This is so awesome. I really am looking forward to a world where this is the norm. Plus the HUGE effect it will have on literally every business. Heck, you think if a computer was programmed to run that Amtrak train in Philly, it would have been doing 100mph where it shouldn't have been?
https://www.youtube.com/v/uCezICQNgJU
Google....too much power.
I like driving, I don't want anyone driving for me.
Why not just cut off everyone's balls.
Within 10 years....I'll take that bet. How much?
100 years ago ....
Henry Ford ... Too much power
I like riding my horse, I don't want the motor cars on the road.
Why not cut off everyone's balls.
You self-driving car was approved for road use last week. You just lost.
I'll PM you next time I'm in southern CA and you can buy me lunch.
Horrible analogy....going from riding a horse to driving a car....you're still in control. No need to get your balls cut off and emasculated like this current nonsense. Do you own a Prius by chance?
So you don't trust trust a computer to drive the car.
Remember what I said about being in the corner at sunrise?
Not a matter if I trust it, I don't want it to do it for me. I prefer to do it myself. I like my balls and don't wish to have someone else or something else doing it for me. Has nothing to do with the trust of whether another entity can do it.I guess I don't understand what makes you a man by driving a car? If it's a waste of time, money and resources. I don't see how it's a good idea to feign masculinity when a rational person sees more productive options or more intelligent options. I guess you can say you enjoy driving but do you enjoy driving every day?
You continue to equate on people that they don't like technology or fear it, but you are dead wrong. I'm all for it, but that doesn't mean I want to use it. If you want to be driven around by an autonomous car, knock your socks off. I don't care to. Nor are they foolproof, as some want to make them out to be. Are they safer than people driving them? Probably. Are they safer planes than pilots...we'll see. Nothing is full proof, is it worth the expense? We'll see.
I'll take that 10 year bet in a heartbeat.
Not a matter if I trust it, I don't want it to do it for me. I prefer to do it myself. I like my balls and don't wish to have someone else or something else doing it for me. Has nothing to do with the trust of whether another entity can do it.
You continue to equate on people that they don't like technology or fear it, but you are dead wrong. I'm all for it, but that doesn't mean I want to use it. If you want to be driven around by an autonomous car, knock your socks off. I don't care to. Nor are they foolproof, as some want to make them out to be. Are they safer than people driving them? Probably. Are they safer planes than pilots...we'll see. Nothing is full proof, is it worth the expense? We'll see.
I'll take that 10 year bet in a heartbeat.
This sounds selfish and irresponsible. If we get to the point where driverless cars are safer, cheaper and more efficient, you are going to demand you get to risk others saftey, time and expense by allowing you drive yourself anyway. And this because, sitting in the back (if a driverless car even has a back) taking a nap, watching TV, talking, read or staring out the window is somehow an affront to your Masculinity?Laws will slowly be passed that will eradicate human driving*
Practical point. If/when driverless cars are safer, cheaper and more efficient the way they are getting humans off the road is expense. Auto companies will start making less driver cars and they will be more expensive. Insurance rates for drivers will skyrocket making it unaffordable.
Doesn't matter what you think, no one will be able to afford it.
This sounds selfish and irresponsible. If we get to the point where driverless cars are safer, cheaper and more efficient, you are going to demand you get to risk others saftey, time and expense by allowing you drive yourself anyway. And this because, sitting in the back (if a driverless car even has a back) taking a nap, watching TV, talking, read or staring out the window is somehow an affront to your Masculinity?
Practical point. If/when driverless cars are safer, cheaper and more efficient the way they are getting humans off the road is expense. Auto companies will start making less driver cars and they will be more expensive. Insurance rates for drivers will skyrocket making it unaffordable.
Doesn't matter what you think, no one will be able to afford it.
Uhm, it says commonplace by 2025 and near monopoly by 2030. I owe you nothing, but I'm glad to take the bet so that in 2025 we can see just how many cars are autonomous, let alone 5 years later being near a monopoly.
Speaking of Nav stuff, I wrote a detailed complaint to Garmin from when we were in Lake Tahoe a few months ago. How horrid their navigation options were from Tahoe to L.A. vs what my iPhone was saying. We did a little test.
To Garmin's credit, they wrote back admitting a big glitch in their software maps up there. Their chosen route would have made the difference in the driving by 1 hour and 53 minutes and more than 85 miles added in length. That is some seriously wrong screw up for a GPS system in 2015.
Damn how old are you? You still have a gps that isn't just your phone? You realize the $50-300 device is way worse then a phone connected to google maps right?
Google....too much power.
I like driving, I don't want anyone driving for me.
Why not just cut off everyone's balls.
I'm not saying that this is Chicos' issue, but when I got my last car (sans nav since, as Hilltopper mentioned, it was part of a $3000 package), I also went out and bought a $75 Garmin. There are areas where I drive where there is no cellular service. If relying on my telephone, I'd be screwed. I don't have the same problem with the Garmin.
Your mobile phone has GPS and connects the same way the Garmin. It doesn't connect via the cell network. On my phone, AT&T gives me a target/dot next to the Bars indicating connection to the GPS.
I actually agree with Chicos on this one. I will be one of the last holdouts for driving myself. I will go absolutely insane if I am sitting in a car going the exact same speed as all of the other cars. The idea of a journey being the same as an amusement park ride where all of the cars stay the exact same distance apart is nauseating. I enjoy the occasional random detour down the road less traveled. The one with curves and hills. Or scenic vistas. Getting in a car, punching in a destination, and then just sitting back and napping or surfing the net has absolutely no appeal. I accept that it may happen in my lifetime, but I cannot imagine celebrating it.
Chicos will win this bet by a decade or more, easy.
Look at hybrid cars as an example of automotive change. The first was released in 1999. While the Prius is a huge success, you know what percentage of the market electric/hybrid vehicles are 15 years later? A whopping 2.7% .. and its floated up and down from 2.5 to 3.2% over the past 8 years .. indicating it's not anywhere near doubling any time soon.
Or nav systems in cars. Every car should have this $100 piece of tech, but since car manufacturers bundle it into a $2-3-4k package .. only a fraction of new cars have them, with most folks opting to use their smart phone.
The same will happen to self-driving cars. The tech will be pretty good in a decade, but mainstream manufacturers will treat it as an expensive optional feature. Sure, GoogleCar and Tesla will bake auto-drive into their base model cars .. but it'll be way more than 10-15 years before the Big 3 will do that, instead sucking as much profit out of it as possible.
let me blunt
So costs will force the change-over?
What about the motorcycle industry? Will they be forced off the road too?
We can only hope so.
+1
Motorcycle = organ donor creators
so why would you like to see less organ donors? better cut your drinking you might need that liver longer than you think
We can only hope so.
Methinks a biker's liver is not something I'd want donated, especially if it was working overtime at the time of the accident.
Works for me. Just make sure I can still ride up front, or they'll have to invent a better magic pill for carsickness.
Maybe I can order the Amazon Car and it'll drive itself to my driveway. Or maybe if Amazon never gets their fleet of drones approved they'll do Prime Drive and send out little cars that back into your driveway and dump your package off.
Speaking of Nav stuff, I wrote a detailed complaint to Garmin from when we were in Lake Tahoe a few months ago. How horrid their navigation options were from Tahoe to L.A. vs what my iPhone was saying. We did a little test.
To Garmin's credit, they wrote back admitting a big glitch in their software maps up there. Their chosen route would have made the difference in the driving by 1 hour and 53 minutes and more than 85 miles added in length. That is some seriously wrong screw up for a GPS system in 2015.
Thoughts on whether this impacts the airline industry? If I can jump in a car, sleep soundly for 10 hours, and not have a vehicle on the other end, it's going to affect my decision on whether I deal with all the airport, rental car, etc.
That would be nice. Far too often my flight gets cancelled or delayed and I do the math to figure out that driving probably would have been nearly a wash in total time. Just last week, about 12 hours of flying (or three flying, nine sitting on runways or in airports) instead of about a nine hour drive. But as is I'd still rather pass out in the airport lounge during the delays than be behind the wheel that long and put up with DC traffic.
Why would driverless cars eliminate the need for parking?
I actually agree with Chicos on this one. I will be one of the last holdouts for driving myself. I will go absolutely insane if I am sitting in a car going the exact same speed as all of the other cars. The idea of a journey being the same as an amusement park ride where all of the cars stay the exact same distance apart is nauseating. I enjoy the occasional random detour down the road less traveled. The one with curves and hills. Or scenic vistas. Getting in a car, punching in a destination, and then just sitting back and napping or surfing the net has absolutely no appeal. I accept that it may happen in my lifetime, but I cannot imagine celebrating it.
[/i]
-------------
So the future is millions of autonomous "taxis" They come in all shape and sizes. Basic transportation, luxury for a special night out. Vans (buses) for large groups, pick-up and vans for other specialized uses. As the passage above says, press a button on your phone and one shows up at your front door 30 seconds later (because they are a dozen empty ones driving around within a few blocks of your home).
-----------
Driverless cars are going to change society more than the invention of the PC. The epic change is to come and it coming (almost literally) tomorrow with the driverless car.
Obviously, you're hugely in favor of this. Personally, I like the idea of having my own personal car (even if it eventually is auto-driven), and unless Uber or some other service were literally charging pennies per mile, it currently wouldn't make sense for me to have to wait on a vehicle.
Further, I'm curious how your 30-second figure equates for people who live in rural areas. I'll give you an example: this weekend, I was about 45 minutes west of Lincoln, Nebraska, visiting family on a farm. The closest town is about 5 minutes drive away, and has 497 people in it. How do the people who live in this area get a car to them in 30-seconds or less when they don't even have pizza delivery, public transport, or a school within a 20 minute drive?
I think we'll eventually have all automated vehicles, but I think 10-years is a bit ambitious, and I think you're a bit overzealous in your defense of and advocacy for the technology. Just because people are skeptical does not mean you can demean their intelligence.
How will driver-less cars work during storms? Will there be 4WDriverless vehicles in the snowbelt? Will driver-less cars be smart enough not to drive into high water in Houston this week?
Will there be pools of commuter driverless cars vs. pools of interstate/longhaul driverless vacation cars you would book differently? book a car to take the family to Disney World, does the car wait in the hotel parking lot until your week is up.
What about visiting other countries that still (God forbid) have only driver-cars, young people would soon never have learned to drive and couldn't rent a car in a foreign country.
Sorry but I cannot see everything being worked out very quickly.
Who is going to clean the driverless car when some drunk pukes in it? And when the driverless car with the fresh puke in it comes to pick me up, how long will it take to get me another driverless car? Will I get a discount?
I'd have to imagine that unsupervised people in driverless cars would treat them like crap and there would be a lot of vandalism. Of course, the answer to that would be 24/7 surveillance cameras in millions of driverless cars. Who will monitor that? Where will it be stored? Etc. These are honest questions; I haven't heard/read too much about the driverless car "model" where everyone would be using "cars for hire." Is the thinking that for-profit companies similar to taxi companies will spring up with fleets of cars that they will deploy and maintain?
Obviously, none of these issues are insurmountable, but I think that even if widespread adoption of driverless cars become a reality (I should probably say, "when" it becomes a reality), lots of people will still prefer to own their own cars rather than rely solely on community cars.
How will driver-less cars work during storms? Will there be 4WDriverless vehicles in the snowbelt? Will driver-less cars be smart enough not to drive into high water in Houston this week?
Will there be pools of commuter driverless cars vs. pools of interstate/longhaul driverless vacation cars you would book differently? book a car to take the family to Disney World, does the car wait in the hotel parking lot until your week is up.
What about visiting other countries that still (God forbid) have only driver-cars, young people would soon never have learned to drive and couldn't rent a car in a foreign country.
Sorry but I cannot see everything being worked out very quickly.
Obviously, none of these issues are insurmountable, but I think that even if widespread adoption of driverless cars become a reality (I should probably say, "when" it becomes a reality), lots of people will still prefer to own their own cars rather than rely solely on community cars.
Agree. They'll never sway people away from giving up the option to have their own car. You can store things in it, hook up your Xbox and play since you'll be driven around anyway, even have your own fridge, only worry about your own bodily fluids being in it, etc. In major cities where it's already impractical for most to have a car, it'll be even less practical, more rural areas you'll not have to rely on your own car for everything.
The technology has already been worked out. Google alone has 10,000 hours of driver-less car testing in all kinds of scenarios.
And yes their will be dozens of versions. It will not just be millions of Google eggs buzzing around. They will be large, small, luxury, basic, vans, trucks, buses and so on. You can request what you need.
This brings up another cost savings. Request what you need. Going to the story to buy furniture? Have a pick-up or van take you there. Want to impress a date, luxury car. Get together with many friends, a party bus or van. This is far better than now, one car that is forced to meet all these needs.
No self driving car has been tested in bad weather. All 10,000 of those hours have been logged on sunny California days. I don't think winter weather is insurmountable for the tech, but we're not there yet, and it isn't even close to being "all worked out." A self driving car can't drive on roads where all of the lines, and half the signs, are covered in snow.this didn't sound right but its absolutely true... just read about it this morning.
this didn't sound right but its absolutely true... just read about it this morning.
http://y105fm.com/car-safety-demonstration-ends-with-incredibly-ironic-crash/
This was funny
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/driverless-cars-hit-the-road-almost-hit-each-other/
I like what this offers!
There can be driverless RVs: I can sleep in my bed to work, brush my teeth, shower and change and STILL get to work on time!
Who needs a house with a lawn to maintain or with exorbitant rent? Driverless mobile homes will fill the housing gap!
http://www.ted.com/talks/chris_urmson_how_a_driverless_car_sees_the_road
I get what your trying to say ... But in a world of driverless cars all connected to each other and no parking, going from Mequon to Mitchell airport on a Friday at 5pm in the rain will take 15 minutes.
You will no longer have a commute that will take much time.
I like the first line of this story ....
Statistically, the least reliable part of the car is ... the driver.
Once you understand how true this is you'll then understand why it is so important to eliminate the concept of a driver.
By the time this happens, most of us here will be drooling on a pillow if we are still kicking
10 years
----------------
Bill Gates says the pace of innovation is as fast as ever
Philantropist says technology is starting to outstrip what was imaginable in his youth
Feb 26, 2015 4:33 AM ET
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bill-gates-says-the-pace-of-innovation-is-as-fast-as-ever-1.2972866
Microsoft founder and billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates says the pace of technological innovation is as fast as ever and shows no signs of slowing down.
"We're finally at the point where, in a few areas, it's starting to outstrip what was even imaginable in my youth," Gates told CBC’s chief correspondent Peter Mansbridge in a sit-down interview Wednesday.
Gates predicts a future where people will work seamlessly between devices through cloud-based computing: "Its impact on how we bank, how we communicate, how we entertain ourselves — we are just at the beginning of that," he said in the interview, which airs Saturday on Mansbridge One on One.
Computing will continue to expand to different devices and will use more natural interfaces, Gates said. “Speech is getting really very good, handwriting recognition is very good,” he said. "It will be this personal agent that's very, very powerful."
Improving global health
Gates was in Ottawa on Wednesday for a series of meetings to discuss his foundation’s efforts to improve health in the developing world.
Gates launched the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in the year 2000, and he has laid out an ambitious plan for the organization’s next 15 years.
“There's six million kids a year that are still dying. It was 12 million back in 1990 so we've cut it in half,” he said. “Our goal over the next 15 years is to get it down to three million."
Bill Gates, Stephen Harper look to next steps for maternal health
$500M immunization fund pledged by Canada for developing nations
While in Ottawa, Gates met with Prime Minister Stephen Harper to discuss Canada’s efforts to improve maternal, newborn and child health around the world. Harper and Gates discussed these issues in a roundtable with international aid organizations.
Gates also met with Gov. Gen. David Johnston, NDP Leader Tom Mulcair and Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau at separate events in Ottawa.
Mansbridge One on One airs on CBC News Network Saturdays at 6:30 p.m. ET and on CBC-TV Sundays at 1 p.m.
Report Typo Send Feedback
Not a chance in the way you described it earlier. They were off on solar panel predictions by millions, off by electric vehicles by millions, etc, etc. Not a chance. You were describing mass adoption....cost alone will prevent mass adoption beyond 10 years. People have their cars they just bought and those they will buy over the next decade, they aren't going away that quickly.
You have it backwards, driverless will cars will be far cheaper, not more expensive. Human driver cars will see insurance skyrocket as human drivers are a menace and get in the way. It will be unaffordable to most to insure (especially since most states mandate insurance).
Within two years all new cars will have driver assist functions (cruise control on steroids). The car will drive itself on the highway. That is just the beginning.
I hear taxi business is gone. DVDs aren't sold anymore. For the record, I took a taxi home last night from the airport. As I got into the taxi, one of the taxi drivers behind me unloaded on what seemed to be an UBER driver that isn't supposed to legally be there. THought they were going to come to blows. Cop intervened.
Point is, you tend to be off on your predictions on the timing by a lot. I fundamentally AGREE with you on what is EVENTUALLY going to happen, but your timing is just way way way off.
Say your 2 year prediction happens. First off, ALL new cars will not have this feature. SOME new cars will. You can also bet your bottom dollar that gen 1 of anything is buggy, not terrific. Cars on the road today will be on the road today for the next 15 years to purge them out. The legal issues on these things is still MASSIVE and unsolved. Read a few articles on liability and who has that liability. The car companies are trying like the dickens to figure that out, and guess what....that is going to add cost.
Remember how cheap electric cars were going to be by now? Ahem.....
Again, many years down the road, I'm on board with your view, but your time horizons are way off.
Five years ago Uber did not exist. Today it is worth more than every taxi company in the U.S. COMBINED. in fact some think all the taxi companies are worth nothing combined.
Most people that study these things call it one of the fastest and most profound changes in an established industry in business history.
Why do you think your taxi driver almost came to blows with an Uber driver? Because the value of his taxi License is now nothing. That license was supposed to be his retirement, that license supposed to be his investment . it's now worth zero thanks to Uber.
So you paid someone $30 to $40 dollars to drive you home, that is all he has now thanks to Uber.
You have it backwards, driverless will cars will be far cheaper, not more expensive. Human driver cars will see insurance skyrocket as human drivers are a menace and get in the way. It will be unaffordable to most to insure (especially since most states mandate insurance).
Within two years all new cars will have driver assist functions (cruise control on steroids). The car will drive itself on the highway. That is just the beginning.
Why would insurance rates go up if there are some driverless cars? We have none now - all hands-on drivers, so you think there will be more accidents by driven cars when there are driverless cars on the road as well? What's your reason for expecting sky high liability then?
Not a chance in the way you described it earlier. They were off on solar panel predictions by millions, off by electric vehicles by millions, etc, etc. Not a chance. You were describing mass adoption....cost alone will prevent mass adoption beyond 10 years. People have their cars they just bought and those they will buy over the next decade, they aren't going away that quickly.
Agree with CBB here. Everything will change, but over a much longer arc.
You have it backwards, driverless will cars will be far cheaper, not more expensive. Human driver cars will see insurance skyrocket as human drivers are a menace and get in the way. It will be unaffordable to most to insure (especially since most states mandate insurance).I am all for driverless cars, driver assisted cars, etc. Humans are not very good at driving and need some help. It shouldn't be the most dangerous activity most of us partake in. For the next 5 to 7 years, we will more of less have to settle for Driver LESS cars (as in the human driver will do less, but still a long way from a driverless car that is completely automated). More of the autopilot car is what we'll get in the next 5 to 7 years. I'm looking forward to see what Tesla does in this area since they are out in front, especially with the Gen III vehicle.
Within two years all new cars will have driver assist functions (cruise control on steroids). The car will drive itself on the highway. That is just the beginning.
For those of us that are reliable, never had an accident, passed the NASCAR road school test....don't need it!
Agree with CBB here. Everything will change, but over a much longer arc.
Driverless cars being possibly "cheaper" is a thin proposition. The "driverless" tech will be priced at a premium for years, just like GPS was (and still is.) Leaders like Audi, BMW, Lexus, etc, they're gonna sell you your A4 or 5-series for $40-50k and tack on $10k for the driverless option. That'll be how it starts. After 5+ years, the tech will trickle down to the economy cars, but it'll still be an option that increases the price.
And that's just for people who want to buy new cars. The average age of the US auto fleet is 11.2 years. Figuring rocket-like adoption rates, like 5% of new cars are driverless, then 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 75, 100% .. just did the math with those rates.. it takes 18 years to replace half the 253m US fleet. And frankly, my suggested adoption rates are preposterous. They won't be a third that in the beginning years, making getting to 50, 75, 100 .. way way further out.
None of that factors in the inevitable car accident that kills a family of 6 and a bus full of nuns that give rise to the Luddite party making society rethink the whole robot driver thing.
For those of us that are reliable, never had an accident, passed the NASCAR road school test....don't need it!
This is not how it is going to work. New entrants are going to come in an bankrupt the existing car manufactures. This is how new technology works. See the story below. Google and/or Uber (or Apple) will make the cars and bankrupt the legacy (read slow, beueaucratic and uncreative) auto manufactures.
And you will not buy a driverless car. You will push a button on your phone to hirer one. They are trying to make owning a car a thing of the past.
This is not how it is going to work. New entrants are going to come in an bankrupt the existing car manufactures. This is how new technology works. See the story below. Google and/or Uber (or Apple) will make the cars and bankrupt the legacy (read slow, beueaucratic and uncreative) auto manufactures.
And you will not buy a driverless car. You will push a button on your phone to hirer one. They are trying to make owning a car a thing of the past.
-----------------------
And that's a fine theory, and may be what happens. Except the math I just went through is the same.Well said. Some traditional car manufacturers may go under, but this is not RIM versus Apple/Google. The current traditional car companies are on board, as are dozens of other competing tech players/developers who will license the tech. Ford has already said they see a day when they sell fewer cars (at least on a percentage of population basis, due to tech and car share, etc).
You still have 253m cars on the road, with 100m owners, and (guess) 500m "trips" per day that need to happen. They aren't going to just abandon their automobile investment at a junk yard and start using Uber, driverless or not.
Ford, GM, Audi, BMW .. they aren't going out of business. They all have driverless research programs. Not to mention, they have tons of devoted customers.
You can make a better mousetrap all you want, some people are still gonna buy those wire spring thingies.
This is not how it is going to work. New entrants are going to come in an bankrupt the existing car manufactures. This is how new technology works. See the story below. Google and/or Uber (or Apple) will make the cars and bankrupt the legacy (read slow, beueaucratic and uncreative) auto manufactures.
And you will not buy a driverless car. You will push a button on your phone to hirer one. They are trying to make owning a car a thing of the past.
-----------------------
Bill Gates thinks Uber has the best shot at self-driving cars
by Jonathan Chew
June 25, 2015, 11:28 AM EDT
https://fortune.com/2015/06/25/bill-gates-self-driving-cars/
Driverless cars have become a moonshot project for tech companies around the world, and Microsoft’s MSFT -1.55% Co-founder and world-leading philanthropist Bill Gates believes there’s one company that will rule the space.
In a conversation with Financial Times Editor Lionel Barber at an event in London Wednesday, Gates shared his thoughts on issues ranging from the global economy to robots to Silicon Valley. Gates said a real tipping point for change in driving will come from self-driving cars, calling it “the real rubicon.” And Uber is primed to take the lead, he added.
FT Alphaville writer Izabella Kaminska live-tweeted Gates’ thoughts:
If Gates is correct, it will validate recent moves by Uber to invest in self-driving technology. Earlier this year, Uber announced a partnership with Carnegie Mellon University to create the Uber Advanced Technologies Center in Pittsburgh “to do research and development, primarily in the areas of mapping and vehicle safety and autonomy technology.”
CEO Travis Kalanick has made it no secret that his company sees a future where we drive without our hands on a steering wheel. “The reason Uber could be expensive is because you’re not just paying for the car, you’re paying for the other dude in the car,” Kalanick said in a conference last year. “So the magic there is you basically bring the cost below the cost of ownership for everybody, and then car ownership goes away.”
The move has set Uber up for a battle with Google GOOG -1.54% . Last year, at the Code Conference, the tech giant made public a two-seater, self-driving car after years of research. Both companies, however, will have to battle the public’s perception on giving up control of a car. A survey conducted by NerdWallet found that only 37% of women and around half of men expressed any interest in owning a self-driving vehicle.
True, if you were the only one on the road.
But by your reasoning, you don't need other safety enhancements that have come about such as seat belts, air bags, traction control, crumple zones, etc. And we can't all drive Trucks and large SUV's to make us safer, of course, or it negates each other.
If I were in charge, the mandatory use of some of the autopilot tech would start with semi-trucks (collision avoidance and lane departure, would go a long way since we apparently have given up on actually enforcing rules).
You have it backwards, driverless will cars will be far cheaper, not more expensive. Human driver cars will see insurance skyrocket as human drivers are a menace and get in the way. It will be unaffordable to most to insure (especially since most states mandate insurance).
Within two years all new cars will have driver assist functions (cruise control on steroids). The car will drive itself on the highway. That is just the beginning.
Here is the timeline ....
5 years tens of thousands of driverless cars are on the road.
7 years approaching a million driverless cars.
At this point we have years and hundreds of million of miles of real data. The car shows it is more efficient, cheaper and far more safer. Dense Urban areas like central London, downtown Manhattan , San Fran and the loop river north area of Chicago see a movement to ban drivers. They are seen as slow inefficient, expensive and dangerous.
Once this happens, the driver car takes on a different view. It is a giant waste of money. Other than the collector cars, the 3,000 pound hunk of metal in your garage is viewed as ultimately having a value of zero. New car sales plummet because no one wants to buy a car that is going to have no value in a few years. Human drivers are started to be looked upon like smokers.
So yes in 10 years their will still be hundreds of millions of driver cars on the road. But like the Taxi company today, they will be seen as a dead industry with no long-term value and we are all demanding the new technology.
Maybe I should explain myself regarding taxis ... the game is over, car-sharing companies like Uber have won. Sure traditional taxis will be around many more years (like horse drawn wagons existed on city streets until the 1940s) but we are watching the final convulsions of an industry that is about to expire. We are not going back the other way to traditional taxis. CA ruling they are employees is going to accelerate this process. Uber is moving as fast as humanly possible to fire every driver and get driverless on the road. CA ruling is going to make this happen faster.
Regarding the major auto makers. They all go bankrupt every generation or so now. GM and Chrysler being the last. The rest are owned by the government and are bloated an inefficient. The Telsa electric car and non-dealer selling model is case in point that they "don't really get it" and are structured to sell something that will no longer be demanded.
Feels like you have changed your tune with this post.
You realize that Tesla isn't even profitable with their cars...yes? Not until AT LEAST 2020
http://www.wsj.com/articles/tesla-china-sales-declined-significantly-ceo-says-1421186754
GM makes 2.2 million cars, market value $53 billion
Telsa makes 45,000 cars, market value $33 billion
That's nice. I was talking about profitability. Market values are great, they are also based on irrational exuberance as well.
What'sApp was valued at $19billion. AirBnb at $10billion. Stocks like Netflix, Tesla, Solar City, etc, are trading on dreams, on promises, not on reality. Now, maybe they get there and some of them will, but they are based on potential. Stocks can be valued many different ways, and they are not uniformly valued from one company to the next.
A reminder, market valuations were absurd in 1929 and in the mid 2000's.
But...but...but... This technology will be used by EVERYONE in their self driving cars in 5-years and anyone who thinks differently is a dolt... Right, Heisenberg...?
http://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-remotely-kill-jeep-highway/NOT GONNA HAPPEN ANY TIME SOON
Also note that hackers need to have physical access to the car and its computer system to hack it. They cannot randomly pick a car driving down the street and hack into it yet.
I actually agree with Chicos on this one. I will be one of the last holdouts for driving myself. I will go absolutely insane if I am sitting in a car going the exact same speed as all of the other cars. The idea of a journey being the same as an amusement park ride where all of the cars stay the exact same distance apart is nauseating. I enjoy the occasional random detour down the road less traveled. The one with curves and hills. Or scenic vistas. Getting in a car, punching in a destination, and then just sitting back and napping or surfing the net has absolutely no appeal. I accept that it may happen in my lifetime, but I cannot imagine celebrating it.I think the idea is that, once cars are autonomous, they will also be designed less like a cockpit and more like a living room. You wouldn't need windows; you could sleep, read, nap.... sign me up for that any day of the week.
I think the idea is that, once cars are autonomous, they will also be designed less like a cockpit and more like a living room. You wouldn't need windows; you could sleep, read, nap.... sign me up for that any day of the week.
I think the idea is that, once cars are autonomous, they will also be designed less like a cockpit and more like a living room. You wouldn't need windows; you could sleep, read, nap.... sign me up for that any day of the week.
What's with you youngsters always wanting to nap and sleep. Maybe it's me, but I find when I'm on a train I get bored, same as on a plane. Become tired, and lethargic. Able to do some work, but only to a point. When I'm off the train or plane, I'm not exactly refreshed. I enjoy driving, it keeps my mind focused, alert.
I want my hands on the wheel, foot on the gas, wind in my hair, going where I want to go at my pace. Live life a bit. I get the advantages, and when this is all ready 20+ years from now and I'm long since retired, that will be fine.
What's with you youngsters always wanting to nap and sleep. Maybe it's me, but I find when I'm on a train I get bored, same as on a plane. Become tired, and lethargic. Able to do some work, but only to a point. When I'm off the train or plane, I'm not exactly refreshed. I enjoy driving, it keeps my mind focused, alert.
I want my hands on the wheel, foot on the gas, wind in my hair, going where I want to go at my pace. Live life a bit. I get the advantages, and when this is all ready 20+ years from now and I'm long since retired, that will be fine.
Agreed. I just got a new VW GTI with a 6-speed manual transmission. I don't want to nap when I'm in it.
You get lethargic on a plane because it pressurized to 8000 feet.
So wind do you have in hair when sitting at a standstill on the 405?
You do realize that many think this is the description of an efficient killing machine. And the ranks that think this will grow.
In a few years saying this will be as socially acceptable as saying you want to smoke in public.
I get lethargic on a train at ground level. I want my mind stimulated.
I avoid the 405 like the plague, rarely if ever on it. Point is, on the weekends, at night, early in the morning, I do want that wind in my hair.
Those people have a problem then.....those are the same people that think guns kill people or exhaling CO2 is pollution.
You do realize that many think this is the description of an efficient killing machine. And the ranks that think this will grow.
In a few years saying this will be as socially acceptable as saying you want to smoke in public.
And a simple software glitch or smart hacker could turn driverless cars into even more efficient killing machines.
Isn't technology great?
Our airplanes and trains essentially run on computers already. Why go after low-hanging fruit when there's a juicy hacker target 30,000 feet in the air.
How many people drive in a given day?
How many people fly in a given day?
So a hacker takes control of your car, you hit the emergency engine cut-off switch (or something along those lines), and the car comes to a stop. What happens then?
Hack into an airplane, and it doesn't have the luxury of such a fail-safe. Yet no one seems to have done it yet (don't post a link to the guy who supposedly went through the plane's entertainment system... that's complete BS).
Do you honestly think that the designers here haven't already thought about this?
You will always be able to recreationally drive, until the end of time. Just like you can recreationally ride a horse until the end of time.
But having human killing machines in charge of basic transportation is what is going to change.
And a simple software glitch or smart hacker could turn driverless cars into even more efficient killing machines.
Isn't technology great?
How many humans killed someone on the road in the time you took to write this fantasy?
So yes in 10 years things will be dramatically different.
You seem to be softening on your time frame. I'd call it becoming more realistic. It will be noticeable in 10 years, but it will still be a long way from eliminating or even getting to 25% of cars on the road being self driving.
I for one can' wait and completely believe this is needed to make the roads safer. Most dangerous thing most of us do in life is get in a car.
If you want to make the bet for 10 years, I'm still in. Hello?
Yes,
Here is my timeline. What are you taking the otherside of?
Here is my timeline (from page 4) ....
5 years tens of thousands of driverless cars are on the road.
7 years approaching a million driverless cars.
At this point we have years and hundreds of million of miles of real data. The car shows it is more efficient, cheaper and far more safer. Dense Urban areas like central London, downtown Manhattan , San Fran and the loop river north area of Chicago see a movement to ban drivers. They are seen as slow inefficient, expensive and dangerous.
Once this happens, the driver car takes on a different view. It is a giant waste of money. Other than the collector cars, the 3,000 pound hunk of metal in your garage is viewed as ultimately having a value of zero. New car sales plummet because no one wants to buy a car that is going to have no value in a few years. Human drivers are started to be looked upon like smokers.
So yes in 10 years their will still be hundreds of millions of driver cars on the road. But like the Taxi company today, they will be seen as a dead industry with no long-term value and we are all demanding the new technology.
Maybe I should explain myself regarding taxis ... the game is over, car-sharing companies like Uber have won. Sure traditional taxis will be around many more years (like horse drawn wagons existed on city streets until the 1940s) but we are watching the final convulsions of an industry that is about to expire. We are not going back the other way to traditional taxis. CA ruling they are employees is going to accelerate this process. Uber is moving as fast as humanly possible to fire every driver and get driverless on the road. CA ruling is going to make this happen faster.
Regarding the major auto makers. They all go bankrupt every generation or so now. GM and Chrysler being the last. The rest are owned by the government and are bloated an inefficient. The Telsa electric car and non-dealer selling model is case in point that they "don't really get it" and are structured to sell something that will no longer be demanded.
I get lethargic on a train at ground level. I want my mind stimulated.
I avoid the 405 like the plague, rarely if ever on it. Point is, on the weekends, at night, early in the morning, I do want that wind in my hair.
Yes,
Here is my timeline. What are you taking the otherside of?
Here is my timeline (from page 4) ....
5 years tens of thousands of driverless cars are on the road.
7 years approaching a million driverless cars.
At this point we have years and hundreds of million of miles of real data. The car shows it is more efficient, cheaper and far more safer. Dense Urban areas like central London, downtown Manhattan , San Fran and the loop river north area of Chicago see a movement to ban drivers. They are seen as slow inefficient, expensive and dangerous.
Once this happens, the driver car takes on a different view. It is a giant waste of money. Other than the collector cars, the 3,000 pound hunk of metal in your garage is viewed as ultimately having a value of zero. New car sales plummet because no one wants to buy a car that is going to have no value in a few years. Human drivers are started to be looked upon like smokers.
So yes in 10 years their will still be hundreds of millions of driver cars on the road. But like the Taxi company today, they will be seen as a dead industry with no long-term value and we are all demanding the new technology.
Maybe I should explain myself regarding taxis ... the game is over, car-sharing companies like Uber have won. Sure traditional taxis will be around many more years (like horse drawn wagons existed on city streets until the 1940s) but we are watching the final convulsions of an industry that is about to expire. We are not going back the other way to traditional taxis. CA ruling they are employees is going to accelerate this process. Uber is moving as fast as humanly possible to fire every driver and get driverless on the road. CA ruling is going to make this happen faster.
Regarding the major auto makers. They all go bankrupt every generation or so now. GM and Chrysler being the last. The rest are owned by the government and are bloated an inefficient. The Telsa electric car and non-dealer selling model is case in point that they "don't really get it" and are structured to sell something that will no longer be demanded.
Yes,
Here is my timeline. What are you taking the otherside of?
Here is my timeline (from page 4) ....
5 years tens of thousands of driverless cars are on the road.
7 years approaching a million driverless cars.
At this point we have years and hundreds of million of miles of real data. The car shows it is more efficient, cheaper and far more safer. Dense Urban areas like central London, downtown Manhattan , San Fran and the loop river north area of Chicago see a movement to ban drivers. They are seen as slow inefficient, expensive and dangerous.
Once this happens, the driver car takes on a different view. It is a giant waste of money. Other than the collector cars, the 3,000 pound hunk of metal in your garage is viewed as ultimately having a value of zero. New car sales plummet because no one wants to buy a car that is going to have no value in a few years. Human drivers are started to be looked upon like smokers.
So yes in 10 years their will still be hundreds of millions of driver cars on the road. But like the Taxi company today, they will be seen as a dead industry with no long-term value and we are all demanding the new technology.
Maybe I should explain myself regarding taxis ... the game is over, car-sharing companies like Uber have won. Sure traditional taxis will be around many more years (like horse drawn wagons existed on city streets until the 1940s) but we are watching the final convulsions of an industry that is about to expire. We are not going back the other way to traditional taxis. CA ruling they are employees is going to accelerate this process. Uber is moving as fast as humanly possible to fire every driver and get driverless on the road. CA ruling is going to make this happen faster.
Regarding the major auto makers. They all go bankrupt every generation or so now. GM and Chrysler being the last. The rest are owned by the government and are bloated an inefficient. The Telsa electric car and non-dealer selling model is case in point that they "don't really get it" and are structured to sell something that will no longer be demanded.
Thanks, I had not seen this
(http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/5564bcf16da8112458ee93ba-960/sdc%20installed%20base.png)
Thanks, I had not seen this
(http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/5564bcf16da8112458ee93ba-960/sdc%20installed%20base.png)
Yes,
Here is my timeline. What are you taking the otherside of?
Here is my timeline (from page 4) ....
5 years tens of thousands of driverless cars are on the road.
7 years approaching a million driverless cars.
Hmm .. don't think these predictions are coming up roses.
https://thenextweb.com/news/why-truly-driverless-cars-may-never-happen
Hmm .. don't think these predictions are coming up roses.
https://thenextweb.com/news/why-truly-driverless-cars-may-never-happen