[insanecoder]

I'm also in that camp.. I dont see that they have the infrastructure or technology to pull this off without incidents which would remove any faith in the safe operation of autonomous vehicles.. but you know whats in their hearts tho.. (rippin out the hearts of true driving afficianados)

I would be more afraid of eventually them figuring out that they could circumvent privacy issues and automatically issue me a traffic ticket based on my car's speed data
(hope thats not coming either)

[eluded]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

... you eluded ...

I eluded to no such thing.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by eluded

I eluded to no such thing.

Ha ha. Yes, of course I mean alluded, not eluded. I've fixed it.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by STK

Once again, you don't think the technology will be good enough. I get it. Nothing to do but wait and see.

On the congestion point, even with your extreme example, there won't be a need for parking in the city center which would greatly alleviate congestion. Typically, 2 out of the 5 or six lanes of a downtown street are parking as are 2 of the 3 lanes of a side street. Imagine if they were open.

I'll be clear. I don't think AV technology will be good enough at an economic price point that society can afford. I think if we humans committed to be better at driving and developed better driver education and had requirements for continuing education the desired reduction in occupant death rates could be lowered to level level that AV advocates believe can be achieved. That methodology would be trillions upon trillions less expensive.

As long has there is personal transportation in "city centers" there is going to be congestion and gridlock regardless of what is driving a car. Intersections cause congestion by the mere fact that cars must occupy the same space, but at different times to avoid collisions. AV is not going to solve that. As for highway congestion, at peak hours, the cars travelling on the highway have to slow down because there are cars exiting which must eventually stop at an intersection. Again, my example is not extreme, it's called rush hour. If the same amount of people are on the road in a human driven car or an AV, and for the most part congestion is caused by the sheer number of people commuting, how does AV increase speeds during rush hour?

I know engineers could solve the problem. A local control traffic management system that each flight (i.e. drive) is programmed to be taken at a specific time so that the placement of each vehicle is programmed to not be in the same place at the same time as another vehicle. All of that could be orchestrated by technology, I have no doubt about that, other than the fact that software and hardware is not perfect. The cost to get the level of redundancy that AV technology is near perfect, say 99.999%, is not affordable, and the transition to get there is not economically implementable.

I'm sure the response is artificial intelligence. Okay, I get it, but humans develop the kernel of AI. I'm not sure AI is perfect either.

[STK]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I'll be clear. I don't think AV technology will be good enough at an economic price point that society can afford. I think if we humans committed to be better at driving and developed better driver education and had requirements for continuing education the desired reduction in occupant death rates could be lowered to level level that AV advocates believe can be achieved. That methodology would be trillions upon trillions less expensive.

As long has there is personal transportation in "city centers" there is going to be congestion and gridlock regardless of what is driving a car. Intersections cause congestion by the mere fact that cars must occupy the same space, but at different times to avoid collisions. AV is not going to solve that. As for highway congestion, at peak hours, the cars travelling on the highway have to slow down because there are cars exiting which must eventually stop at an intersection. Again, my example is not extreme, it's called rush hour. If the same amount of people are on the road in a human driven car or an AV, and for the most part congestion is caused by the sheer number of people commuting, how does AV increase speeds during rush hour?

I know engineers could solve the problem. A local control traffic management system that each flight (i.e. drive) is programmed to be taken at a specific time so that the placement of each vehicle is programmed to not be in the same place at the same time as another vehicle. All of that could be orchestrated by technology, I have no doubt about that, other than the fact that software and hardware is not perfect. The cost to get the level of redundancy that AV technology is near perfect, say 99.999%, is not affordable, and the transition to get there is not economically implementable.

I'm sure the response is artificial intelligence. Okay, I get it, but humans develop the kernel of AI. I'm not sure AI is perfect either.

That's pretty clear. You don't think it can be done at any feasible price.

You also seem to think that the technology that that would work is akin to air traffic control, "a local control traffic management system." That's a very minority view. Most all the money and research is betting on a decentralized technology. I wonder if your airline background is pushing you in that direction? The ground guys have mostly moved the other way.

As for congestion, the question is whether you can get more cars through an intersection with better technology. I think you're in the minority on that too. Lanes would open up as the need to park falls and the accordion effects that slow traffic will be diminished by the technology. And the fleet concept would create alternatives to current patterns since point-to-point delivery with multiple riders would fall in between a single passenger trip and public transportation. Isn't this what traffic engineers do?

So I guess we'll wait and see if the technology works. As for the AI, that's the known unknown. I guess I'm not as pessimistic as you.

[Meeni]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

If the same people need to get to the same places at the same times as they are doing now, but driving themselves rather than the car driving them, how is that relieving congestion? It will be the same amount of vehicles on the road.

There's a study about London that shows that during peak hours, 30% of traffic is comprised of people looking for a parking spot. Autonomous cars can drop you off, and then go park in a giant parking on the outskirt of the city. Non-owned self driving cars can drop you off and pickup another customer on the way out, further reducing traffic pressure on center-cities.

As for the economic aspect, I think it's pretty easy to see how removing the cost of the driver can pan in the transportation industry, and in short-distance taxi. There's a lot of money to be saved there, and that in turn can pay for a lot of technology. Once the R&D is amortized on these very lucrative markets, the technology will be available for 'free' and desining a self driving car rather than a non-driving car will be a minor cost. The economic case in my opinion is solid (unlike your previous example of going to Mars, where the economics have always been sketchy to say the least, what's there that we can't have on earth at a lower price point exactly?). The real question is then will the technology ever be good enough to permit L5 driving cars? It looks like it can, but we may be looking at one of these "will be sorted out in 25 years, forever", just like nuclear fusion/.

[are0lies]

Sometime back, before the HOV lanes were opened in San Diego, there was experimenting with autonomous cars. At the time, the study was to learn how traffic could be reduced with self-driving cars. The picture I remember seeing, was that of about seven cars, traveling train-like and controlled by sensors on each car; much like the anticollision sensors we have today.
An autonomous car has been proven viable, according to this article from The San Diego Tribune.

"Back in 1995, the NavLab 5 team at Carnegie Mellon University launched an autonomous vehicle on a trip from Pittsburgh to San Diego.
The vehicle navigated itself, without intervention from a human driver, for 98 percent of the 2,800 mile journey. It averaged speeds above 60 mph."

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...330-story.html

[CTinline-six]

Originally Posted by insanecoder

I would be more afraid of eventually them figuring out that they could circumvent privacy issues and automatically issue me a traffic ticket based on my car's speed data
(hope thats not coming either)

Remember that OBDII thing from Progressive that plugs into the car and tracks your information to "lower your rates"?

It's a start in that direction.

Logs vehicle speeds, panic brake inputs, etc.

[STK]

Originally Posted by CTinline-six

Remember that OBDII thing from Progressive that plugs into the car and tracks your information to "lower your rates"?

It's a start in that direction.

Logs vehicle speeds, panic brake inputs, etc.

Newer cars have a black box. The highway cameras can record your license plate. Your smart phone can be used triangulate your position. The car has a nav and BMW connect for location. Siri is probably saving your requests. Your phone calls are logged. Your isp knows your surfing history unless you have a vpn. And on and on.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by STK

I'm being misquoted a bit.

I do not see any misquote. Every quote I attribute to a forum member is transcribed exactly as they've written it. The forum software takes care of that, and I have not made any effort to circumvent it.

I offered no timeline in the OP.

There is absolutely an implied timeline by your assertion that the transition to EVs will closely coincide with the transition from vehicle ownership to ubiquitous autonomous public transportation. You said:

Originally Posted by STK

The future is fleets of autonomous electric cars with monthly contracts or pay by the ride. The move to electric cars is really a move to autonomous cars.

I merely point out that I don't think those two paradigm shifts will be as tightly coupled as you suggest. And I do not see current-day state of the art in this area, such as the test program you point out that GM plans next year with 2500 vehicles, to be at odds with my supposition.

It's your right to disagree my version of the future, of course, but you appear to be treading close to backpedaling here. Worse, it seems as though you are trying to buy yourself wiggle room on technical merits of the debate such as misquotation, which I see no evidence of.

[STK]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

I do not see any misquote. Every quote I attribute to a forum member is transcribed exactly as they've written it. The forum software takes care of that, and I have not made any effort to circumvent it.



There is absolutely an implied timeline by your assertion that the transition to EVs will closely coincide with the transition from vehicle ownership to ubiquitous autonomous public transportation. You said:



I merely point out that I don't think those two paradigm shifts will be as tightly coupled as you suggest. And I do not see current-day state of the art in this area, such as the test program you point out that GM plans next year with 2500 vehicles, to be at odds with my supposition.

It's your right to disagree my version of the future, of course, but you appear to be treading close to backpedaling here. Worse, it seems as though you are trying to buy yourself wiggle room on technical merits of the debate such as misquotation, which I see no evidence of.

Let me guess. Wayne State University Law School?

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by STK

Let me guess. Wayne State University Law School?

Says that guy spending thousands of words (and no small time commitment) defending his assertions on the internet.

You're off with your guess, but I'll take it as a compliment.

At any rate, we're off topic. We both believe AV proliferation is going to happen, so I'm content to leave it there.

[STK]

The forecasts of the speed of EV adoption vary widely. I was pretty surprised by the differences. The US Energy Information Agency predicts about a 5% adoption by 2050 Meanwhile, Energy Innovations forecast over 20% Bloomberg New Energy Finance by 2030 and nearly 70% by 2015. A lot depends on the speed technology lowers costs (particularly batteries), gas prices, and regulation. This is EV, not AV, but it seems you need EV for AV.

https://blogs-images.forbes.com/ener....jpg?width=960

Since I last checked in, Ford announced it was likely dropping IC sedans and increasing investments in SUVs, tucks, and trying to catch up in AV. AV is where the investment is heading.

[STK]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

There is absolutely an implied timeline by your assertion that the transition to EVs will closely coincide with the transition from vehicle ownership to ubiquitous autonomous public transportation. You said:



I merely point out that I don't think those two paradigm shifts will be as tightly coupled as you suggest. And I do not see current-day state of the art in this area, such as the test program you point out that GM plans next year with 2500 vehicles, to be at odds with my supposition.

It's your right to disagree my version of the future, of course, but you appear to be treading close to backpedaling here. Worse, it seems as though you are trying to buy yourself wiggle room on technical merits of the debate such as misquotation, which I see no evidence of.

There is no timeline in my post. Your "implicit timeline" is a misreading of what I wrote. A father and son walk hand in hand. While they travel the same distance one takes more steps and one grows more during the journey. The fact they are walking together doesn't tell you the number of steps and the speed they grow.

If you think I "appear to be treading close to backpedaling" or "buying myself wiggle room" why don't you just ask me? I'm doing neither.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by STK

There is no timeline in my post. Your "implicit timeline" is a misreading of what I wrote.

Not at all. I read it exactly as you wrote it. If a different message was intended then you could have perhaps rectified that by being more clear. If indeed you are now saying that you do not believe the move to EV and AV will be as intertwined as your initial post clearly states, then great. Just disregard the comments I make where I respond to and disagree with that sentiment. No big deal, right.

I’ve removed your second attempt to derail the thread into an off topic debate. Take care, and enjoy the forum.

[DuSh]

Not sure if it was mentioned already, but just recently a Fiat (or is it Chrysler now) CEO Sergio Marchione? said that autonomous vehicles era and electric vehicles era in general is not going to be here as fast as it is believed in mass media hype. He said it's exaggerated and even in 20 years not much is going to change, ICE is still going to be majority of vehicles on roads. Same with autonomous industry
He is a shady crook guy lol, but at least he knows numbers and real situation in auto industry and he for sure knows effort needed to really build infrastructure and EV industry. Tesla struggles with Model 3 for how many years now and it's still not rectified to be sold in mass quantities - a single model of a car. Now imagine what it will take for every brand to change their structure upside down and government fixing all laws and legal details needed for everything to work together - decades, many decades

[STK]

Originally Posted by DuSh

Not sure if it was mentioned already, but just recently a Fiat (or is it Chrysler now) CEO Sergio Marchione? said that autonomous vehicles era and electric vehicles era in general is not going to be here as fast as it is believed in mass media hype. He said it's exaggerated and even in 20 years not much is going to change, ICE is still going to be majority of vehicles on roads. Same with autonomous industry
He is a shady crook guy lol, but at least he knows numbers and real situation in auto industry and he for sure knows effort needed to really build infrastructure and EV industry. Tesla struggles with Model 3 for how many years now and it's still not rectified to be sold in mass quantities - a single model of a car. Now imagine what it will take for every brand to change their structure upside down and government fixing all laws and legal details needed for everything to work together - decades, many decades

The forecasts are all over the place.

Meanwhile,

https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.re.../idUSKBN1F30YZ[/

Ford plans $11 billion investment, 40 electrified vehicles by 2022.