What are everyone's thoughts on self driving cars?

I believe within 10 years the majority of people will not own a vehicle and utilize an Uber type service that utilizes self driving cars. Upper middle class may transition to 1 car vs. multiple.

Here is a recent presentation from the Google Self Driving car lead.
Youtube

It shows:
- A pretty good explanation of the technology used
- Interesting argument on why self driving technology can't come out incrementally
- Some funny videos of what the self driving cars have encountered (especially the duck one)

As long as they don't create additional regulations against normal vehicles because of the self driving cars, I am indifferent to them.

Also, those cars better be able to drive with the flow of traffic rather than purely based upon the speed limit.

quote:

---

Also, those cars better be able to drive with the flow of traffic rather than purely based upon the speed limit.

---

Right now the google fully autonomous cars will not speed. However the driver assisted features i.e. adaptive cruise will.

Not a good mix when the flow of traffic is 80 MPH but speed limit is 60 MPH.

I also think that the manufacturers will have the liability for insurance/accidents.

Volvo has come out and said they would accept full liability of any self driving cars they create.
Link

I think because of this the vehicles will not speed, and follow all other laws as well.

The vehicle needs to be able to swerve and otherwise break the law on occasion in order to prevent collisions.

Presuming that the car would be able to differentiate hard and soft targets, when given the option between the two which will it take? If it's either scrape a guardrail or kill a person, I'd take the guardrail. If it's a cat or guardrail, it's the cat.

You really think that within 10 years that 51% of the driving aged population of the US will not own a vehicle?

quote:

---

You really think that within 10 years that 51% of the driving aged population of the US will not own a vehicle?

---

Yep. This is a bit more of a business model discussion vs. an autonomous driving discussion but I think that is how it plays out.

Your vehicle sits idle 95% of the time. It just makes too much sense from an asset utilization perspective for self driving cars to be used in a shared manner.

quote:

---

Your vehicle sits idle 95% of the time. It just makes too much sense from an asset utilization perspective for self driving cars to be used in a shared manner.

---

You're applying financial logic to a business decision. If people bought cars purely based on economic considerations, the car ownership rate would be 50% of what it is now, even withoug self-driving. I think you're wrong.

I'm of two minds. Most of the time, I would not want it. On long trips, I would. I would LOVE for my aging mother to have it.

If you had toll roads or restricted highways for self-driving only, and you increased the speed limit on those sections to something like 120mph, you would have my attention.

I think it is certainly possible that some urban areas will quickly move this way. It has great potential to speed up traffic in places like LA. Even if it doesn't speed it up, commuters will be happy to let their car do the stop-and-go routine, while they eat, sleep, read, whatever.

A side issue is how will it effect airlines. Consider a three hour flight. Add travel to the airport, layovers, security, baggage, rental car, etc, you're lucky to complete the trip in six-seven hours.

Now imagine a self-driving vehicle the size of a small RV. Bathroom, bunk beds, fridge. Wouldn't you rather walk out your front door, put the family on one of those about 9pm, and sleep through the night, waking up at your destination at 9am the next morning?

quote:

---

quote:

---

You really think that within 10 years that 51% of the driving aged population of the US will not own a vehicle?

---

Yep. This is a bit more of a business model discussion vs. an autonomous driving discussion but I think that is how it plays out.

Your vehicle sits idle 95% of the time. It just makes too much sense from an asset utilization perspective for self driving cars to be used in a shared manner.

---

Quick question/scenario modeled somewhat on Uber.

You own a self driving car. Would you sign it up to be an uber style car while you were not using it if it paid you $200 dollars a day?

I think I found the problem!

quote:

---

You own a self driving car. Would you sign it up to be an uber style car while you were not using it if it paid you $200 dollars a day?

---

Back to the economic arguement vs. emotional arguement.

Would I lease out my car to Uber Self-Drive, Inc.? Unlikely. Would I buy a car, with the intention of making it full-time Uber Self Drive? Sure I would, if I thought I could make money on it.

Compare it to your house. Would you buy a house to rent out and make money? Probably. Would you rent out your home during your two week vacation? Unlikely.

I know people who own airplanes. They could avoid a lot of the cost of ownership by leasing it out. Most do not. They don't want just anybody 'flying their plane'.

That is the whole point of Uber. Having Uber drivers temporarily bridges the gap to having driverless Uber cars, which is basically why Uber was created.

I would absolutely sign my car up for Uber and let it drive drunk people home on a Friday or Saturday night when I'm home.

quote:

---

I would absolutely sign my car up for Uber and let it drive drunk people home on a Friday or Saturday night when I'm home.

---

How much Uber money is it worth to you to hose out vomit?

Uber won't pay to use your car. Right now they need drivers not cars. With driverless cars they will buy and own the fleets themselves. No one will take a few bucks/HR to lease their car. Even $100/day is 3000 per month. Plenty of room to own a fleet.

The interiors of most vehicles are disgusting. Not a chance in hell I'd let others ride in something I own without me being there.

Paul Krugman got his Nobel prize demonstrating that choice is a part of the supply and demand equation. As in, people demand even a supply of options if they are available. This means they will want to have both a driverless and self drive option, or want to both own a car and use a subscriber driving service as well, and choose when to use either. Choice does play against price, as in people will accept higher costs simply to preserve more choices in the marketplace.

As usual, Mouth with the more elegant version of the point I was trying to make

It seems likely that self driving will simply be an alternate not a replacement for a long time. There have been times when we had cars good enough for local driving but not trips. We would rent cars then, as we didn't want to upgrade for a while.

I can see people delaying a new car purchase of a self driving rental is available for emergency use.

this should make for some hellacious car chase scenes in the movies.....not

We're still probably at least 50 years away. How do they handle in rain/fog/sleet/snow? How can they navigate parking lots or other private driveways? (or parking garages) How about unimproved roads? How will government resist the taxi/truck driver/car dealership/auto manufacturer lobby? How's the security?

Too many untested variables. Software by nature is terribly buggy. It's not happening anytime soon.

Boooo. Driving is fun. Now, what about self-flying vehicles....

I read something that essentially 10-20 years from now, Uber would be the king. Coupled with electric (all electric) cars, you could destroy the gasoline/fuels market. Currently, the US is like 300 cars per 1,000 people. Japan is/was king at almost 600 (IIRC). They looked at both scenarios: filling out the world to 600 cars or keeping the same. At 600 cars, you are talking about 2 billion vehicles. Lots of gas. At 300 cars, fuel demand the same, just moved around the world. If you changed them to electric or hybrid (or god forbid increase fuel economy), the fuel growth would stop and the world would be over saturated with motor fuels.

By having autonomous vehicles, the number of cars needed for the population would stay the same, worldwide. You just need to move cars from the US to Africa (essentially). With autonomous/driverless cars, this paper's estimation was that you would never be more than 3 minutes from a ride. Coupled with electric cars, scheduled downtime and any 'known' events, you could have much better traffic with less cars. I do not think they looked at car ownership (fleet vs. private); just that the cars existed and you paid a minimal fee for the use based upon mileage.

I would totally do something like that. Living in the 'tine (not currently, due to work), I took the bus. So I could have a car schedule to get me at 5:15 a.m., drive me to the bus stop and then get me when the bus drops me off from work. During that time, I don't need a car; it could work for me, but I would rather pay the $2 (or less) for the ride and then wait for it to come again. Couple that with the idea that if I needed to get home for an emergency, I can call a ride to get me home.


Plus, I always wanted a way, since I was a kid, to have a table in the middle of a car (think an olds delta 88) that you could play cards on with your folks and type where you wanted to go and it would drive while you napped/ate/slept/etc. Would have made family trips to LA more fun.



I think the biggest immediate market for driverless cars is 18-wheelers. The adoption of those cross country vehicles will also usher another issue to the US: welfare or universal basic income. Mostly from the fact that 1-2 million people would be out of a job essentially overnight. But now you are talking politics...

~egon

quote:

---

I think the biggest immediate market for driverless cars is 18-wheelers. The adoption of those cross country vehicles will also usher another issue to the US: welfare or universal basic income. Mostly from the fact that 1-2 million people would be out of a job essentially overnight. But now you are talking politics...

---

I've asserted that as well. A new truck is probably a million dollar rig. You know the trucking companies would love to have them rolling 24/7, as opposed to a 40 or 60 hour week. And most go down major roads where the mapping and other infrasturcture will be easier to maintain for driverless.

As far as the economics, one supposes the unions will require "operators" who are paid to ride along to and monitor the trucks, at least for a while. And if they do, the driver may not even have to be awake. He could be in a little RV-like compartment eating/sleeping/watching TV. A driver could ride for a couple of days straight, then switch off with someone else.

Cab drivers should be worried. Limo drivers and ups / fedex too.