|
computer parts posted:Like what someone said earlier, maybe this will be a thing in Europe because they don't use trains for shipping cargo, but this is incredibly inefficient in the US. About 20% of european union shipping is done by rail, opposed to about 40% for the US.
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 08:16 |
|
|
WorldsStrongestNerd posted:About 20% of european union shipping is done by rail, opposed to about 40% for the US. Because and our cities are further apart and we can doublestack more lines. Breakeven point for going intermodal rail-truck as opposed to just truck is usually between 250-500 miles with the variation depending on way to many things to get into here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
Konstantin posted:Not really, the manufacturers will probably set up a trade group and buy or partner with a large insurance company, passing the costs onto the end user. Passing the costs on here would essentially entail a subscription service for your car that, if you didn't pay, would brick your vehicle. America's gotten used to a lot of poo poo like that over the past decade with the smartphone market, but I dont believe for a second we're closer than ten years from the world where the average American is OK with their Toyota not starting because they didn't pay for their self driving service, or the world where Chrysler went out of business and your Cherokee bricked itself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 05:59
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:This is actually a somewhat solved problem. Volvo, for example, has already just said that they'll take responsibility directly for accidents involving any sort of autonomous mode in their cars. If self-driving cars ever become commonplace, it's going to be because manufacturers are confident enough in their systems to just accept full liability and bypass the need for complex legislation. This is actually much more pragmatically useful than I expected from the auto industry. More power to Volvo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 08:18
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:This is actually much more pragmatically useful than I expected from the auto industry. More power to Volvo. I wonder if it's because they can afford expensively ruthless corporate lawguys that will hem haw and stall any possible case to hell and back.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 08:46
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:I wonder if it's because they can afford expensively ruthless corporate lawguys that will hem haw and stall any possible case to hell and back. Can they do that in Kommunist Skandinavia as well as in America? Regardless, if it actually ended up reducing traffic injuries/deaths it would still be good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 08:48
|
|
|
Bushiz posted:the average American is OK with their Toyota not starting because they didn't pay for their self driving service Cars will have manual mode for a long time, if only because of the input problem: it's hard to tell a car to do a lot of things people do with their cars, especially on private property. Plus for fallback situations where some jackass spray paints over the camera.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:When you say "self-driving car" do you mean level 4 autonomy? I'm an autonomous vehicle booster for sure, but that seems pretty aggressive. The plan is for level 3 autonomy to be available. They are plowing ahead with this regardless of the laws because all of their competitors are racing towards this. The big 3 see it as a core threat to their business if they fall behind in this. Liquid Communism posted:poo poo, I'd take that bet. If big automakers are involved, any laws needed will be written and passed pretty quickly. Even though they weren't what they once were, the automakers still have a lot of pull in the US.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
on the left posted:The plan is for level 3 autonomy to be available. Hmm. I've read otherwise! article posted:Jim McBride, autonomous vehicles expert at Ford, said, "the biggest demarcation is between Levels 3 and 4." He's focused on getting Ford straight to Level 4, since Level 3, which involves transferring control from car to human, can often pose difficulties. "We're not going to ask the driver to instantaneously intervene—that's not a fair proposition."
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:This is actually a somewhat solved problem. Volvo, for example, has already just said that they'll take responsibility directly for accidents involving any sort of autonomous mode in their cars. If self-driving cars ever become commonplace, it's going to be because manufacturers are confident enough in their systems to just accept full liability and bypass the need for complex legislation. That is probably okay in lots of countries and will never be accepted by US corporate counsel, who would be looking at corporate bankruptcy as soon as the first bug in the firmware kills someone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
It makes way more sense to me to think that eventually self driving cars will be universally mandatory because then the cars can talk to each other and prevent accidents without the interference of inferior hyoo mon operators. It's the mixed environment of human and robot operators that is problematic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
You're going to have mixed human/robot traffic unless/until pedestrians and cyclists are banned.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
neonnoodle posted:It makes way more sense to me to think that eventually self driving cars will be universally mandatory because then the cars can talk to each other and prevent accidents without the interference of inferior hyoo mon operators. It's the mixed environment of human and robot operators that is problematic. Unless you have a system where self driving technology is introduced into cars but is not activated until a later time, you're going to have a period of time where self driving cars are surrounded by manual cars. Like, the average age of cars on the road right now is over 11 years. It's going to take a concentrated effort to introduce any technology into the national fleet, never mind something quite as large as that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:This is actually a somewhat solved problem. Volvo, for example, has already just said that they'll take responsibility directly for accidents involving any sort of autonomous mode in their cars. If self-driving cars ever become commonplace, it's going to be because manufacturers are confident enough in their systems to just accept full liability and bypass the need for complex legislation. It's not though because while maybe Volvo thinks they have the margins to support the liability the lower end of the market currently does not and its going to take a long time to sort out how this liability works and how much it costs. But it's safe to say that automakers arn't ready to take on the full cost of ensuring every vehicle on the road every year. A lot of people are not appreciating how corporations get treated differently when it comes to liability and safety. Society tolerates grandma getting into accidents. It's different when Toyota is driving. Toyota lost billions when they had to recall and settle for glitches in their throttle software (and it was never actually determined what the problem was) which caused just a handful of accidents.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Like, the average age of cars on the road right now is over 11 years. It's going to take a concentrated effort to introduce any technology into the national fleet, never mind something quite as large as that. asdf32 posted:But it's safe to say that automakers arn't ready to take on the full cost of ensuring every vehicle on the road every year.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Lol if you think politicians are going to hold back on mandating self-driving cars because poor people can't afford it. Once the affluent largely have self-driving cars, there'll be a huge push to get rid of manually driven ones. They may dole out some subsidies for poor people upgrading, though. Hasn't happened with backup cameras.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
neonnoodle posted:It makes way more sense to me to think that eventually self driving cars will be universally mandatory because then the cars can talk to each other and prevent accidents without the interference of inferior hyoo mon operators. It's the mixed environment of human and robot operators that is problematic. beep boop why is everything not instantly computerized like in superman 3
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
Adar posted:That is probably okay in lots of countries and will never be accepted by US corporate counsel, who would be looking at corporate bankruptcy as soon as the first bug in the firmware kills someone. Yeah, just like how every time a manufacturing defect like unsecured floor mats or a loose ignition switch results in death, the big car manufacturers declare bankruptcy and start over.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Hasn't happened with backup cameras. Backup cameras will be mandatory in the US for all new cars sold as of 2018.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
The Daily Mail is in talks to buy Yahoo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
So do we have class 2 self driving cenobites yet or is Leviathan slacking off
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
a person who is chatting with my current company about coming to us from Yahoo came up in a meeting last week. It was all I could do not to say "oh god why are they still at Yahoo? They must be either terrible or gullible"
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
Emacs Headroom posted:a person who is chatting with my current company about coming to us from Yahoo came up in a meeting last week. It was all I could do not to say "oh god why are they still at Yahoo? They must be either terrible or gullible" yahoo was throwing around cash for a while, in a very serious way. but I remember thinking the same thing about hires from Apple in 1999, and there were good people to extract the whole time. E: by "very serious" I mean 2x base of FB, with a higher bonus percentage and a light-bending amount of stock. yahoo! won't have change-of-control instavest, but still, things could be good for them if GOOG buys for irony or scrap. Subjunctive fucked around with this message at 01:28 on Apr 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
Can't wait to see Tumblr's reaction to that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Backup cameras will be mandatory in the US for all new cars sold as of 2018. But no one's saying "non-backup cars are now illegal to drive" even though most rich people's cars have had them for years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
Yeah there are also motorcycles, which making automated would kinda defeat the whole point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
computer parts posted:But no one's saying "non-backup cars are now illegal to drive" even though most rich people's cars have had them for years. All mandatory features, including seatbelts to this very day, are grandfathered.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:All mandatory features, including seatbelts to this very day, are grandfathered. So you agree this post is wrong then: Cicero posted:Lol if you think politicians are going to hold back on mandating self-driving cars because poor people can't afford it. Once the affluent largely have self-driving cars, there'll be a huge push to get rid of manually driven ones. If the cost was really so substantial that most people can't afford it, it wouldn't be mandated.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
computer parts posted:So you agree this post is wrong then: I think that making them mandatory for new cars is intended to make them universal. I don't know what the cost is, but I expect that by the time such legislation is passed it'll be <$250. I don't know what the threshold is for too-expensive-to-legislate. What's the cheapest ACA plan?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Hasn't happened with backup cameras. edit: traditionally, car safety features have been mainly about protecting people inside the car. That's how they get sold. Self-driving cars do help protect the people inside the car too, but they will also have a massive benefit for protecting everyone else. I think that's what will incentivize Congress -- or rather, incentivize (rich) people to push Congress -- to pass a law sunsetting manually driven cars. Cicero fucked around with this message at 02:44 on Apr 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 02:38
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Well, they have been mandated for new cars starting in a couple years, but the safety benefit of backup cameras is much, much less than that of going from manually-driven to self-driving cars. If they mandated completely self-driving cars tomorrow, it would still take around fifteen years of record-setting sales to replace the current fleet. Manual cars are going to be around for a few decades unless someone can get a whole lot of money dedicated to ramping up new car manufacturing, so automatic cars are going to need to deal with manually driven ones for quite some time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
Lucy Heartfilia posted:Truck convoys. 1 driver in the front truck and ten trucks without drivers that follow it. This Wednesday a Dutch government challenge to demonstrate a similar tech was succesfully completed. They had trucks from several brands follow each other very closely and brake/accelerate synchronized. So what happens when some of the trucks are left behind in traffic lights? Or will they just ignore them
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 08:03
|
|
|
Lyesh posted:If they mandated completely self-driving cars tomorrow, it would still take around fifteen years of record-setting sales to replace the current fleet. Manual cars are going to be around for a few decades unless someone can get a whole lot of money dedicated to ramping up new car manufacturing, so automatic cars are going to need to deal with manually driven ones for quite some time. Or maybe a somewhat more palatable solution would be increasingly heavy manually-driven car surcharges, with one-time subsidies for (poor) people upgrading from manually-driven cars to self-driving ones.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 08:40
|
|
|
Double Bill posted:So what happens when some of the trucks are left behind in traffic lights? Or will they just ignore them They count as a convoy probably so if it's green for the first one it's green for all of them
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 11:40
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Or maybe a somewhat more palatable solution would be increasingly heavy manually-driven car surcharges, with one-time subsidies for (poor) people upgrading from manually-driven cars to self-driving ones. Like I said a few pages back, once the tech is to the point where there is statistically significant data proving automation is safer than manual (including dealing with grandfathered manual cars), the insurance companies will be all over that poo poo. Increased fees if you don't have automation and increased deductibles if you have an accident in "manual" mode. There will be significant financial incentive to go automated. Also, cultural incentives. How do you think the media is going to protray a drunk driver who kills someone while driving drunk in "manual" mode instead of using "auto" mode? How is a jury going to react to it? How many "my children would still be alive if that poor wasn't driving an outdated vehicle" stories do you think a senator with a lot of automotive companies in his state needs to start passing laws to force people to buy automated? Edit: To be clear, I don't think the tech is there yet and I don't think it will be a quick change. But once the tech is there it will be inevitable that it's mandated to at least have the option in every non-grandfathered car and there will be heavy societal pressures to use automated mode as much as possible. mkultra419 fucked around with this message at 11:46 on Apr 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 11:44
|
|
|
mkultra419 posted:Also, cultural incentives. How do you think the media is going to protray a drunk driver who kills someone while driving drunk in "manual" mode instead of using "auto" mode? What about a perceived uptick in drunk driving because people think it's safe to stumble into their cars and flick on the auto switch? A drunk driving accident in "auto" mode might actually be a bigger story ("Will the scary consequences of this new technology ruin everything? Tune in tonight to find out.")
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 13:11
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Well, they have been mandated for new cars starting in a couple years, but the safety benefit of backup cameras is much, much less than that of going from manually-driven to self-driving cars. And thinking that "rich" people (who apparently spend a lot of time driving around in their cars) are going to push for all the plebs to get self driving cars so they will be safer is just some odd, twisted thinking. Mostly because I assume the people who are so rich they have that kind of pull take their helicopter straight to their private jet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
cheese posted:And thinking that "rich" people (who apparently spend a lot of time driving around in their cars) are going to push for all the plebs to get self driving cars so they will be safer is just some odd, twisted thinking. Mostly because I assume the people who are so rich they have that kind of pull take their helicopter straight to their private jet. If there's any kind of push to sunset manually driven cars within the next few decades (and I really doubt there will be), it's almost definitely going to come from manufacturers touting the safety benefits of more connected roadways and ultimately looking to reduce their own exposure to liability. I do think we'll start seeing requirements for new cars to include progressively more sophisticated level 2/3 autonomous systems, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:connected roadways are not going to happen at even city-wide scale in our lifetimes. Investment in road infrastructure is going down, not up, and it'll be a long time before "retrofit our roads for fancy robot yuppie cars" is anything but political guillotine bait. At best we'll see some more machine-readable data on signage and construction barriers. Might see it in parking garages and such though, because they could increase density if they get cars to double-park/unpark themselves, and summoning/parking in airports or similar could be good. Lots of work before that, but it's plausible. Car-to-car is a whole other can of worms. E: I'm thinking in the US/Canada context here, though I suspect Europe is the same. Who knows what China will do, they seem to live on a different part of the human life risk/reward curve.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 08:16 |
|
|
Emacs Headroom posted:What about a perceived uptick in drunk driving because people think it's safe to stumble into their cars and flick on the auto switch? A drunk driving accident in "auto" mode might actually be a bigger story ("Will the scary consequences of this new technology ruin everything? Tune in tonight to find out.") Maybe it's time to go back to only punishing drunk drivers if they cause an accident
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 16:42
|
|
