[ExI] self driving cars

[Kelly Anderson]

On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 10:10 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>>... On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty
>>...Subject: Re: [ExI] self driving cars
>
>>...I think spike was suggesting the speeds go down for engineering reasons
> (mostly fuel economy)...
>
> Ja, but there is more to it than that.  Speed limits may not go up if we mix
> human drivers with software drivers.  Human reflexes will not improve.

But if there are few enough human drivers, maybe you can have one
speed limit for them, and another for autonomous vehicles. Special
lanes where autonomous vehicles go faster. There should and will be a
lot of incentives to switch. The primary determinant of how fast the
changeover occurs is how easy it will be to retrofit existing cars.
Otherwise, it will take ten years or more to get the bad cars out of
the system in meaningful numbers.

>>...The timeshare notion also means we need fewer cars...
>
> We can keep our current Detroits, even if we have the call-up car on demand.
> I can imagine wanting to keep Mister Lincoln, even if he doesn't go out
> often.  I love that car.  I love the venerable V8.  I will miss them when
> they are gone.

But the youth of tomorrow won't, and that will be a good thing. When I
was 16, I lost 5 friends in a car accident. It wasn't pretty.

>>...Another important side effect of on-demand cars showing up when required
> is that we de-invest our identity from them.  I'm not going to leave 'my
> stuff' in the car ... for it is no longer a status object to be owned or
> compared to others'...
>
> Again, we can keep our stuff in our cars, in our garage, and still use the
> robo-taxis for most travel.
>
>>...During the transition, human drivers will absolutely be more aggressive.
> Perhaps more accurately less careful because the rest of the traffic would
> constantly compensate for their failure...
>
> Perhaps, but the human drivers must deal with the possibility of other human
> drivers, who will not compensate, and who will get pissed off and reach for
> their shootin arn if you cut them offwardly.
>
>>...  We already see this in high-price Cadillacs and Lincolns: the car
> watches you for signs of falling asleep or backing over your children or
> other forms of neglectful driving...
>
> We have proximity warning systems, which would be easy to connect into an
> auto-braking system.  This is one I am surprised is not already available in
> the market.

It actually is in some Mercedes models now.

> I saw the technology demonstrated several years ago: guy drives
> directly at a wall, car knows exactly how hard it can stop, driver never
> takes his foot off the gas, the car stops 30 cm in front of the wall.  Seems
> like those kinds of systems would prevent ugly pileups on a foggy or smoky
> freeway.

2010 E class cars PRE-SAFE brake. Not a total solution, but pretty good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOH86WYyQCg

>>...  At the point where cars are driving themselves, the option of taking
> control will likely become a per-use upcharge in insurance, traffic
> prioritization, and risk assessment...
>
> I see where you can get a GPS box installed in your Detroit and get charged
> insurance on a per mile basis.  I might switch to that company for my
> motorcycle insurance, since I have four of them and can only ride one at a
> time.
>
>
>>...  Oh I believe most of the readers of this list are the exceptional
> minority who will escape that fate - but what of the 'average' prole?
>
> Hey I resemble that, I am an average prole.  On a good day.

Right.

-Kelly