It's been that way since dirt was invented...

 

1. California is mandating all self-driving cars must have a steering wheel
and pedals
2. There is still much to be settled vis-a-vis liability; these cars will be
making decisions like; the software will dictate such decisions as killing
one pedestrian in order to avoid running into a group of people. When
accidents do occur, who get's sued? Owner? Car manufacturer?
Software company?

There are many, many central and peripheral issues to be decided and it will be decades, I'd say 30 - 50 years before we see them in widespread use.....especially with government having to be the tip of the spear in dealing with all of it......

interesting (hey, there's still a law on the books here that when a car was to be driven a person with a lantern had to walk one hundred feet in front of the car so as not to scare the horses......)

 

I never thought of that aspect. Maybe the liability issues alone will stop this technology. I also wonder how winter weather with all it's driving issues would work on one of these cars.

 

lol nah.

If anything england has similar strict rules. Where did i read it that you can't pass down a car after owning it 10 years or something, like it has to get crushed?? Or something along the lines of like no more than 3 cars per household? Was that england??

And even looking at the way they're going, is still FAR away from any further strict car ownership.

I know it's winter time but damn guys, stop getting depressed for nothing. Nothing like that will happen. They said we'll all be driving electric cars by 2020. This was back in 99 i remember. Look at us now.

 

Driverless cars are a long looooong way off. Can you imagine the carnage on our roads if there is a computer or sensor hardware or software glitch? I can't even imagine the waste of time and money on such a ridiculous goal

 

what happened to the flying cars that were promised in the late 40s to the 60s?

 

I'll be happy when all the people that actually don't want to drive or can't drive will get self driving cars or a self driving car "service" where they don't actually own the car.

Less idiots on the road that can't concentrate on driving is a good thing. Less accidents = less traffic jams.

Just make all the self driving cars stay in one lane, as I am sure they will all be tailgating each other closely.

Google's car was confused by a bicyclist. It kinda "stun locked" the car from moving at an intersection. They also only go 25 MPH max currently while in testing.

 

A drunks dream he can get in his car and go home from the bar drunk and not get a DWI.

 

I get tired of the hybrid car owners driving slow so their cars will stay in the E mode and not use gas,

 

Self-driving cars will be fantastic! Can't wait. Even if it means giving up driving (on public roads) completely. By then, virtual reality will be 100% authentic, so you can get your driving kicks by racing at Le Mans in your simulator.....

 

There was a report that more Prius owners get tickets then Corvettes.

I tend to see them flying down the highway at 70+ , ironically getting less gas milage then I do.

There are the few that are driving 10 below the speed light though.

 

. You need a trip to New York City, where almost their entire fleet of taxis has been replaced by Camry Hybrids and Priuses. Trust me, New York taxi drivers are certainly not concerned about E mode or gas mileage. You would be pleased . . . or terrified.

That said, it addition to all the gas saved, the reduction in pollution and noise in NYC is pretty amazing since the streets are now mostly filled with hundreds of hybrid vehicles.

 

The average boy here has no interest in cars, only in phones, video games, and shoes. My own son turned 16 today, but he has no interest in getting his driver license yet, or even a permit. And he is far from unusual. It's a different generation today.

Actually, driverless cars have a far better driving record, in terms of accident-free miles, than human drivers in general. All of the accidents involving driverless cars so far have been determined to be the fault of a human driver doing something that the driverless car could not avoid.

Somewhere around 35,000 Americans die each year in auto accidents. That's a Vietnam War every 15 months or so. I would call that some serious carnage. And personally, I trust a computer far more than I trust your average radio-tuning, texting, cell-phone-talking, makeup-applying, or just generally ditzy human driver.

Like most of you, I grew up in love with cars and driving, and I would be sad to see the day when I couldn't drive myself, but I think it would be an acceptable trade-off to save all those lives. And that day is not so long off as you think. Several companies already have driverless cars on the road, which have driven millions of miles autonomously already. Here in the SF Bay Area such cars are running around all the time. Yes, there are still some technical issues to resolve (such as snow covering road markers), but they will be resolved and we will see more and more autonomous driving in cars. I just read about the new models coming out in 2016 and 2017 that basically offer autonomous freeway driving, and from there it won't be long before street autonomy is achieved.

 

I’m not so sure that self-driving cars will ever be mandated by the government! As a matter of fact, I believe that the only way self-driving cars will become a reality is if we the car buying consumer actually buy them and if legislators actually allow them on our highways.

The legalities of assigning responsibility in an accident arising from a self-driving car will be a legal nightmare and at this very moment, auto maker’s lobbyists are appealing Congress to write auto libel laws that will favor them! I have written several letters to my state and congressional legislators urging them vote no on any legislation which furthers the way for self-driving vehicles on our highways, and I urge all of you to do the same.

I believe that the only reason that auto manufactures are investing these huge sums of money in developing and lobbing for self-driving vehicles is to ultimately drastically reduce their legal liability exposure. Presently, U.S auto makers allocate between 2.5 & 3% of each sale to a legal reserve fund. It has been reported that if self-driving vehicles become the norm, car makers estimate that they can reduce the amount of legal exposure to less than 1% per vehicle.

If we don’t buy them, they won’t make them, we’ll just have to worry about the present and future crop of “all things electronic” to disrupt the status quo, AGAIN! We can thank the wiz kid Millennials that grasp the art of driving stick shift for many auto makers discontinuing the standard transmission.

Thanks to the OP for the post, I feel much better now that I have vented.

Jim

 

Might it be that their liability exposure will decrease because there will be fewer accidents, injuries, and deaths? Would that not be a good thing?

I just happened to read the following article, which is about a partnership between Ford and Google to build autonomous cars within the next few years.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/...g-cars-reports

As I mentioned in my first post, no autonomous car has yet been to blame for an accident, but it's rather humorous (or sad, depending on your outlook) to note that a few of the accidents in which these cars have been involved were caused by the human "driver" deciding to take control of the car, making a mistake, and causing the accident.

One potential problem with these cars is hacking. Obviously, hackers could cause mayhem if they successfully changed the programming of cars, and this is a matter that will have to be resolved before the cars can be considered truly safe and trustworthy. Of course, once again, that is a human-related problem...

 

Kinda how I have been feeling.

I have less choices on when to take the car out for a fun ride.

Mu trucking friends say that, their income is down 20%, just due to traffic. Payed by the load.

I got out in 2010 and traffic has changed radically since.

We are talking around the SF Bay.

 

Having driven professionally for 20 yrs. I can definately attest that there are situations that 'auto driving' cars simply cannot avoid. The technology won't work unless ALL vehicles on the roadway are .. I'm not going to get into it, but if you're over 40 you'll never see it.

Mark

 

[QUOTE=vertigogo;1591166328] Might it be that their liability exposure will decrease because there will be fewer accidents, injuries, and deaths? Would that not be a good thing?
QUOTE]

That’s a nice thought and yes it would be a good thing if were reality!

If Tesla CEO Elon Musk gets his way with U.S legislators he and other auto manufacture's are lobbing, autonomous car makers will be immune from liability and “ALL” legal responsibility will fall to the owner of the vehicle regardless who was sitting behind the controls.

And that would not be a good thing!

Jim

 

I wish people would quit saying that we won’t see autonomous vehicles in our life time. The “ONLY WAY” that statement will be factual is if we the people stop our legislators from allowing it to happen.

Tesla, Volvo, Mercedes-Benz, BMW and Audi have all announced a 2017 time frame. I believe that GM has a 5 year target.
I don’t know about folks, but I sure plan on still being alive & well in 2017 and I certainly don’t plan on ever driving, riding, passengering or whatever it’s called in a self-driving car!

Write your legislators or this will be the death of our driving experience!

Jim

 

Private car *ownership* will definitely go down, but that is independent from self-driving cars.

Ride-sharing, anti-tampering laws, and just plain overall rising costs are driving factors.

The big 3 automakers are already trying to assert that you don't really 'own' your car anyway, but rather just have purchased a license for your use, just like when you "buy" Microsoft Word or any other software package -- you own nothing except a license to use it.

The bigger, more immediate issue will be in-car monitoring of your driving habits, speed, locations, etc. (Progressive's Snapshot and the like). Right now, its "optional", with the dangling carrot of a discount *if* the Insurance company "approves" of your driving habits, locations/parts of town you travel to, and your chosen time of travel (rush hour? 3AM?). Yes, those are some of the criteria for getting a discount.

HOWEVER, it will soon be the only *reasonable* way to get government-required auto insurance. There won't be any "law" to mandate the monitor, rather it will be the Insurance company saying "Here's the cost for insurance, assuming you take the voluntary monitoring device. What? You don't want the monitor? That's fine -- you can have the same policy without a monitor, but the cost is 5x that of the 'monitored' cost. Your choice."