
> 
> 2:54 - "stop 2" the car just blocks the lane despite having plenty of room to pull over 10 feet in front of it. Other drivers will love that!
> 
> 3:00 - another missed opportunity to turn right safely but instead it just sits there.
> 
> 3:26 - another botched right turn despite having plenty of room.
> 
> 4:09 - the thing just stops in the middle of a wide open road with nothing blocking it! how the &%[email protected]!* is that safe?
> 
> 4:00 - 4:30 - the thing is not accelerating nearly as fast as the rest of traffic allowing a ton of cars to get in front of it with the huge gaps it's creating. Hope passengers have all the time in the world to get to where they're going.
> 
> 4:47 - the thing just stops in the middle of the lane before a green light with no obstructions. again, how safe.
> 
> 5:25 - "stop 3" blocks the lane again despite having an open parking spot right in front of it.
> 
> 5:46 - plenty of room to move forward but it decides to stop and block the lane while a car in front is turning left.
> 
> 6:11 - could have easily made the light safely, chose to stop. how frustrating for a potential passenger.
> 
> 8:01 - the thing is obviously confused by the cars around it and slows down despite having wide open road in front of it allowing more cars to jump in front of it. Sure hope these passengers aren't in a hurry.
> 
> 8:15 - unable to make a right on the red light despite having a huge opportunity to do so. guess we just aren't turning right on reds anymore.
> 
> 8:27 - "stop 5" blocks the lane again despite having a parking spot RIGHT next to it that any human could have easily pulled into.
> 
> You kiddies don't seem to understand that just b/c it didn't plow into a building or run anyone over doesn't mean it can safely or efficiently drive. That entire ride would have been incredibly frustrating for any passengers. Luckily for the rest of us, these cars will be so easy to bully and cut off.


Yes but in the first video






we do see the car being able to handle construction.
9:20
Stops and goes around police car with flashing lights.
9:30
Stops for bus. Waits til it retracts its stop sign and allows the bus to pull in front of it.
9:45
Recognized hand signals from a cyclist and yields to him. Let's go over that again. The self driving car recognized the hand signal the cyclist made and allowed the cyclist to move into its lane. 
No way! 
Way.
9:50
Stopped when police officer gave it the hand signal to stop. Then proceeded when the police officer signaled it to go ahead. No stop or slow signs needed. It actually understood the police officer's hand signals.
10:00

The first cities to open up will have no snow. However down the road self driving cars will be able to handle snow better than humans, due to all its sensors. It will sense when the left rear wheel is starting to lose traction and be able to take corrective action.

Every single instance you sight in this video is just silly.






The video is sped up 10 x's actual speed to show an hour and a half of the self driving car driving at night in downtown San Francisco. Many Uber drivers won't even drive at night.

Let's recap.
Slows for bike that pulls into its lane around a double parked car.
0.55
Waits for raccoon to cross the street and scurry under a car.
2:39
Pulls over to the side of the road, along with other cars, to allow the ambulance with flashing lights to pass.
4:13

Basically the entire video is jaw dropping. It shows the self driving car driving at night in downtown San Francisco with; pedestrians, bikes, cones, ambulances, raccoons. Everything. It shows self driving cars are far more advanced than any of us imagined. They are already better drivers than we are, and getting better every hour of every day.


----------



## heynow321

Lol it shows nothing of the sort. It shows how flawed and unsophisticated it really is.


----------



## tomatopaste

heynow321 said:


> Lol it shows nothing of the sort. It shows how flawed and unsophisticated it really is.


This is going to be very painful for you over the next year or two. Every few weeks there will be another story about how it's about ready to go live. Heynow will be like:


----------



## heynow321

Quite the opposite kiddo. Already enjoying the fact that most major players are having to push their dates back into the future further as things are not working out for them


----------



## tomatopaste

heynow321 said:


> Quite the opposite kiddo. Already enjoying the fact that most major players are having to push their dates back into the future further as things are not working out for them


Even if that were true, why would it bring you joy? Heynow: "I can't go back to Taco Bell. I just can't!"


----------



## tomatopaste

swingset said:


> Lol. Cool aid. No, they're not more accurate, they're just more detailed. Too much involving mapping is predicated on voluntary reporting that never gets done. Just because a map is accurate to identify a street/building is not synonymous with the ADDRESS and occupancy being correct. We all know this as drivers....how many times does the app guide us to something that isn't there, or is closed, or abandoned? That's not fixable with more $$ and tech....if people don't report it, it doesn't get updated. It's a two way system, and NO ONE has a fix for this. Johnny Robot showing up to the wrong place, or guided to the middle of a bridge that's supposed to be his building is going to happen. A lot. There's a solution to this (guidance to pin/physical location of the phone), but that requires an incredibly adaptive guidance tech, and pax who will facilitate the robot's needs....likely? Lol.
> 
> Remember the optimism built around Segways? "They'll build cities around them!". Well, they're stupid gadgets now and a frivolity, nothing more.
> 
> Just because a lot of people are pushing a tech doesn't mean society will embrace it tomorrow or that the legal & government road blocks won't be substantial.
> 
> Look at it in the simplest terms possible. If you screw up behind the wheel, who gets sued? Raytheon who made your ECU? Chevy? Nope, you.
> 
> Who gets sued EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. an autonomous car makes a bad ethical decision and someone gets hurt? Or, the sensors are fouled or dirty and it mows over an Amish family? Or it can't detect a crowd of people wearing black in the rain and blows through them? That's Google or the maker, every time. How many lawsuits can they withstand? Remember, zero liability from owners or operators, 100% on the maker. That stuff is not going to be commonplace, but it's going to happen as these things go prime time and teething issues are worked out.
> 
> I think autonomous vehicles will happen, absolutely, but it's not just around corner. Point to point maybe...across a desert to a distributor? Sure. Not doing what we do every night in a crowded bar district where that alley that used to be a drop off point is now off-limits. There's no way they're even close to that kind of decision making and accurate mapping detail to make that work. Our infrastructure just won't allow it. Not yet.


Reality would like to have a word with you. The maps used by self driving cars have nothing to do with waze or google maps. Self driving cars use their own maps that are created specifically for self driving cars. Even if the stop sign is not there the car knows there is a stop sign there. If the lane markers are not there the car knows where the lane markings should be.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...1CA4FD92532689F5D2471CA4FD9253268&FORM=VRDGAR


----------

