# Driverless Cars Will Never Become Legal



## Atom guy (Jul 27, 2016)

Here is a recent article from The Street:

https://www.thestreet.com/investing...driving-cars-will-never-become-legal-15091327


----------



## Single Malt (Nov 11, 2018)

Atom guy said:


> Here is a recent article from The Street:
> 
> https://www.thestreet.com/investing...driving-cars-will-never-become-legal-15091327


Except that they already are legal


----------



## Drivincrazy (Feb 14, 2016)

In LV, they are legal as long as a driver is behind the wheel.


----------



## jeanocelot (Sep 2, 2016)

Hustlers are getting desperate about their impending unemployment.

This could be mediated by having explosive detecting equipment built into the car (and yes, that cannot be deactiviated without someone finding out about it).


----------



## Disgusted Driver (Jan 9, 2015)

Never say never. There will come a day that they are legal and then a lot will change. Imagine being able to get a car that sleeps two with compact toilet and shower. Road trip! You can travel 600 miles at night while you sleep.


----------



## Mikeh013 (Jun 27, 2019)

I had a passenger that was working on self-driving cars at Rice University. He and his team were studying the practicality of this type of automation. He said the technology was all there, except for one critical missing piece - predictability. According to him, it was impossible to introduce an unforeseen moving hazard in the path of a driverless car, and have 100% accuracy of steering around the obstacle. Fixed objects were no problem, but an object that could move (dog, bicycle rider, pedestrians, etc), that had no predictability, could be built into the automation.

Maybe in time this area of technology can be improved, but he didn’t seem too confident that it would be anytime soon.


----------



## Eddie Dingle (Sep 23, 2019)

Mikeh013 said:


> I had a passenger that was working on self-driving cars at Rice University. He and his team were studying the practicality of this type of automation. He said the technology was all there, except for one critical missing piece - predictability. According to him, it was impossible to introduce an unforeseen moving hazard in the path of a driverless car, and have 100% accuracy of steering around the obstacle. Fixed objects were no problem, but an object that could move (dog, bicycle rider, pedestrians, etc), that had no predictability, could be built into the automation.
> 
> Maybe in time this area of technology can be improved, but he didn't seem too confident that it would be anytime soon.


the 100% accuracy of steering round random objects is a high standard if you consider humans fail regularly at this stuff too. There will be scenarios that just aren't possible to counter by either. Sometimes it's the dog/rider/pedestrian's fault. One way to mitigate would be to slow everyone down, could only happen when all vehicles are self driving but you'd spend less time at intersections and other bottle necks with self driving vehicles that know where each other are going. It'd be awesome to not have to drive.


----------



## mch (Nov 22, 2018)

IF the technology ever gets perfected the big debate will be weather human driving should be illegal because its not safe vs. the freedom to drive your own car.


----------



## Ssgcraig (Jul 8, 2015)

Pedestrians are going to have to follow the law now. They are going to have to look both ways before crossing, only use marked crossing areas. Bicyclists will be outlawed on roads too. Roads will become only for motorized vehicles; no more bikes, pedestrians and parking. 

I can only count down the days until that happens.


----------



## mch (Nov 22, 2018)

Ssgcraig said:


> Pedestrians are going to have to follow the law now. They are going to have to look both ways before crossing, only use marked crossing areas. Bicyclists will be outlawed on roads too. Roads will become only for motorized vehicles; no more bikes, pedestrians and parking.
> 
> I can only count down the days until that happens.


I dont think its gonna happen in our lifetime. This debate is gonna be gun control 2.0


----------



## Ssgcraig (Jul 8, 2015)

mch said:


> I dont think its gonna happen in our lifetime. This debate is gonna be gun control 2.0


SDC's are here, what's to debate? This thread is false to begin with, they are legal in the US. The debate will be on how to overhaul our infrastructure to accommodate them and the variables that will walk into them.


----------



## mch (Nov 22, 2018)

Ssgcraig said:


> SDC's are here, what's to debate? This thread is false to begin with, they are legal in the US. The debate will be on how to overhaul our infrastructure to accommodate them and the variables that will walk into them.


As they get more popular and more safe the big debate will be making non self driving cars illegal alltogether.

Im years ahead here but its coming. Thats where all of this will end up


----------



## Ssgcraig (Jul 8, 2015)

mch said:


> As they get more popular and more safe the big debate will be making non self driving cars illegal alltogether.
> 
> Im years ahead here but its coming. Thats where all of this will end up


Imagine the end to auto insurance as we know it, the end to drunk driving, texting while driving. The end of accidents. Road rage calms down.


----------



## losiglow (Dec 4, 2018)

A huge part will depend on the security and data setup of the SDC network. There's a good chance that there will be some sort of centralized network in order for vehicles to communicate to one another. Or at least, a network independent to each auto company.

Picture this terrorist scenario:

10,000 cars on the freeway, all SDC's, going 70MPH, taking their passengers to work. Normal day.

Someone manages to hack into the system - order all vehicle to bank 90 degrees right...….

Even if it was one auto manufacturer - Ford for example.

Result - 100's dead, 1000's injured, Billions in property damage.

Hacking is most definitely a legitimate concern.


----------



## mch (Nov 22, 2018)

Ssgcraig said:


> Imagine the end to auto insurance as we know it, the end to drunk driving, texting while driving. The end of accidents. Road rage calms down.


The saftey aspect will be the major argument for making driving illegal. The freedom aspect will be the major argument for keeping driving legal.


----------



## Ssgcraig (Jul 8, 2015)

losiglow said:


> A huge part will depend on the security and data setup of the SDC network. There's a good chance that there will be some sort of centralized network in order for vehicles to communicate to one another. Or at least, a network independent to each auto company.
> 
> Picture this terrorist scenario:
> 
> ...


We can say the same for every new technology. Planes are not falling out of the sky.

I do not discount your comment about security, I do think that is a major concern.



mch said:


> The saftey aspect will be the major argument for making driving illegal. The freedom aspect will be the major argument for keeping driving legal.


When we switched from horses to cars, I think there was the same concern.


----------



## mch (Nov 22, 2018)

When we switched from horses to cars, I think there was the same concern.
[/QUOTE]

Yea but driving cars is fun and now its ingrained into the american experience for alot of people. They aren't gonna give it up so easily. Im not disagreeing with anything you're saying. I just forsee this becoming a major debate once the possibility of 100% autonomous cars on the road gets closer


----------



## DriverMark (Jan 22, 2018)

It will happen eventually. But a lot longer it seems than what I had thought it would take.

Think it's going to take cars talking to each other for that to happen. And in order for that to happen a standard and/or regulation to make it standard be in place. Because we all know some dumb ass company like Apple will come along and want whatever they do to be proprietary because they are "special" (or greedy bastigas). And at some point can even make where cars can see cell phones so they can see people that are carrying them, which is almost everyone these days. And then that will open a whole new world of privacy concerns, etc, to be worked through.

Someday it'll happen. But the 5 years I thought before would see it I don't think now is going to be feasible.



mch said:


> When we switched from horses to cars, I think there was the same concern.


I just forsee this becoming a major debate once the possibility of 100% autonomous cars on the road becomes a possibility.
[/QUOTE]

Only for the baby boomers. And thankfully they are all dying off in the next 10-20 years. Millennials, which make up more than the boomers, I don't think will have an issue with SDCs. And us GenX, well, we don't matter as there aren't enough of us. But I'm in favor of SDC. I can't wait for the day when I'm like: "Lets go to LA for the weekend." We jump in our van after work Friday night, lay the seats back, get some sleep, wake up, and we are in LA!


----------



## VanGuy (Feb 15, 2019)

losiglow said:


> A huge part will depend on the security and data setup of the SDC network. There's a good chance that there will be some sort of centralized network in order for vehicles to communicate to one another. Or at least, a network independent to each auto company.
> 
> Picture this terrorist scenario:
> 
> ...


Already possible. I read somewhere else they can basically "discover" vulnerable vehicles nearby and then attack them like this video later. So if they had X number of vehicles in their inventory and did a mass attack you could essentially cause pandemonium.


----------



## losiglow (Dec 4, 2018)

Ssgcraig said:


> We can say the same for every new technology. Planes are not falling out of the sky.
> 
> I do not discount your comment about security, I do think that is a major concern.


I think this is a bit different as the proposal is 100% automation. Borderline "AI" if you will. Planes are controlled by human pilots.

Having said that, I_ do_ believe that security is possible. It doesn't have to be a foregone conclusion that some catastrophe is inevitable. We don't have the power grid getting hacked into and all the power in the country shut down. It's just that the potential for catastrophe is then present where it wasn't before.



VanGuy said:


> Already possible. I read somewhere else they can basically "discover" vulnerable vehicles nearby and then attack them like this video later. So if they had X number of vehicles in their inventory and did a mass attack you could essentially cause pandemonium.


I was going to mention that. Many cars are already on a network and can be controlled in some manner. Not usually steering and throttle (maybe Tesla?) but at the least, immobilized. That would be havoc enough.


----------



## VanGuy (Feb 15, 2019)

losiglow said:


> I was going to mention that. Many cars are already on a network and can be controlled in some manner. Not usually steering and throttle (maybe Tesla?) but at the least, immobilized. That would be havoc enough.


Just with what they showed in this video, imagine someone spends a month going down the same highway every day at the same time inventorying vulnerable vehicles to generate a pattern.

Then on attack day, cranks the radio, hits the washer fluid and shuts down the engine on those vehicles. It wouldn't take many on the same highway, same time, close enough in proximity to cause absolute pandemonium.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Atom guy said:


> Here is a recent article from The Street:
> 
> https://www.thestreet.com/investing...driving-cars-will-never-become-legal-15091327


Cocaine USED to be Legal also.



Single Malt said:


> Except that they already are legal


.


----------



## Launchpad McQuack (Jan 8, 2019)

Ssgcraig said:


> When we switched from horses to cars, I think there was the same concern.


I don't think so. Has there ever been any push to illegalize transportation by horse?


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

Mikeh013 said:


> I had a passenger that was working on self-driving cars at Rice University. He and his team were studying the practicality of this type of automation. He said the technology was all there, except for one critical missing piece - predictability. According to him, it was impossible to introduce an unforeseen moving hazard in the path of a driverless car, and have 100% accuracy of steering around the obstacle. Fixed objects were no problem, but an object that could move (dog, bicycle rider, pedestrians, etc), that had no predictability, could be built into the automation.
> 
> Maybe in time this area of technology can be improved, but he didn't seem too confident that it would be anytime soon.


"SDCs are right around the corner!!!!"

RIP Tomato


----------



## Ssgcraig (Jul 8, 2015)

Launchpad McQuack said:


> I don't think so. Has there ever been any push to illegalize transportation by horse?


By that logic, we are trying to make cars of today illegal?


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Ssgcraig said:


> SDC's are here, what's to debate? This thread is false to begin with, they are legal in the US. The debate will be on how to overhaul our infrastructure to accommodate them and the variables that will walk into them.


no actual SDC ride has ever taken place nor would it

no proof any SDC ride has ever taken place....not a single unedited video ever over 15 minutes showing an SDC ride ever taking place

SDC's will never ever happen or many people will die


----------



## Launchpad McQuack (Jan 8, 2019)

Ssgcraig said:


> By that logic, we are trying to make cars of today illegal?


Well, yeah. That was the point of the post that you responded to when you said that.



mch said:


> The saftey aspect will be the major *argument for making driving illegal*. The freedom aspect will be the major *argument for keeping driving legal*.


----------



## Jon77 (Dec 6, 2018)

DriverMark said:


> It will happen eventually. But a lot longer it seems than what I had thought it would take.
> 
> Think it's going to take cars talking to each other for that to happen. And in order for that to happen a standard and/or regulation to make it standard be in place. Because we all know some dumb ass company like Apple will come along and want whatever they do to be proprietary because they are "special" (or greedy bastigas). And at some point can even make where cars can see cell phones so they can see people that are carrying them, which is almost everyone these days. And then that will open a whole new world of privacy concerns, etc, to be worked through.
> 
> ...


Only for the baby boomers. And thankfully they are all dying off in the next 10-20 years. Millennials, which make up more than the boomers, I don't think will have an issue with SDCs. And us GenX, well, we don't matter as there aren't enough of us. But I'm in favor of SDC. I can't wait for the day when I'm like: "Lets go to LA for the weekend." We jump in our van after work Friday night, lay the seats back, get some sleep, wake up, and we are in LA!
[/QUOTE]
That was a great post the only thing I disagree about is greedy companies trying to make a profit.
Being in business is all about turning and sustaining a profit, unless you're Uber then it's all about burning money.
To be able to pay their employees a good salary with benefits and to be able to reward investors for taking the risk, is going to require profits.
All companies protect what they have invented and spent money on designIng.
AAPL ?



Atom guy said:


> Here is a recent article from The Street:
> 
> https://www.thestreet.com/investing...driving-cars-will-never-become-legal-15091327


 SDC's will be here one day, it's hard to say how long, but it definitely will happen.
This article is a little bit tone-deaf, google already has cars driving around city streets with no drivers.
My new accord has very basic self driving capabilities already, and Tesla's have had self driving capabilities for years now.
I knew a guy who in the early 90s who attempted to get me to invest in his payphone business.
Cell phones back then were the size of a small briefcase, and even the cutting edge ones where therudimentary bricks.
I am happy to say I did not invest with him but I can't say that I saw the trend that was about to happen, I was still very young.

But looking back it's easy to see the march of technology was not going to stop, and cell phones would be getting smaller and smaller and eventually it would just become part of a persons every day life.

Whenever I see a location where it's obvious that a payphone has been ripped out, I always think how easily obviously societal altering trends can be discounted and entirely missed.

We already have the technology, though as imperfect at it is today, it already has arrived.
This writer is assuming that technology will be frozen where it is currently, and that absolutely no forward progress will be made.
Betting against technologically progress has always been a losing bet.
Timing is the unknown variable but the certainty of it happening is a sure bet .


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Jon77 said:


> That was a great post the only thing I disagree about is greedy companies trying to make a profit.
> Being in business is all about turning and sustaining a profit, unless you're Uber then it's all about burning money.
> To be able to pay their employees a good salary with benefits and to be able to reward investors for taking the risk, is going to require profits.
> All companies protect what they have invented and spent money on designIng.
> ...


Google has 0 cars on the streets with no drivers. 0.

And SDC's will never be driving people around with no human driver or people will die. It's physically impossible to have a car think just like a human with common sense.


----------



## Jon77 (Dec 6, 2018)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Google has 0 cars on the streets with no drivers. 0.
> 
> And SDC's will never be driving people around with no human driver or people will die. It's physically impossible to have a car think just like a human with common sense.












We will see this technology in our lifetime.
If it's not today or tomorrow doesn't matter, the writing is already on the wall.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Jon77 said:


> View attachment 366514
> 
> 
> We will see this technology in our lifetime.
> If it's not today or tomorrow doesn't matter, the writing is already on the wall.


Great, show us actual proof. Let's see actual video of actual rides taking place with no safety driver in the vehicle driving people around while still calling it an SDC ride.

I'll wait.

btw, SDC's were supposed to be here already. How is it that they are still "on the way" ?


----------



## Jon77 (Dec 6, 2018)

I do understand your point, SDC’s are a monumental technical puzzle to solve and get right, but risk does not exists in a vacuum.

If a person was to walk around downtown LA at night it could be considered statistically either very safe or very dangerous.
Compared to walking around Zürich Switzerland it would be deemed foolhardy and extremely dangerous.
But compared to walking around Johannesburg South Africa it would be considered extremely safe.

The biggest killer of humans on the road is by far other humans behind the wheel.
1,259,000 million people die worldwide every year from traffic accidents.
Just in the United States 33,000 people are killed every year, and over 2 million people are injured.

Those are the statistics that SDC’s are up against.
If SDC’s are dangerous, what are they dangerous compared to.
The army of soft fleshy **** sapiens drivers?


----------



## tmart (Oct 30, 2016)

Jon77 said:


> Only for the baby boomers. And thankfully they are all dying off in the next 10-20 years. Millennials, which make up more than the boomers, I don't think will have an issue with SDCs. And us GenX, well, we don't matter as there aren't enough of us. But I'm in favor of SDC. I can't wait for the day when I'm like: "Lets go to LA for the weekend." We jump in our van after work Friday night, lay the seats back, get some sleep, wake up, and we are in LA!


That was a great post the only thing I disagree about is greedy companies trying to make a profit.
Being in business is all about turning and sustaining a profit, unless you're Uber then it's all about burning money.
To be able to pay their employees a good salary with benefits and to be able to reward investors for taking the risk, is going to require profits.
All companies protect what they have invented and spent money on designIng.
AAPL ?


SDC's will be here one day, it's hard to say how long, but it definitely will happen.
This article is a little bit tone-deaf, google already has cars driving around city streets with no drivers.
My new accord has very basic self driving capabilities already, and Tesla's have had self driving capabilities for years now.
I knew a guy who in the early 90s who attempted to get me to invest in his payphone business.
Cell phones back then were the size of a small briefcase, and even the cutting edge ones where therudimentary bricks.
I am happy to say I did not invest with him but I can't say that I saw the trend that was about to happen, I was still very young.

But looking back it's easy to see the march of technology was not going to stop, and cell phones would be getting smaller and smaller and eventually it would just become part of a persons every day life.

Whenever I see a location where it's obvious that a payphone has been ripped out, I always think how easily obviously societal altering trends can be discounted and entirely missed.

We already have the technology, though as imperfect at it is today, it already has arrived.
This writer is assuming that technology will be frozen where it is currently, and that absolutely no forward progress will be made.
Betting against technologically progress has always been a losing bet.
Timing is the unknown variable but the certainty of it happening is a sure bet .
[/QUOTE]


uberdriverfornow said:


> Great, show us actual proof. Let's see actual video of actual rides taking place with no safety driver in the vehicle driving people around while still calling it an SDC ride.
> 
> I'll wait.
> 
> btw, SDC's were supposed to be here already. How is it that they are still "on the way" ?


People will not tolerate these on the roads slowing them down getting in their way not going to happen. Theyll be a revolt !


----------



## Grumpy Old Man (Jul 7, 2018)

I remember when supersonic passenger flights were a fantasy, well they came and they went, no matter how advanced the technology, if nobody wants it, it will fail.
When did a man last walk on the moon? 
I'm sure SDCs will happen but with limits.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Grumpy Old Man said:


> I remember when supersonic passenger flights were a fantasy, well they came and they went, no matter how advanced the technology, if nobody wants it, it will fail.
> When did a man last walk on the moon?
> I'm sure SDCs will happen but with limits.


i remember back when they used to think SDC's could actually ever happen.


----------



## rkozy (Apr 5, 2019)

Mikeh013 said:


> Maybe in time this area of technology can be improved, but he didn't seem too confident that it would be anytime soon.


I think the other area of difficulty is handling inclement weather. My "other job" puts me behind the wheel of these brand new cars that have advanced driver assistance features. These features, which can actually steer and brake the car unassisted at high speeds, rely heavily on sensors. When the weather is good, these sensors will function as programmed. However, any type of thick precipitation (rain, fog, snow, ice) will render them worthless, and the features are disabled.

Since virtually all of the world experiences inclement weather of some kind, it's difficult to see how truly autonomous SDCs can function reliably.


----------

