[Agni]

Originally Posted by STK

Further, the number of brands and variety will plummet. Who really cares about what car picks them up? There will be compact, mid-size, and luxury with the option to ride alone or pick someone up along the way. It will be like getting pick up at the airport in a Town Car or a Prius.

There will probably be an intermediate period were individuals will own a car with manual or autonomous option. But once autonomous cars reach a critical mass, manual mode driving will be against the law as too dangerous. About 30,000 people a year die in auto accidents now. That will end. The folks on this tread we'll take an autonomous car to the track where our manual cars will be in storage ready to go. And that's where it's the most fun to drive anyway. But i think it will take considerably longer than 5 years.

btw -the 3,000,000 people that drive for a living will lose their jobs.

Interesting times indeed.

So what if those jobs are gone? New jobs will be created. Start learning programming, especially machine learning. Instead of people wasting time driving, they will be doing more productive things.

[MalibuBimmer]

Originally Posted by jeremyr4

I think most people here are missing the bigger picture. Currently the average car is only used 3% of the time, as it sits parked for the other 97%. That is a huge waste of an asset. Eventually BMW and others will offer some type of service where you can use their fleet to pick you up, drop you off, and then it will move on to the next person so that each car is used 90% of the time instead of 3%! Only enthusiasts and the wealthy will own cars, as most will consider them a waste of money and won't want to drive. Most people won't own cars in the future and a LOT less will be produced due to the 90% utilization. Big changes ahead...

I've seen that movie. It's called New York City.

[filet.M2c]

Originally Posted by Agni

So what if those jobs are gone? New jobs will be created. Start learning programming, especially machine learning. Instead of people wasting time driving, they will be doing more productive things.

Of course, go to school for CS or engineering. But the 3,000,000 drivers will be replaced with 30,000 engineers. I agree autonomous is the future. Ownership as we know it will change. Instead of many people owning a car, they will opt to pay a company like uber or BMW a monthly $200 subscription for have access to their fleet. Car picks you up and drops you off whenever you need it. I don't know how smooth the transition would be though... I mean if people are as passionate as they are about guns, then driving will be a shit storm.

[W///]

Originally Posted by Finnegan

Fast food was the future too. Easier. Faster. Cheaper. That doesn't mean it's "better".

Is it possible this tech can improve things? Sure. But I reject the idea that it's automatically better because it's new. Or that we should jump on the sales/marketing bandwagon because it's new. New isn't the only destination. Leonardo DaVinci's works aren't new. Nor are Picasso's. Nor is the Jaguar E-Type. But that doesn't mean they are obsolete, irrelevant, or "worse" than new things.

New can be better. New can be worse. The assumption new is always better is consumerism, marketing, and sales 101. Not a promise or guarantee of "better".

Why can you not have a fun car like our Z4M that can self drive. Don't get me wrong, I probably wouldn't want to actually own one of those, but I'd def consider leasing one as long as it's an option.

Let's be honest, the day when it's illegal to drive on public roads is decades away. I'm not worried about something that far off yet

[mikefromMA]

Originally Posted by Yeineken

As someone who has a two hour commute, I welcome this technology.

It'll make the roads safer and allow people to multitask without killing a small family and ruining people's lives.

as someone who welcomes change because I simply don't know any better and believe in the evolution of technology, I too welcome it

[Finnegan]

Originally Posted by W///

Why can you not have a fun car like our Z4M that can self drive. Don't get me wrong, I probably wouldn't want to actually own one of those, but I'd def consider leasing one as long as it's an option.

Let's be honest, the day when it's illegal to drive on public roads is decades away. I'm not worried about something that far off yet

It's pretty simple: because the fun is in the doing, the actual driving, the engagement and skills required. The Z4M is a fun car but only because you can operate it--it's not fun by simply existing or if it drove me around. What makes it fun is the demands it makes to drive it well and the rewards from doing so.

How many of us who truly enjoy the act of driving like being passengers? Playing golf or watching golf? Watching poker or playing poker? Drinking a fine wine or watching others imbibe? Being at the Grand Canyon vs. watching it from an armchair? Cleaning and jerking 250 lbs or watching a robot do it?

It may be some time off but the never ending banging of the drum to accept passivity, or merely acquiesce to the idea that new is always better, or that any activity must be 100% devoid of risk from those who would profit by such notions greatly disturbing. Remove the profit component and it's still disturbing. Humans exist, improve, achieve, experience by doing, "be" and "are" not by being inert lumps of passivity and inaction, but by participating and acting. Requiring absolute safety and absolute levels of mandated risk avoidance is in itself a major risk from my point of view. It's an assault on freedom. Falls are the second leading cause of death. Maybe we should make self-moving chairs a mandate. (Silly but it's the logical extension of the "eliminate all risk make safe" argument.)

Is that rather philosophical? Sure. But I see an existential threat to that which defines humanity in the overarching incessant drive to make us passive/inert. I prefer activity in all areas of life to sitting in an armchair. Even if that means some level of risk. Life, being actually alive, entails risk not some false bargain of absolute or close to absolute safety.

The future is that which we create. I prefer a future where we are actors in the play rather than being relegated to only being permitted to be members of the audience.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by drexplode

As long as I have the option to turn it on and off then I'm ok with semi/fully autonomous functionality; however, I do not want a transportation vessel to which I have no direct control.

That is how it will end up being, a transportation vessel with no direct control. It has to be this way. The DOT will not let a mix of autonomous and driver-driven cars on the same road.

I think people drastically underestimate how complex converting to autonomous driving will be in regards to the technology, government oversight, personal property rights, and privacy rights.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Finnegan

It's pretty simple: because the fun is in the doing, the actual driving, the engagement and skills required. The Z4M is a fun car but only because you can operate it--it's not fun by simply existing or if it drove me around. What makes it fun is the demands it makes to drive it well and the rewards from doing so.

How many of us who truly enjoy the act of driving like being passengers? Playing golf or watching golf? Watching poker or playing poker? Drinking a fine wine or watching others imbibe? Being at the Grand Canyon vs. watching it from an armchair? Cleaning and jerking 250 lbs or watching a robot do it?

It may be some time off but the never ending banging of the drum to accept passivity, or merely acquiesce to the idea that new is always better, or that any activity must be 100% devoid of risk from those who would profit by such notions greatly disturbing. Remove the profit component and it's still disturbing. Humans exist, improve, achieve, experience by doing, "be" and "are" not by being inert lumps of passivity and inaction, but by participating and acting. Requiring absolute safety and absolute levels of mandated risk avoidance is in itself a major risk from my point of view. It's an assault on freedom. Falls are the second leading cause of death. Maybe we should make self-moving chairs a mandate. (Silly but it's the logical extension of the "eliminate all risk make safe" argument.)

Is that rather philosophical? Sure. But I see an existential threat to that which defines humanity in the overarching incessant drive to make us passive/inert. I prefer activity in all areas of life to sitting in an armchair. Even if that means some level of risk. Life, being actually alive, entails risk not some false bargain of absolute or close to absolute safety.

The future is that which we create. I prefer a future where we are actors in the play rather than being relegated to only being permitted to be members of the audience.

This is exactly perfect. Eloquent. Thank you, sir.

[STK]

Originally Posted by glennQNYC

Humans will not be allowed?? Whom is going to take this freedom away; Aliens? :

I'm afraid it's going to be the same people that replaced workers with robots and moved millions of manufacturing jobs overseas. If companies can save money by replacing drivers in commercial vehicles, and if other companies can make money helping them do it, then that is our future. And they'll have a pretty good argument: fewer deaths, less pollution, and less congestion.

I, of course, would prefer jet packs and flying cars. I just don't see that coming. Too bad.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by jeremyr4

I think most people here are missing the bigger picture. Currently the average car is only used 3% of the time, as it sits parked for the other 97%. That is a huge waste of an asset. Eventually BMW and others will offer some type of service where you can use their fleet to pick you up, drop you off, and then it will move on to the next person so that each car is used 90% of the time instead of 3%! Only enthusiasts and the wealthy will own cars, as most will consider them a waste of money and won't want to drive. Most people won't own cars in the future and a LOT less will be produced due to the 90% utilization. Big changes ahead...

I think this is a ridiculous argument; it can be made for practically anything you own. You use your bed for 33% of the day; your kitchen 12.5% of the day; your bathroom 8% of the day. Should we pay-by-use for all those as well? My tools, which have saved me tens of thousands of dollars over the 30 or so years I've owned them, get used maybe 6 hours a week, and that's not every tool I own.

Autonomous driving will turn personal transportation into a service, just like dining out; which will increase to unit cost to transport one's self, not decrease the cost. People dine out all the time, but still own and use their kitchens.

[STK]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I think this is a ridiculous argument; it can be made for practically anything you own. You use your bed for 33% of the day; your kitchen 12.5% of the day; your bathroom 8% of the day. Should we pay-by-use for all those as well? My tools, which have saved me tens of thousands of dollars over the 30 or so years I've owned them, get used maybe 6 hours a week, and that's not every tool I own.

Autonomous driving will turn personal transportation into a service, just like dining out; which will increase to unit cost to transport one's self, not decrease the cost. People dine out all the time, but still own and use their kitchens.

I think the point is autonomous cars will drive down the cost of the service, unlike dining out.

Most people would rather not drive. However, they don't have a chauffeur because it costs way too much. What if they could have a chauffeur for free? That, in essence, is an autonomous car that you own.

Now, what if you had a friend who never wants to drive when you do and vice versa. You could buy a car together and save a bunch and still cover depreciation. You could save a little less if you have cleaned between drives. So now you have a chauffeured car at much less than the cost of full ownership. That, in essence, is the autonomous BMW or Uber service. How many people are going to say no to that? The economics change a lot when you don't have to pay the driver and the costs of sharing plummet.

It's going to take a while. Take solace in that.

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

States are already concerned about autonomous vehicles causing a massive increase in traffic congestion, pollution, and wear on the roads. I believe one state even passed legislation preventing autonomous vehicles from traveling without a passenger.

The thinking is that people could have their vehicle drive back home by itself (for whatever reason) after dropping off its passengers; then drive itself back while empty. Autonomous vehicle owners might forgo finding a parking spot and choose have their vehicle continuously circle the area while they briefly run into a destination. Further, people would be less inclined to use mass transit if they didn't need to manage their car in rush-hour traffic or park it at the destination.

It seems to me that autonomous vehicles driving without passengers has the potential to cause more problems than they attempt to solve. It will be interesting to see how this particular aspect of autonomous vehicles shakes out over the next decade.

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

Originally Posted by glennQNYC

States are already concerned about autonomous vehicles causing a massive increase in traffic, congestion, pollution, and wear on the roads. I believe one state even passed legislation preventing autonomous vehicles from traveling without a passenger.

The thinking is that people could have their vehicle drive back home by itself (for whatever reason) after dropping off its passengers; then drive itself back while empty. Autonomous vehicle owners might forgo finding a parking spot and choose have their vehicle continuously circle the area while they briefly run into a destination. Further, people would be less inclined to use mass transit if they didn't need to manage their car in rush-hour traffic or park it at the destination.

It seems to me that autonomous vehicles driving without passengers has the potential to cause more problems than they attempt to solve. It will be interesting to see how this particular aspect of autonomous vehicles shakes out over the next decade.

Just found article speaking to the point I'm making in my post. Apparently the technical term for this challenge is "empty repositioning."

Here we see a technology that massively disrupts not only traditional businesses, but also public policy on mass transit. Drivers don?t have to drive during their commute, and can send their vehicles home when they are not using them, avoiding the cost of parking. Transportation planners are wholly unprepared for this future, and given the hundreds of billions of dollars that have been spent on public transit systems that are inflexible and capital intensive hub-and-spoke systems, I forecast a lot of pain ahead.

http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2016/09/22/a...ing-challenge/

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by STK

I think the point is autonomous cars will drive down the cost of the service, unlike dining out.

Most people would rather not drive. However, they don't have a chauffeur because it costs way too much. What if they could have a chauffeur for free? That, in essence, is an autonomous car that you own.

Now, what if you had a friend who never wants to drive when you do and vice versa. You could buy a car together and save a bunch and still cover depreciation. You could save a little less if you have cleaned between drives. So now you have a chauffeured car at much less than the cost of full ownership. That, in essence, is the autonomous BMW or Uber service. How many people are going to say no to that? The economics change a lot when you don't have to pay the driver and the costs of sharing plummet.

It's going to take a while. Take solace in that.

I think most young people don't want to drive, and that's because the are connected to other young people via a different technology, not a replacement technology. I think Finnegan's point is that how many young people would just let their phone communicate for them. Give the phone the topic of discussion and your point of view, then let the software do the rest...

[Finnegan]

Originally Posted by glennQNYC

Humans will not be allowed?? Whom is going to take this freedom away; Aliens? :

Two ways Glenn: legally via requiring some level of autonomous "protection and safety"; via unaffordable insurance rates.

If you'd like to know more see "microstamping" and "magazine limits/bans" in California. Or see liability/insurance laws being proposed for guns in New York, Washington state, etc. See reproductive rights limitations ("facility licensing", etc.) in Texas.

Both the left and right employ the same methods/tools to restrict, limit, eliminate. The argument always has to do ostensibly with "safety" or limiting/eliminating the perceived evil/risk. Either of these above provide a good model for how this would roll out. Politicians aren't that creative, it is plausible they'll rely on exiting methods.

[M2Crew]

Originally Posted by glennQNYC

States are already concerned about autonomous vehicles causing a massive increase in traffic congestion, pollution, and wear on the roads. I believe one state even passed legislation preventing autonomous vehicles from traveling without a passenger.

The thinking is that people could have their vehicle drive back home by itself (for whatever reason) after dropping off its passengers; then drive itself back while empty. Autonomous vehicle owners might forgo finding a parking spot and choose have their vehicle continuously circle the area while they briefly run into a destination. Further, people would be less inclined to use mass transit if they didn't need to manage their car in rush-hour traffic or park it at the destination.

It seems to me that autonomous vehicles driving without passengers has the potential to cause more problems than they attempt to solve. It will be interesting to see how this particular aspect of autonomous vehicles shakes out over the next decade.

Why would anyone send the car home versus simply letting it park itself in the spot that you would've needed anyway?

Autonomous driving delivers massive value in the form of incredible convenience and reclaimed time. Uber is the version 0.1a of this; people are ready at scale for a product or service that allows them to be driven on their own schedule.

Go try Tesla's implementation in traffic. Why anyone would want to go back to handling boring commutes or stop-and-go or long, monotonous drives themselves is completely beyond me.

[guarnibl]

Originally Posted by Speed-NYC

Autominous is just an option for when driving is otherwise tedious. You will still want it to be a great car like a bimmer for the times you are in old timey manual mode. What will be interesting to see is if our kids choose never to drive using manual controls.

Driving will gradually become illegal/require a special license within time. Not sure how long but that's where it's going.

Edit : already been said. I really don't want it to happen though. Hopefully I'm batshit insane / senile by then and won't give a damn.

[3s-a-charm]

Originally Posted by Finnegan

It's pretty simple: because the fun is in the doing, the actual driving, the engagement and skills required. The Z4M is a fun car but only because you can operate it--it's not fun by simply existing or if it drove me around. What makes it fun is the demands it makes to drive it well and the rewards from doing so.

How many of us who truly enjoy the act of driving like being passengers? Playing golf or watching golf? Watching poker or playing poker? Drinking a fine wine or watching others imbibe? Being at the Grand Canyon vs. watching it from an armchair? Cleaning and jerking 250 lbs or watching a robot do it?

It may be some time off but the never ending banging of the drum to accept passivity, or merely acquiesce to the idea that new is always better, or that any activity must be 100% devoid of risk from those who would profit by such notions greatly disturbing. Remove the profit component and it's still disturbing. Humans exist, improve, achieve, experience by doing, "be" and "are" not by being inert lumps of passivity and inaction, but by participating and acting. Requiring absolute safety and absolute levels of mandated risk avoidance is in itself a major risk from my point of view. It's an assault on freedom. Falls are the second leading cause of death. Maybe we should make self-moving chairs a mandate. (Silly but it's the logical extension of the "eliminate all risk make safe" argument.)

Is that rather philosophical? Sure. But I see an existential threat to that which defines humanity in the overarching incessant drive to make us passive/inert. I prefer activity in all areas of life to sitting in an armchair. Even if that means some level of risk. Life, being actually alive, entails risk not some false bargain of absolute or close to absolute safety.

The future is that which we create. I prefer a future where we are actors in the play rather than being relegated to only being permitted to be members of the audience.

Roller coasters are fun... but I'm not in control of it.

[W///]

Originally Posted by Finnegan

It's pretty simple: because the fun is in the doing, the actual driving, the engagement and skills required. The Z4M is a fun car but only because you can operate it--it's not fun by simply existing or if it drove me around. What makes it fun is the demands it makes to drive it well and the rewards from doing so.

How many of us who truly enjoy the act of driving like being passengers? Playing golf or watching golf? Watching poker or playing poker? Drinking a fine wine or watching others imbibe? Being at the Grand Canyon vs. watching it from an armchair? Cleaning and jerking 250 lbs or watching a robot do it?

It may be some time off but the never ending banging of the drum to accept passivity, or merely acquiesce to the idea that new is always better, or that any activity must be 100% devoid of risk from those who would profit by such notions greatly disturbing. Remove the profit component and it's still disturbing. Humans exist, improve, achieve, experience by doing, "be" and "are" not by being inert lumps of passivity and inaction, but by participating and acting. Requiring absolute safety and absolute levels of mandated risk avoidance is in itself a major risk from my point of view. It's an assault on freedom. Falls are the second leading cause of death. Maybe we should make self-moving chairs a mandate. (Silly but it's the logical extension of the "eliminate all risk make safe" argument.)

Is that rather philosophical? Sure. But I see an existential threat to that which defines humanity in the overarching incessant drive to make us passive/inert. I prefer activity in all areas of life to sitting in an armchair. Even if that means some level of risk. Life, being actually alive, entails risk not some false bargain of absolute or close to absolute safety.

The future is that which we create. I prefer a future where we are actors in the play rather than being relegated to only being permitted to be members of the audience.

Heck, I've got an E36 M3, an E92 M3 and a Z4MR all fighting for my attention. I'll be the first to admit that these aren't just modes of transportation for me. It's a hobby, it's art, it's my passion (and also my source of frustration too haha). I'm as big of an enthusiast as any you'll find around here. We both have an Z4M's for the very same reason.

But how fun is it driving in bumper to bumper traffic? How fun is a Z4M when you are literally going in a straight line for 3 hrs when you're heading out of town? This is hardly my idea for the use of "The Ultimate Driving Machine". Therefore, I see no problems with it if it's able to be turned on and off. Off when I'm doing a fun Sunday drive, on when I'm 1.5 hrs away from home on a Sunday night after going to a concert and have to be at work in 7 hrs.

I don't think there's anything wrong with just watching a movie while sipping on a cold beer, rather than being chased by aliens in real life

[The Automotive Enthusiast]

As a Cyber Security major, I'd be scared to death to ride in an autonomous vehicle. Have to step-up the game a little.

[Fraggy]

Before my mom died, she would have welcomed this. She had last her license due to poor vision. This would have given her freedom.

I don't want it, but imagine not being worried about DUIs anymore, lol.

[antzcrashing]

For the low low price of 7 series