|
I think I'll stick to the country!
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: If you don't have to get people in and out then cars can not only be parked far closer to each other side-to-side, but they can also be parked end to end in short (say 10 cars deep) queues. When a car is needed, up to nine others also drive out, and then re-enter the queuing system to park again.
To an extent this is already happening with dumb cars and valets. The hospital where my mom works has had some high density staff lots where the staff park cars end to end with just enough room for them to get in/out (maybe only on one side if they park alternate rows in opposing directions). AIUI they fill the lots by putting one car in each column before putting a second in any of them and take advantage of staggered working hours to minimize the shuffle; but if you're working daylight and need to leave mid-shift you'll probably need to wait while they move a bunch of cars to get yours free.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
That's not a technical issue, merely a legal.
And as I'm seeing it, quite a probable one too. As long as it isn't a closed system there needs to be safety measures.
|
|
|
|
|
I predict more mysterious political and economical car 'accidents'.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
And yet another target for hackers.
|
|
|
|
|
All the author(s) does in that article is demonstrate is lack of understanding of a how a driverless society would actually work. Ownership would actually be ridiculous. You simply tell the system (not the car) where and when you need a vehicle, and a car shows up. The car you used to get you to work would be in use by other people, or parked somewhere waiting, especially in off peak hours, like work hours. Furthermore, a smart system would be able to automatically and dynamically create carpooling routes, reducing the number of vehicles but also ensuring that everyone gets where they need to get to at the right time. Ironically, there would actually be "less" congestion. The model the author describes is based on the (hopefully) soon to be archaic concept of "ownership" and "owner-vehicle" single relationship. If think of vehicles as a system (much like a subway or bus) then you start to see the real benefits of a driverless vehicle.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
And all your response shows is that you don't understand human beings. Since when has being ridiculous stopped anyone doing anything? Of course people are going to want to own their own vehicles and have control of where it goes and when! Car owning is already ridiculous in the most congested cities. It's demonstrably faster and cheaper to use mass transit systems in such places but people still buy cars and still sit in jams.
In any case, even if the technological bugs are all sorted out this afternoon it will take years, probably decades, to sort out the legal issues, and then years, probably decades more before there is anything like enough self-drive vehicles to be on the streets to make a dial-a-ride service practical. Private ownership is bound to lead the way and once it takes hold it will be a devil to shift.
|
|
|
|
|
People buy and drive their own cars (especially second cars) to get to work because it appears to be the best alternative.
If I take all the costs of owning that second car and can spend less money on a car that someone else maintains and that allows me to read, sleep, work, etc. for the 90+ minutes I spend commuting I believe that would become the best alternative.
Certainly not for everyone but for the majority of people.
|
|
|
|
|
The problem I see with having one car for multiple people is I wouldn't want to get into a car that some of the people I have encountered have used. What about smoking, food, personal hygiene issues? All of these wouldn't go away with driver less cars, so from my perspective I don't see personal vehicles vanishing with a driver less solution. I know I certainly wouldn't like to share a car with someone doing something illegal or illicit, and the fact is, you wouldn't know who used it before you and what dangers/residue/odor were left behind by the previous user.
|
|
|
|
|
Did you just explain why there are no taxis?
And why Uber doesn't exist?
|
|
|
|
|
It sounds a lot like he explained why he doesn't like to use either of them to me.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
The problem with that society would be that the number of cars needed would be decided by the number of people needing one at peak hours.
So assuming that you would squeeze in four people in every car, they would need to pay for a quarter of a car amortized over the cars life. With my knowledge of how peoples minds work, I have my doubts that they would pay that much for something they don't own.
Yes I know you assume there would be more users at off peak hours, but they would also be scared off by the cost and use public transport instead.
Self driving smaller buses on the other hand...
|
|
|
|
|
If self driving cars causes a traffic jam will it be considered a deadlock?
What about race conditions?
|
|
|
|
|
Does this system have a Like button?
|
|
|
|
|
Mouse over a post. To the left is a clickable Up arrow (and a vestigial down arrow that only works on the programming forums now, but is still present everywhere). Upvoted posts are colored green. (May be a few minutes delay due to caching.)
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Overall, I see this as a net positive.
Creation is Destructive!
USB 1.0/1.1 -> USB 3.0
I now have USB devices that don't work in USB 3.0 ports.
But I am okay with it. Things improved.
Back in the day buggies were on the roads. A 45MPH speed minimum exists to keep certain vehicles OFF the freeway because they endanger everyone else, and themselves.
This will progressively improve. Eventually, ONLY vehicles with an COMPUTER ASSIST mode will be allowed to be on the Freeways. Eventually they will network and move together. Actually improving gas mileage by drafting better. Which is a bit unsafe for mere humans.
The LAST mile (getting you to your house) will always be the hardest mile, as it is with every other technology.
But removing the need to have a driver of a car is a HUGE benefit. SAYS a father who used to have to leave work to pick his daughter up from school (she drives now. and I have MY freedom back).
How nice it would have been to send the "car" to get her. I could have avoided hearing about the cute boys. That ALONE would have been worth the price. LOL
Actually, computerized and networked vehicles will avoid most congestion. Literally, my navigator warns me of coming congestion. IMAGINE knowing in grave detail how bad it is, and how ALL The other streets are fairing, to such a degree that you can hop off the freeway, hit the surface streets, and get back on after the accident/problem, but ONLY if the probably is quite strong that it would save you time, not cost you time.
The real issue is. A block of cars, driving at 100mph all 4 inches from each other, networked in, and suddenly, a tire pops, the car starts to careen into the other lanes. Unique road conditions cause it to spin unpredictably.
Do we end up with cars that REACH OUT, and HOLD that care in place, helping take the weight off of the 4th wheel, and get it safely to the side of the road? Or with better bumpers to throw it to the side when it spins out?
That is the question that concerns me...
Or does the care come home, on its own, late, after getting an new set of wheels it always wanted, and it charged it on my card!!! (We call this the Ex-Car)
|
|
|
|
|
You start out with the assumption that cars will draft and then point out that drafting might be dangerous. Maybe they just won't draft?
|
|
|
|
|
Watch NASCAR (I don't), but drafting is dangerous and there is no way to win without it.
The fuel efficiency lost from air friction is roughly the CUBE of the speed (A squaring effect
for the surface area, times speed). The faster your travel, the much worse it gets (hence drive 55 in the states). So, my view is that they will, in fact draft.
The question becomes: How will they deal with the fallout from it?
On the other hand, drafting is just one of hundreds of issues. The algorithm for avoiding collisions on networks is NOT suitable for cars, LOL. And I believe it will develop over time.
Finally, once your car moves around like this other things could change.
Mag Lev? Lift the cars, propel the cars. Since the driver is not driving. Now the tires never fail. I guess the point was that ALL of our assumptions will be challenged.
Until the politicians get involved, then only our patience will be 
|
|
|
|
|
Is that a train you're describing?
|
|
|
|
|
Don't forget, this is written by a researcher in Washington state. The folks in that state are so in love with driving their own cars, that they prefer that over any more sensible option. Take a look at the I-5 bridge across the Columbia between Vancouver, WA and Portland, OR -- the only conclusion I can reach, is that they want to sit in their cars in heavily congested traffic.
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
OMG,
I was there last year. They have STOP LIGHTS to get ON the Express way!?!
(Technically it is a Freeway. It was Free, and not very Express!)
I thought it was a prank!?
Then I saw the time it takes the bus to get somewhere (hoping I could use public transportation),
and realized it was all just very sad!
|
|
|
|
|
I saw the same in San Diego California a few years ago. It actually worked quite well. The lights at the start of the ramp let cars on one at a time so they were spaced out enough to make merging easy (as long as you're comfortable driving in heavy traffic anyway - the stereotypical Kansas farmer would probably still have a heart attack) instead of ending up with a bunch of cars trapped stopped at the end of the ramp or driving on the shoulder.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
It seems counterintuitive to have stop lights on the entrance ramps, but boy is it obvious how much worse things are when they are not there (sometimes they fail) -- they keep traffic on the freeway moving at a fair clip rather than turning into gridlock at every entrance ramp.. until you simply have too many cars.
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
OK. It's official. Moffat's a genius. Clara best companion ever. TV can still make me cry.
Just needed to get that off my chest. I'm going to have a bath now to recover!
|
|
|
|
|
You are Dalek Dave and I claim my five pounds!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
