zugmann Shadow the Cats owner How many trailers has a Telsa car tried to drive under in the last few years I can recall at least 4 that decapitated the driver of the car. Source? Shadow the Cats owner I will not trust anything that is self driving. That's fine - but your lack of approval is not going to stop anything. The technology is here - and once they figure out the liability (and this may be the issue which will force regulators/insurance companies to address it), then it'll be common.
Shadow the Cats owner How many trailers has a Telsa car tried to drive under in the last few years I can recall at least 4 that decapitated the driver of the car.
Source?
Shadow the Cats owner I will not trust anything that is self driving.
That's fine - but your lack of approval is not going to stop anything. The technology is here - and once they figure out the liability (and this may be the issue which will force regulators/insurance companies to address it), then it'll be common.
I wonder how many autos that poorly-driven, speeding semis have rear-ended and run over, killing and possibly decapping the occupants? I know of at least two such incidents. I saw the aftermath of one at the Marengo toll plaza on I 90 and in the other one a good friend's parents were both killed.
tree68They may decide it's not worth the risk, or make the insurance so expensive as to make having a self-driving vehicle cost prohibitive.
But if a self-driving car gets into fewer accidents - the technology may prove to be cheaper to insure than motorists. jsut a question of who takes over that bit of liability? I don't think it's going to go away.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
zugmann...insurance companies...
They may decide it's not worth the risk, or make the insurance so expensive as to make having a self-driving vehicle cost prohibitive.
It was insurance that killed firemen's field days here in the north country.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Shadow the Cats ownerHow many trailers has a Telsa car tried to drive under in the last few years I can recall at least 4 that decapitated the driver of the car.
Well until Tesla figures out how that a Semi trailer that is broadside on the road is not something that it can drive under I will not trust anything that is self driving. How many trailers has a Telsa car tried to drive under in the last few years I can recall at least 4 that decapitated the driver of the car.
Here is an interesting article. Because self-driving cars will be less capable of detecting driver error, they will slow down when they perceive higher risk conditions such as traffic. And if they slow down, manual drivers will have to slow down with them. So it is easy to see how they will really eliminate traffic congestion. But what’s the hurry as long as people aren’t bored?
https://www.canadianunderwriter.ca/claims/self-driving-cars-may-not-reduce-as-many-crashes-as-you-think-report-1004179390/
From the link:
The IIHS cited a separate study that showed nine out of 10 crashes were the result of driver error as the final failure point. The group stated that about a third of those crashes were the result of mistakes that autonomous vehicles would be expected to avoid thanks to having more accurate perceptions than a human behind the wheel, and aren’t vulnerable to incapacitation. “To avoid the other two-thirds, [automated vehicles] would need to be specifically programmed to prioritize safety over speed and convenience,” the report noted.
How to handle the product Liability Insurance for driverless vehicles is not going to be an easy task. Insurance underwriters will have a very, very hard time coming up with anything workable to base the premiums on. I suspect the initial insurance will be a risk retention group rather than something based on current US auto insurance company policies. It will probably be easier for driverless in Europe or other developed countries where they don't have the massive jury awards as in the US.
Here's something to consider while we're talking about insurance. What's the greatest operating obstacle to the US having a national health care system like many countries? The answer is the existing US legal liability system. None of the countires having a national health care system that allows anything approaching what exists in the US today for payouts and associated legal costs. Without imposing the liability limits the other countires do, a national health system hasn't a chance of being successful in the US.
Thanks for the call-out, Flintlock old pal. Wasn't the private car the answer to transportation needs about 70 years ago? Didn't the freeway builders in Los Angeles and Robert (I spit now) Moses in New York have all the answers? Take away choice! Take away the Red Car so people can't get to work unless they can afford a car and wonder about the Watts riots 55 years ago. I believe there is a direct correlation. Driverless cars you say? Yep, that's an answer to a question that no one asked. Read a Popular Mechanics magazine from the 50s and see just how wonderful the present is going to be. Look how it turned out. OK, rant over.
But I do have to add- Zugmann's remarks about liability is spot on!
EuclidYes they should be, but oh... that seems so unlikely. After all, the whole point is to be free of driving. In that sense, it would be the embodiment of distracted driving.
Well yeah, if we are going to have auto drive - I want to be able to let it auto drive.
DeggestyI have never been in such a car, but I do have the impression that the driver of such should stay aware of what is going on.
If drivers are goint to stay aware of what is going on, that awareness will have to be sufficient to be able to take over if something goes wrong. It is amazing how little time it can take for something to go far wrong.
It's the damndest thing, but you know what just popped into my head?
"God Himself couldn't sink this ship!"
Just sayin'.
Not long ago, a woman was driving a Tesla that ran into the rear of a fire engine. She averred that she had all that was necessary on; Tesla said it had to be off. I do not remember that she said what she was doing at the time.
I have never been in such a car, but I do have the impression that the driver of such should stay aware of what is going on.
Johnny
EuclidSo then how are self-driving electric cars going to solve the younger generation's problems of congestion, high cost of driving, and the loss of desire? I just don't believe the dream is going to arrive as fast and easy as they say it will. What is holding it up right now?
They can watch anime on their phones while the car figures out the driving in the crowded streets part. I mean, that's what I'd do if I could....
What's holding it up? I said it already: once they figure out the liability for insurance, you'll see it show up in massive scales. Hell, there's already plenty of Teslas, M-Bs, Audis? already running out there in auto mode. Just requiring people to hold the steering wheel or something so they assume the liability.
Dude - it's already here.
zugmann Euclid One solution would be to ban driverless cars until they are actual proven safe in the real world conditions. I doubt that the general public will approve a highway carnage just to get the bugs out of automatic driving. Another solution will be to phycially separate manual driving from driverless cars. The younger generations don't see driving the way many older ones do. Gas is expensive, roads are congested, cars cost a lot and are boring anymore. It's becoming more a utility than a desire. And we have a genertaion of ever-aging people that may not be able to keep driving. Win both of those groups - and it's game over.
Euclid One solution would be to ban driverless cars until they are actual proven safe in the real world conditions. I doubt that the general public will approve a highway carnage just to get the bugs out of automatic driving. Another solution will be to phycially separate manual driving from driverless cars.
The younger generations don't see driving the way many older ones do. Gas is expensive, roads are congested, cars cost a lot and are boring anymore. It's becoming more a utility than a desire. And we have a genertaion of ever-aging people that may not be able to keep driving. Win both of those groups - and it's game over.
So then how are self-driving electric cars going to solve the younger generation's problems of congestion, high cost of driving, boredom, and the loss of desire? I get bored just thinking about riding around in a self-driving car. I just don't believe the dream is going to arrive as fast and easy as they say it will. What is holding it up right now?
If I hop into my self-driving car in Chicago, and have it drive me to Denver, I am stuck in this little seat for hours and hours and hours. If I take the train I have roomier seats, and I can get up and walk around whenever I want, use the bathroom without stopping, I can go to the club car for a drink and sandwich. I can roll on my side and sleep without being irresponsible. My auto-car is far more likely to face fog, ice and snow, even wind blown dust.
I'll take the train, thank you.
tree68 Deggesty Indeed - If you dropped many of them at our local convenience store, they wouldn't know what to do. We're fifteen miles from the nearest "big" city. If you want more than a sub, a pizza, or a gallon of milk, that's a 15-20 minute drive, each way. And watch out for the deer...
Deggesty
Indeed - If you dropped many of them at our local convenience store, they wouldn't know what to do. We're fifteen miles from the nearest "big" city. If you want more than a sub, a pizza, or a gallon of milk, that's a 15-20 minute drive, each way. And watch out for the deer...
The times they are a changin'....
Seems this latest generation of 'individuals' that have been brought up with lots of 'advantages' and guilt of 'priviledge'; raised by themselves, are basicly clueless about life and living.
Most of their generation would likely starve to death in a grocery store, not understanding how to work a manual can opener. Ok, rant over!
EuclidAnd these accidents will kill innocent people in cars that need to be manually driven. But at this early point, such accidents are considered to be impossible. Artificial intelligence is promoted to be infallible.
Where does anyone say that?
EuclidBut when practical experiencs starts to demonstrate the fallibility, driverless cars will still be relatively few in numbers. As driverless cars kill more and more innocent manual drivers, there will be an uprising against driverless cars. This will change the whole dynamic of the revolution.
Guess you still maintain your subscrition to Luddite monthly.
EuclidOne solution would be to ban driverless cars until they are actual proven safe in the real world conditions. I doubt that the general public will approve a highway carnage just to get the bugs out of automatic driving. Another solution will be to phycially separate manual driving from driverless cars.
Once they figure out the liability - and whichever company is ballsy enough to be the first assume said liability will be king.
DeggestyWell, Larry, there are people who have no idea at all as to how other people live.
tree68 The article appears to make the assumption that all people use rail specifically and exclusively for transportation. That may be the case for transit/commuter rail, but falls short for long distance rail. Some percentage take the train for the experience, a fact lost on many pundits. I also found it amusing that the writer lamented the space required for street parking, suggesting that with out it, there could be more room for traffic. The autonomous vehicles could move to a remote parking lot. So much for running into the convenience store for milk and a loaf of bread...
The article appears to make the assumption that all people use rail specifically and exclusively for transportation.
That may be the case for transit/commuter rail, but falls short for long distance rail. Some percentage take the train for the experience, a fact lost on many pundits.
I also found it amusing that the writer lamented the space required for street parking, suggesting that with out it, there could be more room for traffic. The autonomous vehicles could move to a remote parking lot. So much for running into the convenience store for milk and a loaf of bread...
You know, I'm reminded of what frequent Forum poster 54light15 said on another thread concerning driverless cars:
"If you can't park the car yourself, you shouldn't be in it!"
Kind of says it all. I'd expand that to "If you're unwilling to drive it you shouldn't be in it!"
Flintlock76 And several days ago there was an on-line article concerning driverless cars saying in a nutshell "Not so fast! They've still got a long way to go and they're not the panacea everyone thinks they are!" Which is what some posters here have been saying for quite a while.
And several days ago there was an on-line article concerning driverless cars saying in a nutshell "Not so fast! They've still got a long way to go and they're not the panacea everyone thinks they are!"
Which is what some posters here have been saying for quite a while.
That is what I would say. As driverless cars begin to populate the roads, there will be accidents caused by the technology failing to protect against various circumstances, just as most people would intuitively expect. And these accidents will kill innocent people in cars that need to be manually driven. But at this early point, such accidents are considered to be impossible. Artificial intelligence is promoted to be infallible.
But when practical experiencs starts to demonstrate the fallibility, driverless cars will still be relatively few in numbers. As driverless cars kill more and more innocent manual drivers, there will be an uprising against driverless cars. This will change the whole dynamic of the revolution.
One solution would be to ban driverless cars until they are actual proven safe in the real world conditions. I doubt that the general public will approve a highway carnage just to get the bugs out of automatic driving. Another solution will be to phycially separate manual driving from driverless cars.
tree68What time does the dining car open? And will the porter be by soon to make up my bunk?
Don't forget the Porter shining you shoes for the morning.
Which makes me remember, it has been about 30 years since I wore shineable shoes on a regular basis.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
What time does the dining car open? And will the porter be by soon to make up my bunk?
Self-driving cars take away little if anything from any capacity congestion that involves vehicles reaching a standstill, just as for any other form of PRT. What they provide is a great reduction in 'driver' stress and frustration, which is not the same discussion and shouldn't be confused. So there is still a clear role for commuter and regional rail (heavy and light) even if pervasive numbers of vehicles become reliably autonomous and there is some guarantee of reasonable 'distributed carpooling' on an extended Uber model. How that comes to be addressed in pandemic models is yet to be addressed.
Note that the arguments concerning fixed cost and efficiency per passenger do exist, and have become if anything up to an order of magnitude worse as leveraged by social-distancing concerns. Little has changed to note that energy consumption per passenger can be comparable if not superior with a guided-vehicle solution (remember that PRT in the mid-70s, when I studied it, was largely driven by embargo hysteria) and all the expenses of stranded capital for grade-separated electrified higher-speed rail apply only to that mode, as it was and is unthinkable to mix guideway access directly between heavy-rail and personal autonomous vehicles (for physics and network-management reasons more than just energency-safety concerns). There may still be a role for rail in 'bridge train' or even RRollway-type service, where autonomous loading (with special 'expert' control code enhancement downloaded to vehicles) takes away much of the latency, risk of damage, weight balance and other historical concerns with that type of operation; it is interesting to contemplate an increased use of strictly electrified-rail consists from logical 'gathering points' into cities, that would carry only autonomous BEVs or plug-ins, where the vehicles are actually charged en route rather than requiring an expensive and perhaps economically unsustainable level of continuous or wayside power pickup along commutation routes subject to even periodic delay or congestion.
About LD or even 'corridor' rail, I think the author is justified, as far as he can go, but again much of that market, current and prospective, us for people who either don't own cars or wouldn't care to 'rent' or hire them for long-distance service. The argument then turns on social subsidy of that cohort in what might be perceived as increasingly scarce resources for infrastructure maintenance. (With, prospectively, concentration on overcoming deficits in the built road environment becoming priorities in autonomous design evolution... a peripheral point here but overall highly significant to 'best political' allocation of public tax revenue and the like...)
ttrraaffiicc Found here: https://technologyandsociety.org/driverless-cars-will-make-passenger-rail-obsolete/ In this article, the author discusses how self driving cars make the concept of passenger rail obsolete. He argues that passenger rail is highly subsidized as it provides certain benefits, but once self driving cars become common, they will have all the same benefits but will be able to operate on existing infrastructure and at a profit. In addition, the convenience and user experience will be much better than rail or transit. What do you think?
Found here: https://technologyandsociety.org/driverless-cars-will-make-passenger-rail-obsolete/
In this article, the author discusses how self driving cars make the concept of passenger rail obsolete. He argues that passenger rail is highly subsidized as it provides certain benefits, but once self driving cars become common, they will have all the same benefits but will be able to operate on existing infrastructure and at a profit. In addition, the convenience and user experience will be much better than rail or transit.
What do you think?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.