A new Peoples' Car?

[Thymeclock]

P.S. did you ever consider doing stand-up comedy.With George Carlin gone now there's a void out there.

I tried to make it somewhat entertaining, but virtually everything I cited was true, in that I have seen all those things at one time or another, some frequently. Unfortunately, to me it's more true than it is funny.

George Carlin grew up in the Bronx, as did I. I'm sure that's the similarity you notice. I also learned to drive in the Bronx. I'm convinced that once you attain the ability to drive in NY City, driving anywhere else on this planet is a piece of cake by comparison.

BTW, today I was behind some brain dead guy in a van who was the ONLY vehicle in a right turn lane. The green arrow was green for at least ten seconds before we approached it. He braked and stopped at the green arrow. WHY??? I leaned on the horn for about ten seconds before he woke up. I couldn't help but think of what I had just recently written.

It must be something in the water here...

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by ShadeTreeMech

Mech posed an interesting question regarding heavy car vs light car in hilly terrain, with the assumption that a heavier car has a higher kinetic energy going down a hill to recharge batteries, but then it would burn more going up hills.

Since I drive in hilly country nearly all the time, I have to say I would prefer a lighter car on any accounts, mainly because hills inevitably involve going around corners. Drving something heavy would certainly cause you to slow down more than a lighter nimbler car which you could drive around most corners at speed.

One big factor in car design that I see causes conflict is whether to have several vehicles for several tasks, or fewer cars that can fulfill all tasks. Minivans are rather large, however they fulfill nearly all tasks Joe Average would need from a car. But what about when he is just commuting to work? Well, a motorcycle has highest chance of making great economy, short of having an EV metro you conned Ben to make for you.

I currently have a minivan and a mid sized sedan, but there is a Geo Metro 4 door I've been drooling over lately for economy. I also have a derelict Explorer I need to get going for the rough stuff. If I were to buy the Metro (or similar car) and get the Explorer running, then buy a trailer for the Explorer to tow when needed, I'd have all my vehicle needs fulfilled. But that's a total of 4 cars for a 2 driver household!

How hard would it be to make a vehicle that can come with removeable passenger/freight modules to lengthen or shorten the vehicle as needed?

Late 80s/early 90s Chrysler offered a modular vehicle for the New York Auto Show.History records no interest in it so far.But hey,we've got 4.5-billion years!

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

I tried to make it somewhat entertaining, but virtually everything I cited was true, in that I have seen all those things at one time or another, some frequently. Unfortunately, to me it's more true than it is funny.

George Carlin grew up in the Bronx, as did I. I'm sure that's the similarity you notice. I also learned to drive in the Bronx. I'm convinced that once you attain the ability to drive in NY City, driving anywhere else on this planet is a piece of cake by comparison.

BTW, today I was behind some brain dead guy in a van who was the ONLY vehicle in a right turn lane. The green arrow was green for at least ten seconds before we approached it. He braked and stopped at the green arrow. WHY??? I leaned on the horn for about ten seconds before he woke up. I couldn't help but think of what I had just recently written.

It must be something in the water here...

It may be that there's something in the water all over the country.

[ShadeTreeMech]

It would seem the problem is more a lack of consideration for fellow drivers and only concerned about their own issues.

Computer controlled vehicles are likely the closest plausible perfect solution in a congested city.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by ShadeTreeMech

It would seem the problem is more a lack of consideration for fellow drivers and only concerned about their own issues.

Computer controlled vehicles are likely the closest plausible perfect solution in a congested city.

On the first point we are in agreement.

How would having "computer controlled vehicles" solve anything?

[cfg83]

aerohead -

Originally Posted by aerohead

Late 80s/early 90s Chrysler offered a modular vehicle for the New York Auto Show.History records no interest in it so far.But hey,we've got 4.5-billion years!

This is my favorite modular design, the 1987 Mazda MX-04 :

1987 Mazda MX-04 - Concepts

When it comes to "fun to drive", Mazda cannot help but overdoes it. The MX-04 was a modular car that could be transformed just by changing body panels.

CarloSW2

[artificer]

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

On the first point we are in agreement.

How would having "computer controlled vehicles" solve anything?

The idea would be to have a computer controlled grid that knows where every car is, where they are going, and controls how they get there. No more blast and brake driving. No inattentive driving. Higher speed and closer/smaller lanes possible. Flow of traffic is optimized to keep everyone moving as quickly as possible, or with the most efficiency. Since the computer sees the entire grid, it can tell when it has to adapt to handle changes in the traffic pattern.

With the computer controlling the vehicles you wouldn't have to allow as much time between direction changes (stoplights) since you don't have to allow extra time for idiot drivers. You could also design lighter vehicles because accidents would be decreased if humans aren't controlling the system.

Considering that they can't even fix the pot-holes, I don't see the investment into the infrastructure necessary to do this within the next 20 years, or until we run out of oil.

[ShadeTreeMech]

artificer read my mind

think about the movie I robot, where the cars are computer controlled and the driver essentially gets in and turns on the autopilot.

I think the perfect public transportation system would consist of getting into one of many cars at a car park, putting in money for the cost of arriving at your destination, sit there as the computer gets yu there efficiently, then you get out of the car and leave it behind for someone else to do. And even a child could use one, since there is no need for a driver.

This wouldn't displace the need for normal cars outside of the urban area, but a mass of computer controlled cars have several advantages, especially if there was a computer system controlling all of them and could time things to move everyone around efficiently. Imagine a subway system where individual cars move to the terminal instead of the whole train, according to the individual needs of the occupants.

[dcb]

larger people movers have an efficiency advantage, like extreme carpooling. So I think there is room for improvement over the individual mover. As well as movers like trains are steel wheels on steel rails, and have a low frontal area for their length, and they don't even have to carry their own batteries (and can regen back into the network).

The most "efficient" system manages and predicts what sized people movers should be where and when, so the people don't have to wait *too* long between movers, but also so the movers stay reasonably utilized/loaded.

And there is probably another level of efficiency beyond that, but I cant think of it right now

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by artificer

The idea would be to have a computer controlled grid that knows where every car is, where they are going, and controls how they get there.

"A computer controlled grid"? Is this a physical grid? Or an electronic field? Specifically how will cars or traffic be controlled?

So you propose having a system where some higher authority knows where you are going, where you are and how and whether you can get to where you want to go - or not. Who is the controller and who is the controlled? This sounds a lot like some "big brother" authority to me.

Sometimes I am not completely sure of where I am going, even while I am in route. Would that be forbidden? Would we need special permission to change our minds?

No more blast and brake driving. No inattentive driving. Higher speed and closer/smaller lanes possible. Flow of traffic is optimized to keep everyone moving as quickly as possible, or with the most efficiency. Since the computer sees the entire grid, it can tell when it has to adapt to handle changes in the traffic pattern.

So - if I understand correctly, you will not be able to brake suddenly if a child runs in front of your car. (Oh, silly me - probably the child will also be required to wear an electronic collar so his actions can also be monitored at all times.)

You say "no inattentive driving". Why would anyone need to be attentive if the system you propose will solve all such problems? At what point does the concept of 'driving' (as opposed to being 'driven' by an overseeing system) become irrelevant?

You are advocating high speeds and close proximity. (IMHO, that increases risk.) If the system fails in any way, large or small, then what? A multi-car pile-up? Or a multi-lane standstill for hours? How is this any better than what we have now? Or will it just be on a larger, more catastrophic scale?

Once you take away all possibility of human fallibility, you take away that which we know as freedom. The nature of freedom includes the possibility of human error. Without that, we merely have a controlled, planned, regulated system, which we would not be allowed to override - essentially we will not be allowed to think and act for ourselves.

Please consider this: an extremely regulated system is NOT inherently beneficial. I will remind you that just as no bank should be deemed "too large to fail", and no oil drilling rig should be considered to be too advanced to fail, no humanly designed system will ever be totally infallible.

With the computer controlling the vehicles...

"The computer"? What computer? Nor do you tell us HOW the vehicles would be controlled. Or how the occupants of the vehicle will be controlled. (The devil is in the details, eh?)

...you wouldn't have to allow as much time between direction changes (stoplights) since you don't have to allow extra time for idiot drivers.

Please tell us specifically how your plan would urge someone to move on in traffic if they don't want to, or they can't, or they are zoned out on drugs, lack of sleep, out of gas, or whatever?

You could also design lighter vehicles because accidents would be decreased if humans aren't controlling the system.

Who is the "you" that you are describing here? Government? Automotive engineers? Who???

It sounds like you have blind faith in technology and those who would be in control of an imposed, systemic application of it.

Considering that they can't even fix the pot-holes, I don't see the investment into the infrastructure necessary to do this within the next 20 years, or until we run out of oil.

That's a realistic political assessment that is self-evident. But I would like to hear specific answers to the questions I posed of all your other imaginative ideas, to convince us of their merit.

Neither "we" nor the planet will "run out of oil". You may not be able to afford it, but, thanks to global politics, the Arabs and the Chinese will.

I notice that these imaginative ideas are offered by those who live in rural places like Wisconsin and Arkansas. Youthful, theoretical ideas are wonderful. Living in these non-citified places is probably also wonderful. But until you live in a big city or even an adjacent suburban area, you may not fully understand all the implications of the inherent problems involved, and such proposed solutions only LGOP ('look good on paper').

BTW - in cities we already have vehicles that do accommodate those who (for whatever reason) are non-drivers, taking them safely from place to place. They are known as BUSES.