Robocars, just like any car on California roads

[Frank Lee]

I hope it doesn't lead to (enable) commutes even more ridiculously long than they are now. But it would. Like with traffic congestion, people have decided they will tolerate or even embrace a certain level of inconvenience and any action that relieves the inconvenience gets countered by adding more irritant.

P.S. Scenario: Oh look Honey, a beautiful million dollar mountain home. And over there, a high-salary urban job, only six hours commute away. No problem; get the expensive house with the huge salary and the transportation/sleep/eat/poop/infotainment capsule will effortlessly and without any cost shuttle you there and back overnight five days per week.

[P-hack]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

I doubt there is an incentive for the human drivers to take the blame for accidents.

It doesn't have to be the drivers, I doubt they were the ones making the public statements. They probably have a non-disclosure and someone else does the PR hype.

Originally Posted by Hersbird

They know what happened because everything is recorded both video and with many sensors. Doesn't matter what the human says, the truth will be known.

They and only they have the data, and are keeping it that way. Again, good luck fighting it.

Why is it so easy for folks to think humans are awful at conforming to traffic ethics, but are complete angels when it comes to business/legal ethics? It seems completely naive to me.

Originally Posted by Hersbird

I wouldn't expect it to be perfect at this stage.

Then you should be suspect of claims of zero @ faults then, shouldn't you?

Show me the actual data...

[nimblemotors]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

I also don't get how you think this somehow limits freedom.

Having the government control when you can use the roadway or not is complete freedom?? War is Peace too, right?

Then it will be privatized of course, like street parking in Chicago was sold to the Arabs, and then you must bid, Uber like, to use the onramp, and now the 1% can use the highway at 100mph, and the poor, well, walking is still allowed if you pay the sidewalk tax.

[redpoint5]

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) reports a 7 percent reduction in crashes among cars that have a basic forward-collision warning system. Include automatic braking features, and that number is 14 to 15 percent, according to Consumer Reports.

Self-Driving Cars Will Make Us Want Fewer Cars | WIRED

Originally Posted by P-hack

Do you think it would be a good thing, once we have privatized central vehicle control, if only the richest folks could go over 25mph? I mean once you eliminate all the real drivers that is, which is clearly what you want us to think the "market" wants.

So, you know, believe the marketing BS, even endorse it to the point of irrationality, put your sycophanty on permanent record.

I don't see why only the rich could drive faster than 25 mph. Please explain.

As far as I know, there has been no marketing concerning self-driving cars. I've yet to see a single ad inviting customers to buy an autonomous vehicle.

I have no affiliation with Google and don't even own stock (though I wish I had invested at the IPO). It does concern me how much personal info they have on me, but have mostly accepted that convenience comes at the expense of privacy. To me, the benefits outweigh the risks. In the same way, I expect automated cars of the future will have benefits such as cost savings, safety, and convenience that will outweigh my strong desire to be in control.

As far as what the market wants; so far it mostly holds your opinion. Only 30% of people say they want autonomous vehicles.

[quote]average drivers are hesitant to trust their lives to a machine. Two-thirds of the survey respondents said they didn’t feel comfortable riding in a self-driving car, and only 22 percent would feel confident allowing their loved ones to ride in one...

Of those surveyed, 88 percent said they’d pay extra for a lane departure warning system, 77 percent would do the same for a forward collision warning system with automatic braking, 70 percent would go for adaptive cruise control, and 30 percent would pony up for self-parking.

Survey says: Drivers don't want autonomous cars | Digital Trends

I have no horse in this race, but merely am applying what I know is possible with technology to the developments we already have to make a prediction about the future. P-hack's ad hominems suggest that he is taking an emotional, rather than rational position.

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

I hope it doesn't lead to (enable) commutes even more ridiculously long than they are now. But it would. Like with traffic congestion, people have decided they will tolerate or even embrace a certain level of inconvenience and any action that relieves the inconvenience gets countered by adding more irritant.

Very good point. I appreciate that you have exposed a problem with the technology and argued the point rather than attack people.

[Frank Lee]

Me? Attack people???

I don't see why only the rich could drive faster than 25 mph. Please explain.

The 1%ers want to further enhance the gulf between the have/have nots. They want a separate, superior infrastructure for those who can afford to be in their club- better faster internet, phone, tv, breathing air and drinking water, everything you can think of, why not roads and why not even airspace and outer space? And the riff-raff, too ignorant to control their gonads, will continue to pile on the population until, in order to get on or off the riff-raff lanes of the highways, traffic flow can be only 25mph.

In fact due to traffic density it will be humanly impossible to merge onto a highway without intervention from Central Control, who, when the Commoner Queue waiting to gain access to Riff Raff Route A gets large enough to meet entrance criteria, opens merging spaces and stuffs 'em as they see fit (think like adding a train car to the middle of a moving endless high-speed train).

Look at the historical trends and look at where we're heading. This is what people want...?

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Me? Attack people???

I wasn't suggesting you did attack people, just pointing out I appreciate the challenge to an idea rather than challenging a person's character.

The 1%ers want to further enhance the gulf between the have/have nots.

The 1%ers have the same desires and motivations as anyone else. They are merely human.

[Frank Lee]

Only superior in every way.

[P-hack]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

rather than challenging a person's character.

But that is exactly what you are doing, on a huge scale.

[nimblemotors]

Did you know the air quality in Mexico City is so bad, they have 'fresh air' booths where you pay to breath clean air.

To add, you might say this is the other extreme of no-government-control, being able to pollute as much as possible, which is fine for the 1%, it is a business opportunity.

Note however, people in the US pay for clean water in bottles.

[Frank Lee]

Awesome.

Ya know, they deserve that.