# We don't need fully self-driving cars to save lives



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech...ully-self-driving-cars-save-lives/1085965001/

Imagine if the only articles written about smartphones focused solely on the ones you might buy in 2022. While one piece like that may be an interesting read, you'd probably find it hard to care about too much futuristic information.

Yet, when it comes to automobiles, all we seem to hear about these days is their autonomous future. Everywhere you look, you run into breathless ruminations about the future of the fully-autonomous, fully electric car. I have no doubt that we will get there one day, but the day you can walk into a local car dealer and purchase such a vehicle is a long way off.

Yes, technology advancements towards that nirvana of fully autonomous cars are moving forward at a break-neck pace. There are some very impressive components being produced by automotive tech leaders like Nvidia, and some great "concept car" prototypes from Tier 1 suppliers like Harman. But even if all the technology elements come together over the next few years, the regulatory, infrastructure, insurance, and other more "practical" parts of our autonomous automotive future are still far from being ready for this incredibly important and very disruptive transition. As the most recent Tesla AutoPilot-related crash highlights, there are still technological refinements that need to be made as well.

In the meantime, there are some amazing automotive-related technologies that are getting lost in the noise of full autonomy. Most notably, there are quite a few developments around assisted driving technologies-sometimes referred to as ADAS, or Advanced Driver Assistance Systems-that are poised to make a significant impact on automotive safety within the next few years.

Most automakers, for example, now have some type of front collision avoidance system that can automatically brake if cameras or other sensors on the car detect objects in front of the vehicle that could lead to an accident. Not every automaker offers this capability as standard, but increasingly, many of them are. Lane departure warnings, blind spot detection, rear-collision avoidance, road condition awareness, and other similar features are starting to become widespread as well, and they're being dramatically improved along the way.

Mainstream brands like Chevrolet and Honda tend to have these features as optional and luxury brands like Audio, Volvo and Mercedes generally have it as standard.

However, there seems to be little attention paid to these important here-and-now improvements to modern cars.

Part of the problem, of course, is that these developments aren't anywhere as exciting as fully autonomous cars. But *the truth is, we don't need fully autonomous cars to save thousands of lives*. Widespread availability and usage of these more pedestrian features could go a very long way to reducing the roughly 35,000 auto-related fatalities in the US every year. They could also dramatically decrease serious injury-causing accidents, as well as annoying fender-benders.

As great as many ADAS features are, there are also questions about how far they can realistically be taken. Well before we get to fully autonomous driving, there will be different levels of semi-autonomous driving, where the car can do certain things (such as bumper-to-bumper highway driving) on its own. It's not clear, however, how to make sure the drivers are still at least somewhat engaged so that as the situation demands, they can take over the driving process in a realistic time frame. This is where concerns about Tesla's AutoPilot features currently are, and we're likely to see several other implementations (and potential problems) from other car makers over the next year.

Even with these challenging questions, however, it's still great to see the recent increased emphasis that many car makers seem to be showing towards the benefits and attractiveness of ADAS-based safety features in their advertising and other messaging. Remember that the average lifetime of most cars in the U.S. is over 10 years, so even if everyone started only buying cars fully equipped with these new features today, it will still take quite a while for the full benefits to take effect.

Talking, thinking, and writing about the future is certainly an interesting exercise, but sometimes *it's easy for people-and entire industries-to get too far ahead of themselves*. When it comes to cars, let's not overlook some of the amazing new tech-driven capabilities that will be showing up in your local showroom both this year and next.


----------



## RedANT (Aug 9, 2016)

The only way autonomous cars will save lives will be for EVERYONE to give up their cars. I guarantee that'll never happen. 

Quit fantasizing about being able to dick with your phone in the car and focus, instead, on getting to your destination safely.


----------



## Sydney Uber (Apr 15, 2014)

jocker12 said:


> https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech...ully-self-driving-cars-save-lives/1085965001/
> 
> Imagine if the only articles written about smartphones focused solely on the ones you might buy in 2022. While one piece like that may be an interesting read, you'd probably find it hard to care about too much futuristic information.
> 
> ...


I agree, the development of autonomous cars is taking longer than expected. Slowing ROI. Much of the technologies they are perfecting such as proximity warnings and avoidance, separation, near vehicle data exchange can be more effective in a 3 dimensional operating sphere.

With ground level congestion only getting worse, this concept by Airbus and Italdesign may well leapfrog SD cars


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Sydney Uber said:


> I agree, the development of autonomous cars is taking longer than expected. Slowing ROI. Much of the technologies they are perfecting such as proximity warnings and avoidance, separation, near vehicle data exchange can be more effective in a 3 dimensional operating sphere.
> 
> With ground level congestion only getting worse, this concept by Airbus and Italdesign may well leapfrog SD cars


That's more unrealistic than anything else. Check FAA regulations nobody is aware or educated about. You cannot have an object in the air on a 3 mile radius from any airport, heliport or water surface used for in an out flights, without FAA express permission. On top of that, above 200 feet FAA approved flight you need a permanent 2 way communication with the closest control tower. I doubt anybody will change the rules that provide safety for commercial flights.


----------



## Sydney Uber (Apr 15, 2014)

jocker12 said:


> That's more unrealistic than anything else. Check FAA regulations nobody is aware or educated about. You cannot have an object in the air on a 3 mile radius from any airport, heliport or water surface used for in an out flights, without FAA express permission. On top of that, above 200 feet FAA approved flight you need a permanent 2 way communication with the closest control tower. I doubt anybody will change the rules that provide safety for commercial flights.


Big business will talk, manipulate /lobby Politicians who will set up committees to investigate HOW accomodate new transport technologies.

It's happening now, with regulatory authorities around the world accommodating the testing and development of SD cars on our roads.

Flight provides far greater positives in the way of speed and flight corridor capacity than ground based transport


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Sydney Uber said:


> Big business will talk, manipulate /lobby Politicians who will set up committees to investigate HOW accomodate new transport technologies.
> 
> It's happening now, with regulatory authorities around the world accommodating the testing and development of SD cars on our roads.
> 
> Flight provides far greater positives in the way of speed and flight corridor capacity than ground based transport


If it would have been a sudden change maybe, but as long as this push for disruptive robots will take maybe decades, the consumers rejection it will decide their failure.

What you say is an opinion as a spectator from the ground level. Talk to a trained pilot and he will give you a gracious smile.


----------



## Sydney Uber (Apr 15, 2014)

jocker12 said:


> If it would have been a sudden change maybe, but as long as this push for disruptive robots will take maybe decades, the consumers rejection it will decide their failure.
> 
> What you say is an opinion as a spectator from the ground level. Talk to a trained pilot and he will give you a gracious smile.


Trained Pilots have a stake in retaining the status-quo. I remember the push back when Pilots where forced to retrain from Boeing 737s to the new A330s that significantly dumbed down their roles as pilots.

There's less to do, with more space to manoeuvre in the air. Logged flight paths, proximity radar, google 3 dimensional maps of buildings, poles, wires, trees.

Where there is a commercial return, and a whole new market to pioneer who knows what "Uber-like" disruption could occur in the skies above.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Sydney Uber said:


> Trained Pilots have a stake in retaining the status-quo. I remember the push back when Pilots where forced to retrain from Boeing 737s to the new A330s that significantly dumbed down their roles as pilots.
> 
> There's less to do, with more space to manoeuvre in the air. Logged flight paths, proximity radar, google 3 dimensional maps of buildings, poles, wires, trees.
> 
> Where there is a commercial return, and a whole new market to pioneer who knows what "Uber-like" disruption could occur in the skies above.


Lifting people in the air is a different game and is not about ridiculous status quo, it's about safety regulations. In the air is no collision or mistake. Go check the regulations and come back more educated. Understand how what you've seen in "The Fifth Element" is science FICTION.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Sydney Uber said:


> With ground level congestion only getting worse, this concept by Airbus and Italdesign may well leapfrog SD cars


I do not know what the laws are in Paris, London, Roma or Canberra are, but, in the Capital of the New Knighted Steaks Uh Murrica, the airspace is _*severely*_ restricted. Those things would never be allowed here. In fact, they prosecuted and threw into jail Doug Hughes for flying a R/C gyrocopter and landing it on the U.S. Capitol grounds. If that _*ain't 'llowed, they ain't gonna' 'llow no flying aut-tee-moh-beele right 'cheere no time none too soon.*_


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

jocker12 said:


> I have no doubt that we will get there one day, but the day you can walk into a local car dealer and purchase such a vehicle is a long way off.


This is where I knew the Author didn't know what he was talking about.

Selling them at dealerships isn't the plan.



jocker12 said:


> But even if all the technology elements come together over the next few years, the regulatory, infrastructure, insurance, and other more "practical" parts of our autonomous automotive future are still far from being ready for this incredibly important and very disruptive transition. As the most recent Tesla AutoPilot-related crash highlights, there are still technological refinements that need to be made as well.


Regulations are already being passed, no infrastructure changes are needed, and insurance isn't an issue.

A Tesla is not self driving.



jocker12 said:


> In the meantime, there are some amazing automotive-related technologies that are getting lost in the noise of full autonomy. Most notably, there are quite a few developments around assisted driving technologies-sometimes referred to as ADAS, or Advanced Driver Assistance Systems-that are poised to make a significant impact on automotive safety within the next few years.


Oh, look, he erroneously uses a Tesla on autopilot as an example of an SDC and then champions that very technology. Brilliant.



RedANT said:


> The only way autonomous cars will save lives will be for EVERYONE to give up their cars.


Strawman argument.



Sydney Uber said:


> I agree, the development of autonomous cars is taking longer than expected. Slowing ROI.


I disagree. It's going much faster than expected. Waymo beat their expected launch date by 3 years.



Sydney Uber said:


> With ground level congestion only getting worse, this concept by Airbus and Italdesign may well leapfrog SD cars


It can't. SDCs are already a reality.

Self-flying is simply not practical yet. They need advances in battery technology to be practical. They will also be far too expensive for a long while.



Another Uber Driver said:


> Those things would never be allowed here.


How many times over the past years have we heard this about SDCs? And yet, here they are.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

RamzFanz said:


> This is where I knew the Author didn't know what he was talking about.
> 
> Selling them at dealerships isn't the plan.
> 
> ...


Stop smoking those dandelions... hahaha...


----------



## Sydney Uber (Apr 15, 2014)

jocker12 said:


> Stop smoking those dandelions... hahaha...


"_Self-flying is simply not practical yet. They need advances in battery technology to be practical. They will also be far too expensive for a long while_."

Who's talking about batteries? One of Nikola Tesla's first cool inventions 100yrs ago, was to transmit electricity wirelessly. Do you reckon his great-grandson (Elon Musk) wouldn't be pouring R & D $$$ into that?

But you are right, battery weight to allow even a short 20-30min flight would be huge based Lon current technology. But we keep forgetting all the unused rooftop real estate in our cities.

Ideal places for flight terminals incorporating high speed conductive charging pads. Just like Mercedes is developing for its cars.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> How many times over the past years have we heard this about SDCs? And yet, here they are.


.......................Oh, they might allow them in St. Louis, Wentzville, Kansas City, Tacoma, Tonopah, Topeka, Chicago, Albany, maybe even New York. It is just in the Capital of Your Nation that I can guarantee that the flying car will not be permitted; not any time soon. The airspace around here is HIGHLY restricted.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Sydney Uber said:


> "_Self-flying is simply not practical yet. They need advances in battery technology to be practical. They will also be far too expensive for a long while_."
> 
> Who's talking about batteries? One of Nikola Tesla's first cool inventions 100yrs ago, was to transmit electricity wirelessly. Do you reckon his great-grandson (Elon Musk) wouldn't be pouring R & D $$$ into that?
> 
> ...


Wireless electricity requires close proximity and is inefficient. You never know though.

Yeah, 20 minute flights won't do for popular use, but I like the idea of a rapid charging helipad.

However, there is now a real Tesla self flying car:












Another Uber Driver said:


> .......................Oh, they might allow them in St. Louis, Wentzville, Kansas City, Tacoma, Tonopah, Topeka, Chicago, Albany, maybe even New York. It is just in the Capital of Your Nation that I can guarantee that the flying car will not be permitted; not any time soon. The airspace around here is HIGHLY restricted.


Fair enough.


----------



## Sydney Uber (Apr 15, 2014)

Another Uber Driver said:


> .......................Oh, they might allow them in St. Louis, Wentzville, Kansas City, Tacoma, Tonopah, Topeka, Chicago, Albany, maybe even New York. It is just in the Capital of Your Nation that I can guarantee that the flying car will not be permitted; not any time soon. The airspace around here is HIGHLY restricted.


Use of the flying cars could be "highly restricted". Programmed with no-go zones. But every mode of transport can be breached no matter how "regulated" they are and cause mayhem.

A Jet into the side of the Petagon amongst other horrors that day proved that


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> How many times over the past years have we heard this about SDCs? And yet, here they are.


where? I'm still not seeing any in dt seattle. are they in nyc or boston? or are they still stuck driving in small squares in flat wide open sunny arizona?


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Sydney Uber said:


> Who's talking about batteries?


The author of the USA.Today article says that and he is correct. LiIon batteries are inefficient when it comes to electric cars and the technology needs to change in order to allow the cars motor and the computers onboard to function properly, quickly charge and avoid overheating. In my opinion graphene is what they need to use for battery technology. As quick as possible.



Another Uber Driver said:


> they might allow them in St. Louis, Wentzville, Kansas City, Tacoma, Tonopah, Topeka, Chicago, Albany, maybe even New York. It is just in the Capital of Your Nation that I can guarantee that the flying car will not be permitted; not any time soon. The airspace around here is HIGHLY restricted.


The sky is heavily regulated pretty much everywhere - https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14tab_02.tpl


----------



## Sydney Uber (Apr 15, 2014)

jocker12 said:


> The author of the USA.Today article says that and he is correct. LiIon batteries are inefficient when it comes to electric cars and the technology needs to change in order to allow the cars motor and the computers onboard to function properly, quickly charge and avoid overheating. In my opinion graphene is what they need to use for battery technology. As quick as possible.
> 
> The sky is heavily regulated pretty much everywhere - https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14tab_02.tpl


Funny you should mention Graphene. The lightest, strongest, most conductive material that researchers have EVER worked with.

A small Aussie miner Talga Resources (stock code TLG on the ASX) has a large, high quality Graphite mine in Sweden. The CEO Mark Thompson was in Sydney just a few months after it IPO'd here at 20c. They had developed a cheap way of releasing Graphene from Graphite. Getting some good sales to industrial coatings manufacturers.

Anyhow I watched for a while whilst it languished at 22-25c for some months. Popped quickly over 30c so I bought in. It's now at 72c touched 83c. I'm happy, but reckon it's a $10.00 stock if they are able to crack the delicate balance of Battery Density v Conductive Material v Weight.

The Australian Government scientific research organisation (CSIRO) who brought to the world WiFi, plastic banknotes, Hendra virus vaccine amongst other gems have recently announced a breakthrough in their research using Silica as a energy storage medium. They may rain on TLG's parade. But Graphene has SO MANY industrial uses.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

jocker12 said:


> https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech...ully-self-driving-cars-save-lives/1085965001/
> 
> Imagine if the only articles written about smartphones focused solely on the ones you might buy in 2022. While one piece like that may be an interesting read, you'd probably find it hard to care about too much futuristic information.
> 
> ...


They will tout " Life Saving"
Then Scream population control.
Then allow borders to be over run by MILLIONS.

THEN OFFER EUTHANASIA INSTEAD OF RETIREMENT . . . . .


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Sydney Uber said:


> Funny you should mention Graphene. The lightest, strongest, most conductive material that researchers have EVER worked with.
> 
> A small Aussie miner Talga Resources (stock code TLG on the ASX) has a large, high quality Graphite mine in Sweden. The CEO Mark Thompson was in Sydney just a few months after it IPO'd here at 20c. They had developed a cheap way of releasing Graphene from Graphite. Getting some good sales to industrial coatings manufacturers.
> 
> ...


 I know what you are saying. Graphene is the next logical step that these idiots sitting on their billions needed to take yesterday. The fact that they are not even thinking to switch, shows you they don't care for progress, but only for their profits, willing to keep selling the Lithium Ion batteries as long as possible. Why change the technology as long as Lithium Ion batteries are fine for now. Even Musk everybody sees as a visionary, is not showing positive signs about Graphene. There are very few companies working on graphene based batteries (like Samsung) but that is almost close to nothing.



tohunt4me said:


> They will tout " Life Saving"
> Then Scream population control.
> Then allow borders to be over run by MILLIONS.
> 
> THEN OFFER EUTHANASIA INSTEAD OF RETIREMENT . . . . .


They have to offer euthanasia for their self driving robots. If the robot will be driven by an "artificial intelligence" why not give it the option to honorably end it's own pain.


----------



## Sydney Uber (Apr 15, 2014)

jocker12 said:


> I know what you are saying. Graphene is the next logical step that these idiots sitting on their billions needed to take yesterday. The fact that they are not even thinking to switch, shows you they don't care for progress, but only for their profits, willing to keep selling the Lithium Ion batteries as long as possible. Why change the technology as long as Lithium Ion batteries are fine for now. Even Musk everybody sees as a visionary, is not showing positive signs about Graphene. There are very few companies working on graphene based batteries (like Samsung) but that is almost close to nothing.
> 
> They have to offer euthanasia for their self driving robots. If the robot will be driven by an "artificial intelligence" why not give it the option to honorably end it's own pain.


It's the old fight against the inertia of established technologies/commercial interests seeking to get the greatest returns on their investments, against new technologies and disrupters with something hugely better.

The cycles of change are so much shorter, and technology will bring new improvements - if the incumbents allow.

Here is more info on Talga Resources. Lots more upside to them I'm sure.

http://www.talgaresources.com/irm/content/asx-announcements.aspx


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Sydney Uber said:


> The cycles of change are so much shorter, and technology will bring new improvements - if the incumbents allow.


Incumbents never allow it. If cycles are much shorter?... in my opinion yes and no. The general public is made to believe that, but most of the corporations don't want to move too fast, their goal being to extract as much value out of the existing technologies, based on the initial investments and existing costs. Always, the logical question is "why change as long as profits are steady?". From the business point of view is a legitimate question, from the progress perspective is depressing, because as long as they still make good profits, they will be inclined to suppress or even eliminate any form of progress as an obstacle in their path to grow.

Besides that, some technologies have realistic potential, some don't. The second category could be split in those too expensive to be able to be developed yet, and those that are only hype.

If you read the analysis about graphene, at this point it gets a 15 to 20 years estimate until it will became the option as replacement material for different technologies, which if you ask me, is criminal. That change needs to be done today, not in 2033.


----------



## Sydney Uber (Apr 15, 2014)

jocker12 said:


> Incumbents never allow it. If cycles are much shorter?... in my opinion yes and no. The general public is made to believe that, but most of the corporations don't want to move too fast, their goal being to extract as much value out of the existing technologies, based on the initial investments and existing costs. Always, the logical question is "why change as long as profits are steady?". From the business point of view is a legitimate question, from the progress perspective is depressing, because as long as they still make good profits, they will be inclined to suppress or even eliminate any form of progress as an obstacle in their path to grow.
> 
> Besides that, some technologies have realistic potential, some don't. The second category could be split in those too expensive to be able to be developed yet, and those that are only hype.
> 
> If you read the analysis about graphene, at this point it gets a 15 to 20 years estimate until it will became the option as replacement material for different technologies, which if you ask me, is criminal. That change needs to be done today, not in 2033.


Wow! You've just turned that stock into a long term hold!


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Sydney Uber said:


> Wow! You've just turned that stock into a long term hold!


I don't wont to discourage you. I am sure graphene will be important in the future and it should be implemented as soon as possible. However -

*"Applying some logic to investing*
It seems reasonable to me to assume that, if graphene is a big enough part of a company's business to affect its fortunes, this fact should be reflected in the company's filings with the SEC. Following that logic, I searched through SEC filings for the past couple of years, seeking out name-brand companies that mention the use of graphene in their SEC filings.

Surprisingly, though, very few companies make any mention of graphene whatsoever. Oh, the SEC files are full of companies with names like "Carbon Sciences," "HK Graphene Technology," and "China Carbon Graphite Group" that sound like they _should _be big into graphene. But most such companies are little more than Potemkin businesses. They have no revenues, no profits, and little market capitalization to speak of. They barely exist, even on paper.

What's more, those few companies that _do _mention graphene have little to say about it. Here are a few of the more substantial companies that appear in the SEC filings and are doing work related to graphene."

and

"*The upshot for investors*
So what's the big takeaway from all of the above? Investing in graphene may have potential at some time in the future. But as Aixtron notes, graphene's potential will not be fulfilled anytime soon.* It lies far off in the medium term, or even the long term.*

Given the dearth of companies discussing graphene these days, I fear the right question to ask is not "how can I invest in graphene technologies?" or "who are the best graphene companies to invest in?" The better question is whether, at this early date, you should even be trying to invest in graphene at all. And it seems to me that the answer to that question is: "No."

Updated article - Dec 8th 2017 - https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/12/08/should-you-invest-in-graphene-stocks.aspx

Edit - also you should check this out - https://www.nanalyze.com/2017/05/graphene-stocks-update/


----------

