# "Kiss the Good Times Goodbye" - the end of the automotive era



## WinterBorn (Nov 21, 2017)

Bob Lutz: Kiss the good times goodbye

Interesting article.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 21, 2017)

The end of the automotive era is coming.   For all the claims that terrorists will hack these vehicles and kill a hundred people, the die is cast and it will happen.

Obviously there are huge segments of our economy that will disappear or be greatly downsized.  Car dealers, mechanics, auto insurance companies ect.    But there are less obvious one too.   What percentage of most police depts are dedicated to enforcing traffic laws?  How much money is spent daily on parking fees and tickets?


----------



## Bonzi (Nov 21, 2017)

What's an "automotive ear"?  <kidding!>


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 21, 2017)

Bonzi said:


> What's an "automotive ear"?  <kidding!>



LMAO!!    It is early.  I was on my first cup of coffee, and apparently my typing was not awake.

Can some handy mod fix that?  I don't see an edit function for thread titles.


----------



## Bonzi (Nov 21, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > What's an "automotive ear"?  <kidding!>
> ...



I think you have to ask them via PM.


----------



## gipper (Nov 21, 2017)

I tend to think Lutz is right.  But what am I to do with my 45 foot diesel motor home?  I sure hope our wonderfully corrupt and terribly unjust government doesn't force me to sell it for scrap.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 21, 2017)

gipper said:


> I tend to think Lutz is right.  But what am I to do with my 45 foot diesel motor home?  I sure hope our wonderfully corrupt and terribly unjust government doesn't force me to sell it for scrap.



Well, you should have 10 or 15 years to use it, at the very least.   By then it will probably be well worn.

After that?  You'll take an Uber or Lyft to a place that rents you a mobile cabin?


----------



## alang1216 (Nov 21, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> Bob Lutz: Kiss the good times goodbye
> 
> Interesting article.


Can't come soon enough for me.  I won't miss it.


----------



## gipper (Nov 21, 2017)

alang1216 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Bob Lutz: Kiss the good times goodbye
> ...


I tend to agree, but I do enjoy driving a nice car.  I have an Audi A6 that is a blast to drive.


----------



## alang1216 (Nov 21, 2017)

gipper said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Can't come soon enough for me.  I won't miss it.
> ...


I spend so little time driving for pleasure, I'm happy to give it up.  Safer, faster, cheaper, and I get to nap in the car.  I'm ready now.


----------



## TNHarley (Nov 21, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > What's an "automotive ear"?  <kidding!>
> ...


It might be too late by now, but if you look right above the opening post, there is an option. Click it and it opens up options.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 21, 2017)

gipper said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



When I was much younger (before kids), I had a Triumph TR6.   Keeping the dual carbs tuned right was a pain.  But when she was running good it was as much fun as I have ever had driving.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 21, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...



Actually, I think it is funny.   I'm leaving it alone.

But thanks.


----------



## TNHarley (Nov 21, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Future reference at least, right? Lol yw


----------



## gipper (Nov 21, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


agree TR6 was a great car to drive...when running right.  Great looking car too.


----------



## Bonzi (Nov 21, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


Yeah, he's right. I'm notorious for giving bad information


----------



## WillMunny (Nov 22, 2017)

I'm waiting for one of those hovering speeders that Luke Skywalker drove.  Looks more fun than a car and you don't have to worry about tires/suspension/etc., any automotive expense that has to do with wheels.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 22, 2017)

to think that we will have the infrastructure to do this in 5 years is ridiculous.

Most people do not trust driverless cars and I don't think that will change any time soon


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 22, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> to think that we will have the infrastructure to do this in 5 years is ridiculous.
> 
> Most people do not trust driverless cars and I don't think that will change any time soon



Didn't the article say 20 years?


----------



## BulletProof (Nov 22, 2017)

In ten years, most new cars will be self-driving, because lower insurance costs will pay for the self-driving feature.  

Speeds won't be super-fast because the current road system doesn't support high speeds and also because high speeds are inefficient, even with drafting.  

Yes, I expect car ownership to plummet.  When you can call a private ride in minutes, why own a car?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 22, 2017)

BulletProof said:


> In ten years, most new cars will be self-driving, because lower insurance costs will pay for the self-driving feature.
> 
> Speeds won't be super-fast because the current road system doesn't support high speeds and also because high speeds are inefficient, even with drafting.
> 
> Yes, I expect car ownership to plummet.  When you can call a private ride in minutes, why own a car?



Lower insurance cost is one benefit.    Cutting the number of fatalities and the financial cost of traffic accidents is the biggest.  33,000 people died last year in car wrecks.   And the cost of traffic accidents in the US is an estimated $871billion.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 22, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > to think that we will have the infrastructure to do this in 5 years is ridiculous.
> ...


*'Everyone will have 5 years to get their car off the road or sell it for scrap'*


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 22, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



That is once the system is in place.

from the link in the OP:

"*The vehicles, however, will no longer be driven by humans because in 15 to 20 years* — at the latest — human-driven vehicles will be legislated off the highways.

The tipping point will come when 20 to 30 percent of vehicles are fully autonomous. Countries will look at the accident statistics and figure out that human drivers are causing 99.9 percent of the accidents.

*Of course, there will be a transition period. Everyone will have five years to get their car off the road* or sell it for scrap or trade it on a module."


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 22, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



I didn't read past the ridiculous headline.

And even in 20 years it won't happen.  To think that 3.8 million square miles of this country can be 100% covered by driverless vehicles is too outlandish for sci fi never mind real life


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 22, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



How many square miles is not really relevant.  I agree that the rural areas will probably not see the change in 20 years.  But the urban areas probably will.  And for a variety of reasons.   I have already pointed out the cost of traffic accident in lives and money.  But the urban congestion is getting worse and worse.   The parking in many cities is becoming almost impossible.  

One thing that came up in a conversation about this topic is the ability to relive the traffic issues, not just by taking out the huge number of driver-error accidents, but the ability to streamline traffic flow by routing certain numbers over different roadways.  Think of the app Waze.  It keeps you updated on traffic flow and is constantly looking for the better route.  If that same type of programming were used in reverse, the driverless vehicles would be routed so that the maximum speed and minimum commute would be available.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 22, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> Bob Lutz: Kiss the good times goodbye
> 
> Interesting article.



I'm not buying it

I think we may move to driverless cars for some applications but the overwhelming majority will be privately owned cars, manually driven with driverless capabilities like a cruise control and parking

I just don't think drivers will go for a pay as you go option


----------



## miketx (Nov 22, 2017)

Bonzi said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


The title edit function is at the top right side of the OP called "Thread tools". Funny, I make so many typos because of my hands, I knew exactly what was meant.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 22, 2017)

miketx said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Thanks.  I thought about changing it, once a few people told me how.  But I think it is funny.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 22, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



So we get rid of driver error and replace it with computer programmer error

There is no way I will ever trust a driverless vehicle.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 22, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



In urban areas it will be an excellent trade.   In Atlanta, there are accidents every day during rush hour.   Almost all are driver error.  Aside from the costs, it can bring people's commutes to a standstill.

I was driving south on I-75 a couple of months ago at around 4:30pm.   The overhead LED sign said "10th Street exit 6 miles.  Travel time 42 mins".


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 22, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Bob Lutz: Kiss the good times goodbye
> ...



Well, the average car payment is around $500 a month.  Add in maint, gas, and insurance and you are spending a fair amount.   5 days a week for 4 weeks, the $500 car payment alone is $25 per work day.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 22, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> Bob Lutz: Kiss the good times goodbye
> 
> Interesting article.


Interesting, but wrong.


----------



## Windparadox (Nov 22, 2017)

`
`
As I see it, the internal combustion engine is already on it's way out as we speak.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Nov 22, 2017)

Not going to happen. Not a single chance, at least not in a minimum of 30 years.
Same reason that we are ridiculously still using the internal combustion motor.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 22, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Cars last a good 20 years now and many people own them outright. We use our cars for much more than commuting for work. We are spoiled and love our private cars that are available exactly when we want them

I can see these driverless cars on an "on call basis" in the cities. Glorified Ubers
I just don't see them outside the city limits where the profit margin is gone


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 22, 2017)

Windparadox said:


> `
> `
> As I see it, the internal combustion engine is already on it's way out as we speak.



Maybe not out....but less reliant on it


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Nov 22, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> > `
> ...



It is having an excruciatingly slow death, it should have been gone at least 10 years ago...but there is waaaay too much $$ in the oil industry for it to go away. It will still be around at least another 20 years.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 22, 2017)

iamwhatiseem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Windparadox said:
> ...



The slow development of batteries has slowed the transition


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Nov 22, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



The well orchestrated slow development....


----------



## Windparadox (Nov 22, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Maybe not out....but less reliant on it


`
`
Yeah, I didn't mean "out" as to disappear. I mean people still ride horses. Reliant is a good word. And it will take decades, considering electric will replace internal combustion, by attrition.....unless the government steps in, which they shouldn't.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 22, 2017)

Windparadox said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe not out....but less reliant on it
> ...



Need a national infrastructure to recharge cars rather than fill them with gas


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Nov 22, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



That is only going to happen through the government. And our government is far to influenced by outside interest to make that happen


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Nov 22, 2017)

There are too just too many variables in driving a car.
It might work on a limited basis in small areas like in down towns.
But after enough people and pets are killed by automated cars it will limit its use.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 22, 2017)

iamwhatiseem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Windparadox said:
> ...


Drill baby, drill

Conservatives still celebrate every failure of alternative energy


----------



## Windparadox (Nov 22, 2017)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> There are too just too many variables in driving a car. It might work on a limited basis in small areas like in down towns. But after enough people and pets are killed by automated cars it will limit its use.


`
`
It might catch in urban areas but is impractical (at this point) for most rural applications.


----------



## Windparadox (Nov 22, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Drill baby, drill Conservatives still celebrate every failure of alternative energy


`
`
On matters like this, I pay no attention to political idealouges. I follow the financial and engineering magazines and trade papers.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 22, 2017)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> There are too just too many variables in driving a car.
> It might work on a limited basis in small areas like in down towns.
> But after enough people and pets are killed by automated cars it will limit its use.



How are driverless cars going to increase the number of people killed?   They are never driven under the influence.  The car is never distracted.  The car can judge distance and speed much better than a human.  The driverless car can even communicate with other cars.  Can detect things in the dark, in the rain, and even in front of other cars.  And there is no ego involved.   As for pets, they are supposed to be leashed in urban areas.   Even if they escape, they are still more easily detected by the driverless car than by a human driver.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 22, 2017)

I remember when I was a kid in the 60s and they predicted we would all have flying cars by the year 2000
I remember when they released the Segway and declared it the transportation of the future

Technology is not always practical and does not always catch on


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 22, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> > There are too just too many variables in driving a car.
> ...


Also those damned deer
You can have an infrared sensor to pick them up


----------



## BulletProof (Nov 22, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> And even in 20 years it won't happen.  To think that 3.8 million square miles of this country can be 100% covered by driverless vehicles is too outlandish for sci fi never mind real life



In 20 years 90% of the cars on the road will be self-driving.  Government pressure could tip that to practically 100%.  You need to go to the store and buy some common sense.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 22, 2017)

BulletProof said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > And even in 20 years it won't happen.  To think that 3.8 million square miles of this country can be 100% covered by driverless vehicles is too outlandish for sci fi never mind real life
> ...



Keep dreaming.

We can't even get 100% cell phone coverage and you think we can get 100% of cars on the road to drive themselves


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 22, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


yeah if you want to stop for 3 hours every 50 to 100 miles.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 22, 2017)

BulletProof said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > And even in 20 years it won't happen.  To think that 3.8 million square miles of this country can be 100% covered by driverless vehicles is too outlandish for sci fi never mind real life
> ...


I doubt it
Many of the cars on the road today will still be around
Many rural vehicles will still need drivers. I can see cars in 20 years having self driving capabilities in cities and major highways but they will still need manual override


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 22, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Windparadox said:
> ...


Their range is getting better so are quick charge capabilities. Drive for three hours and stop for lunch and your car will be recharged when you get out


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 22, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



And just how long will that take?

And how is the range going to be when running the heater in the winter or the AC in the summer?

And I don't know about you but I don't want to have to stop for an hour for every 3 hours I drive that is if I can even drive 3 hours at a time in an EV.

EVs will not be competitive until they can match ICE vehicles in range and refuel times in the real world


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 22, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Currently, the range for a Tesla is just over 300 miles for a single charge.

Privately owned vehicle mileage for travel from one duty station to another for travel time was figured at the rate of 350 miles/day for travel when I was in the military, and if you had a fraction left over that was over 100 miles, it was counted as another travel day.

You know, I could live with a 300 mile range vehicle.


----------



## BulletProof (Nov 22, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> We can't even get 100% cell phone coverage and you think we can get 100% of cars on the road to drive themselves



Nearly the whole country has cell phone coverage.  Cell phones require infrastructure, self-driving cars do not.  Insurance savings will pay for the self-driving feature, service charges don't pay for the cell towers in the boondocks.  Go to the wizard and get a brain.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 22, 2017)

ABikerSailor said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Is that like the estimated mile per gallon stat that is always wrong?

In real life with the AC or the heater running, in cold temperatures, in hot temperatures, etc what is the real world range?

Volkswagen e-Golf: real-world range vs. EPA estimates over six-month test

_The lowest range we saw when waiting as long as we comfortably could before plugging back in was 58 miles—during a cold snap just below 30 degrees F, with the heat and heated seats on, with most of the charge spent on the highway, at around 70 mph._


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 22, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


So don't buy one
They may never match ICE vehicles in range and will never be recharged in three minutes
But they may provide a better option for many drivers who can just plug them in at night and never have to visit a gas or recharging station.


----------



## BulletProof (Nov 22, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> EVs will not be competitive until they can match ICE vehicles in range and refuel times in the real world



Numbskull, electric cars will never match refuel times of gas cars, but you think otherwise. LOL.

Electric cars will be competitive when the cost the same as gas cars.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 22, 2017)

BulletProof said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > We can't even get 100% cell phone coverage and you think we can get 100% of cars on the road to drive themselves
> ...


Do self driving cars rely on GPS?
The same GPS that tells people to drive into a lake or railroad tracks?


----------



## Meathead (Nov 22, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> The end of the automotive era is coming.   For all the claims that terrorists will hack these vehicles and kill a hundred people, the die is cast and it will happen.
> 
> Obviously there are huge segments of our economy that will disappear or be greatly downsized.  Car dealers, mechanics, auto insurance companies ect.    But there are less obvious one too.   What percentage of most police depts are dedicated to enforcing traffic laws?  How much money is spent daily on parking fees and tickets?


Fear not! African technology so the rescue:


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 22, 2017)

BulletProof said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > We can't even get 100% cell phone coverage and you think we can get 100% of cars on the road to drive themselves
> ...


really?

Have you ever been in the mountains or out in the desert where there is no service? I have.

And there is no way all cars will be driverless in 20 years.  You need a reality check


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 22, 2017)

BulletProof said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > EVs will not be competitive until they can match ICE vehicles in range and refuel times in the real world
> ...



If they cannot match the real world performance of ICE vehicles they will never be competitive.


----------



## westwall (Nov 22, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> Bob Lutz: Kiss the good times goodbye
> 
> Interesting article.








Not really, just more hyperbole from a guy who helped run GM into the ground.  In Europe he might have a point because the distances are so much less, but here in the USA he is very wrong.  City dwellers will no doubt switch over, such as those in NY and LA, but the rest of the country won't be switching for a long time.


----------



## westwall (Nov 22, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...








There isn't enough generating capacity in the whole world to charge just the cars in the USA if we all switched to EV's.  It is a fantasy derived from delusion to "believe" that EV's are going to take over.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 22, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Volkswagens aren't Teslas.  They are two totally different vehicles.  Yeah, they are both electric, but that is about it. 

It's almost like you're trying to compare a Porsche to a VW.  Both use quite a bit of the same parts, both are gas powered, but the Porsche is built better and is much faster.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 22, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> BulletProof said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


They will be better at some things worse at others


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 22, 2017)

ABikerSailor said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


I'm not talking top speed I'm talking range in real life
so give me real world performance of a Tesla.

No matter how you slice it real world driving performance will not match the company estimates.

But the model S says it only has 210 miles of range so in the real world with the heat ot AC on, 4 passengers, you can expect significantly less

*The new battery option brings the Model S base price down to $66,000 from $70,000 in the US. The vehicle offers an estimated EPA-rated range of 210 miles on a single charge – u*p

so 70 grand for a car that won't even do 200 miles in the real world

Oh and let's niot forget that Tesla recommends only charging the battery to 90% because charging to 100% degrades the battery faster.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 22, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > BulletProof said:
> ...



Like range, running the heat, the AC etc.

IOW if you're driving more than 50 miles don't bother.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 22, 2017)

For those who think change doesn't happen that fast?


----------



## BulletProof (Nov 22, 2017)

The days of young men being excited about cars has been mostly history since the 1970s.  

Most people with a place to park it will always prefer to own a car/pod rather than rent rides.

Nothing much will really change in the next couple of decades except cars will be self-driving.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 22, 2017)

You know, I ride a bicycle around town for exercise, and I would much rather have someone with one of the newer cars with the radar and collision avoidance than trusting some idiot on their cell phone who has a regular car. 

At least the moron in the collision avoidance car will stop even if they are tweeting on their phone.  The regular car won't. 

Matter of fact, a couple of years back, there was a woman who was killed riding with her bicycle group because some idiot was texting on their phone.


----------



## BulletProof (Nov 22, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> For those who think change doesn't happen that fast?



That 's right. People who think it'll take decades are naive.  In five years, most new cars will be self-driving.  In ten years, most cars on the road will be self-driving, and the law will require all new cars to be self-driving capable (and, to over-ride the driver in emergencies).  In 20 years, manual-driving cars on the road will be a real oddity.  

Electric cars will be much longer in going mainstream.   They'll never have competitive sticker prices, as a fundamental law of nature (I'm not going to explain it to numbskull).  Only when gas prices go through the roof will they have any chance of being competitive on price of ownership.  That's at least $10/gallon.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 22, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Windparadox said:
> ...


Damned stupid statement. Roadster range per charge, 620 miles. How long before the S, X, and 3 have the same kind of range?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 22, 2017)

BulletProof said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > For those who think change doesn't happen that fast?
> ...


You are wrong. Sodium glass batteries will bring the price down to a comparable price as the ICE combination of engine, transmission, and rear end.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 22, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> BulletProof said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


High end luxury sedan. The S and X go head on with the high end luxury cars on price, and beat the tar out of them on handling and performance. The Roadster will be competing head on with cars costing up to a million dollars, and beating them. Musk's ambitions are to move down the price range doing exactly the same in all classes.


----------



## BulletProof (Nov 22, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> You are wrong. Sodium glass batteries will bring the price down to a comparable price as the ICE combination of engine, transmission, and rear end.



If you ever feel the need to call me wrong, you ought to be wearing a dunce cap.  Battery technology may improve a great deal over the coming years, but, numbskull, electric cars will never have competitive sticker prices.  Never.  You're the type of idiot who thinks if you get into shape and improve how fast you can peddle a bike, eventual you'll be able to move the bike faster than light.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 22, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Here are some examples taken from the calculator:











If you turn off the Heating/AC in the previous cases, these are the results:











If we use as reference the top of the line P85D, we can see that at 50º F, turning the Heating on means decreasing your range in 37 miles. For comparison, turning the AC on at 90º F, only decreases your range by 32 miles.

https://www.quora.com/Tesla-Model-S-Which-typically-affects-range-more-air-conditioning-or-heating

*So you don't like EV's. That does not excuse you being an outright liar.*


----------



## Windparadox (Nov 22, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> So don't buy oneThey may never match ICE vehicles in range and will never be recharged in three minutes
> But they may provide a better option for many drivers who can just plug them in at night and never have to visit a gas or recharging station.


`
I tend to follow the technical info I get, not the gossip column. I also follow those who own electric vehicles here in Wisconsin and considering this states rugged winters, they get good marks. It's something I'm seriously considering investing in, this spring.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 23, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Bullshit.

That roadster isn't even built yet and even if it is built it will cost 200K

Like I said run the heat or AC in extremely hot or cold weather and see what happens.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 23, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Again those are NOT real world numbers

Real Life Range of a 2016 Tesla Model X 75D — Steemit

The 75 kWh battery has ~65 kWh of useable energy. At 370 Wh/mi that gives us a range of 65,000 Wh / 370 Wh/mi = ~175 miles. That is real world driving. I can say driving 175 miles, the battery meter will read 0 miles. 

Tesla claims 237 miles on a charge


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 23, 2017)

The average car owner drives 12k miles a year.   Most families own more than one car.   

Also, we are talking 20 years in the future.   Tesla cars have only existed for 9 years.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 23, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



The vast majority of my daily commute is under 100 miles a day meaning most of the time I can recharge at night and have a fresh charge when I get up
I rarely drive over 200 miles


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 23, 2017)

As the batteries become cheaper, as technology will do, the total battery swap becomes an option.  Yes, I know people will crow about spending $10k on a new set of batteries.  But the cheaper batteries and the option to swap out the entire battery tray makes it easier to go longer distances.

Here is a video of the time required for an automated battery swap vs filling a car with gas.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 23, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



And the first mass produced EVs that were sold in any numbers had ranges of 40 to 50 miles.   Now we are looking at 3 or 4 times that range, even running the heater or a/c.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 23, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> As the batteries become cheaper, as technology will do, the total battery swap becomes an option.  Yes, I know people will crow about spending $10k on a new set of batteries.  But the cheaper batteries and the option to swap out the entire battery tray makes it easier to go longer distances.
> 
> Here is a video of the time required for an automated battery swap vs filling a car with gas.


I have read concepts where you don't own the batteries, you just go to a location, swap out replacements and go


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 23, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > As the batteries become cheaper, as technology will do, the total battery swap becomes an option.  Yes, I know people will crow about spending $10k on a new set of batteries.  But the cheaper batteries and the option to swap out the entire battery tray makes it easier to go longer distances.
> ...



I've read that too.    And the big expense in batteries is the raw materials.  The battery swap gives the materials back and can be easily recycled.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 23, 2017)

EVs are 1% of the market.

It's going to take a hell of a lot more than 20 years to even get to 50% of the market.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 23, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> EVs are 1% of the market.
> 
> It's going to take a hell of a lot more than 20 years to even get to 50% of the market.


I think the OP is talking about self driving cars rather than EVs


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 23, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> EVs are 1% of the market.
> 
> It's going to take a hell of a lot more than 20 years to even get to 50% of the market.



The EV discussion is a sideline.   The article in the OP does not mention them, per se.  The point of the article, and the thread, is the move to driverless cars in urban and suburban areas.

It seems inevitable to me.   And I welcome the better way.   The only issue I have is the idea that it will be all fleet vehicles instead of privately owned vehicles.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 23, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > EVs are 1% of the market.
> ...


then even longer


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 23, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



I disagree.   Many modern cars have parking assist and blind spot detection, which is just sensors watching specific areas.   Cruise control has been around for decades.   There are quite a few cars that will steer themselves into parking places.  The technology is here, for the most part.

Acceptance will come, slowly at first, and then snowballing.  It won't come to rural areas for quite a while longer than 20 years.  But urban areas will have only limited areas where you can drive your car within 20 years.  For the most part, the population won't have a choice.  They will be sold the idea, then it will be mandatory.


----------



## Desperado (Nov 23, 2017)

Can you imagine the fees you will have to big time to get a ride in the future.
The government will lose out big time on gas taxes both Federal and local, not to mention license plate fees and driver's licenses. The you have to take into account the biggest money maker of them all for local governments the traffic citation.  The  government will not give these up easily, they will find other ways to make up the difference starting with rider user fees


----------



## DrLove (Nov 23, 2017)

That's an interesting article but i suspect that Bob has been traveling around in black helicopters. 5 years? Meh .. he crazy, ain't gonna happen.

They'll never put people who love cars and love to drive into autonomous vehicles. Will there be more of them?

Sure - if you're driving for Uber, ya may want to polish up the resume. 

Uber Strikes Deal With Volvo to Bring Self-Driving Cars to Its Network

But you'll pry my steering wheel from my cold dead hands.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 23, 2017)

Desperado said:


> Can you imagine the fees you will have to big time to get a ride in the future.
> The government will lose out big time on gas taxes both Federal and local, not to mention license plate fees and driver's licenses. The you have to take into account the biggest money maker of them all for local governments the traffic citation.  The  government will not give these up easily, they will find other ways to make up the difference starting with rider user fees



Can you imagine the savings the gov't, state and local, will have?   Lower road maint costs, traffic cops almost nonexistent, signage costs dropped to minimal amounts and more.  I have seen estimates for the annual costs of traffic acciden


DrLove said:


> That's an interesting article but i suspect that Bob has been traveling around in black helicopters. 5 years? Meh .. he crazy, ain't gonna happen.
> 
> They'll never put people who love cars and love to drive into autonomous vehicles. Will there be more of them?
> 
> ...



Does no one know how to read anymore?  You are the second or third person to use the "5 year" thing.

The article specifically states 20 years until this comes to pass.  The ONLY place "5 years" is mentioned is for the length of time the gov't will give, once the autonomous driving is in place, to do something with your car that requires a driver.

Yes, many car enthusiasts will have to find another way to enjoy their babies.   Much like fans of horseback riding did.  There are plenty of places you can ride a horse or keep your own there and ride it when you want.


----------



## Desperado (Nov 23, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> Can you imagine the savings the gov't, state and local, will have? Lower road maint costs, traffic cops almost nonexistent, signage costs dropped to minimal amounts and more. I have seen estimates for the annual costs of traffic accident



Ever know of a government to cut their budget no matter how much they reduced their spending?
They will  find a way to replace the taxes that were lost.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 23, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


That's why I think we will slowly surrender our driving
We may have self parking cars, cruise control where you allow the car to drive on the highway but take over when you get on back roads
A lot of driving decisions are spontaneous. I think I will pass that car, there is a Dunkin Doughnuts....think I'll stop for coffee, there is my buddy....think I will stop
The idea of allowing a driverless car that I don't own make all the decisions is not something I'd sign up for


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 23, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



You will still make the decisions on destination and any impromptu stops.  

Besides, the control you have is minimal already.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 23, 2017)

DrLove said:


> That's an interesting article but i suspect that Bob has been traveling around in black helicopters. 5 years? Meh .. he crazy, ain't gonna happen.
> 
> They'll never put people who love cars and love to drive into autonomous vehicles. Will there be more of them?
> 
> ...



It's like Alexa 

Some people love it, some think it is stupid


----------



## DrLove (Nov 23, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> Does no one know how to read anymore?  You are the second or third person to use the "5 year" thing.
> 
> The article specifically states 20 years until this comes to pass.  The ONLY place "5 years" is mentioned is for the length of time the gov't will give, once the autonomous driving is in place, to do something with your car that requires a driver.
> 
> Yes, many car enthusiasts will have to find another way to enjoy their babies.   Much like fans of horseback riding did.  There are plenty of places you can ride a horse or keep your own there and ride it when you want.



Thanks, i just kind of skimmed it and then bookmarked for later.

20 seems more reasonable and well; very different ...


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 23, 2017)

Desperado said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Can you imagine the savings the gov't, state and local, will have? Lower road maint costs, traffic cops almost nonexistent, signage costs dropped to minimal amounts and more. I have seen estimates for the annual costs of traffic accident
> ...



No doubt they will.   But shorter commutes, far fewer fatalities and less stress will be worth something.


----------



## Desperado (Nov 23, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


You know that there was an article 10 years ago that predicted that private ownership of cars would be outlawed because car owners could not be trusted to maintain the maintenance of the pollution control devices.  This seems like a continuation of that idea.  Can you trust the government to control your day to day transportation?  That is the a control I do not  want to give up besides I enjoy cars and driving


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 23, 2017)

Desperado said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Desperado said:
> ...



Control?    The gov't controls how fast you can drive, when you have to stop, even the minimum speed on some roads.   You have to register your car with the gov't.  You have to have insurance AND are required to carry proof.  The gov't tells you how dark the tint on your windows can be.  The gov't requires you to wear restraints.  They also require you to move over if their vehicles are coming with their lights and sirens on.  They even require you to move over a lane if their employees are on the shoulder with their lights going (and if you just slow down, you get a ticket that costs you $665 - don't ask).  The gov't taxes your purchase of the vehicle.  The gov't charges you for the tag that must be kept current.   The gov't requires you to pay to have your car inspected.  

It is all a racket already.


----------



## Desperado (Nov 23, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


Which amount to nothing, when compared when they tell you that you have 5 years to sell them to  the shredder


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 23, 2017)

You know, while I do think that electric cars are the wave of the future, I also think that it's going to take a bit of time for them to gain acceptance. 

However.......................

There are many car manufacturers of gas powered vehicles that are currently making blind spot detection, collision avoidance and all those other things pretty much standard on their upper end vehicles. 

It's just a matter of time (and probably not too much longer), that those features are put into damn near every car manufactured, and probably in the next 10 years too.

If self driving cars are going to become standard, I think the way is going to be paved by gas powered vehicles first.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 23, 2017)

Can’t wait for NASCAR to go driverless


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 23, 2017)

Desperado said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Desperado said:
> ...



I don't necessarily agree that they will make us sell anything.  They will just restrict the urban and suburban roads to driverless only.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 23, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...




I will always drive my own vehicle and I think there are more people that agree with me than with the guy who wrote that article


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 23, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


It'll never happen


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 23, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



And in 20+ years you can own your own car that drives you.  Or live out in the rural areas.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 23, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


I’m one of them

But if I’m 85?
Maybe


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Nov 23, 2017)

I don't see this happening unless the government steps in and forces people to. That's not a good thing for most Americans.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 24, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I will never live in a filthy city


----------



## Montrovant (Nov 24, 2017)

I think the proposed timeframe in the article is way off.  In 20 years, perhaps self-driving vehicles will be 5-10% of the total market, but I doubt much beyond that.  I also wonder what people will want from such vehicles; will they require the ability to take control at the flip of a switch?

The idea that in 20 years, the majority of adults will accept giving up a personal vehicle is ludicrous.  I cannot believe such a short time frame will be enough for such a massive shift in society.  The comparison to horses transitioning to cars is a bad one; that was an entirely different kind of transportation, while this would be a different way to use an already existing form of transportation.  

The US is a personal vehicle based society.  Lowering the number of accidents will not be enough to change that.  People still drink and drive, and that kills how many people every year?  How much pushback has there been against seat belt laws, and helmet laws?  I don't think safety is the top priority of most drivers.  Giving up control of their vehicles, or giving up personal vehicles entirely, is just not something I believe a majority of Americans are looking for.

Self-driving vehicles would be great for me.  Despite my being 43, I have driven very little in my life, and I'd be happy not to have to do any more.  I'm pretty confident that most people do not feel the same way.

Self-driving vehicles may become a significant part of the overall vehicle population over the next 20 years, but I expect them to be personal vehicles rather than just company-owned cars, and I don't expect large percentages of people to willingly give up personal vehicle ownership.


----------



## BulletProof (Nov 24, 2017)

Personal ownership and self-driving cars are two different issues.  In 10 years, practically every car sold will be self-driving, which means in 20 years the vast majority of the cars on the road will be self-driving. And, the convenience self-driving taxis will cause a lot of people to give up car ownership.  

Will people let a computer drive them?  Yes, eventually, sooner than you think.  When insurance rates drop, fatalities drop, and people get use to the idea, they'll transition quickly.   I don't think many people over the age of 40 enjoy driving.  People over 65 and under 25 are high-risk drivers.   People guilty of severe driving violations will be court-ordered to use self-driving cars.  Drunks will desire self-driving cars to get home safely.

Motorcycle helmets and seat belts are an inconvenience. Self-driving cars are a convenience.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 24, 2017)

BulletProof said:


> Personal ownership and self-driving cars are two different issues.  In 10 years, practically every car sold will be self-driving, which means in 20 years the vast majority of the cars on the road will be self-driving. And, the convenience self-driving taxis will cause a lot of people to give up car ownership.
> 
> Will people let a computer drive them?  Yes, eventually, sooner than you think.  When insurance rates drop, fatalities drop, and people get use to the idea, they'll transition quickly.   I don't think many people over the age of 40 enjoy driving.  People over 65 and under 25 are high-risk drivers.   People guilty of severe driving violations will be court-ordered to use self-driving cars.  Drunks will desire self-driving cars to get home safely.
> 
> Motorcycle helmets and seat belts are an inconvenience. Self-driving cars are a convenience.


I don't think so


----------



## Likkmee (Nov 24, 2017)

I've had a driver for about 5 years now but I take my toys for a spin every couple weeks.....


----------



## Montrovant (Nov 24, 2017)

BulletProof said:


> Personal ownership and self-driving cars are two different issues.  In 10 years, practically every car sold will be self-driving, which means in 20 years the vast majority of the cars on the road will be self-driving. And, the convenience self-driving taxis will cause a lot of people to give up car ownership.
> 
> Will people let a computer drive them?  Yes, eventually, sooner than you think.  When insurance rates drop, fatalities drop, and people get use to the idea, they'll transition quickly.   I don't think many people over the age of 40 enjoy driving.  People over 65 and under 25 are high-risk drivers.   People guilty of severe driving violations will be court-ordered to use self-driving cars.  Drunks will desire self-driving cars to get home safely.
> 
> Motorcycle helmets and seat belts are an inconvenience. Self-driving cars are a convenience.



10 years?  That would require both for self-driving cars to be deemed safe enough for mass production, and for mass production to happen.  10 years is far too fast a time frame.  As far as I'm aware, no self driving vehicles have been produced in large numbers to date.  It also assumes that states will be willing to accept those autonomous cars on the roads, and won't pass any legislation hindering or preventing their use.  And it further assumes that self driving cars will be competitively priced within 10 years.

While I think it's likely that, at some point, self driving vehicles will become the norm, 10 years is far too short a time for it to happen.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 24, 2017)

I'm still waiting on everyone to have flying cars like they promised in the 1960s


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 24, 2017)

20 years is a lifetime for new technology.

In 1997 do you think most businesses were afraid of the internet?   We were still using those free AOL disks and paying by the minute for mostly text access.

In 1998 I got my first cell phone.  Big clunky Motorola flip phone.   If you had told me back then that in 20 years everyone would have one and that they would be cameras, computers, phones and sending written messages more than talking, I would have laughed too.


----------



## Montrovant (Nov 24, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> 20 years is a lifetime for new technology.
> 
> In 1997 do you think most businesses were afraid of the internet?   We were still using those free AOL disks and paying by the minute for mostly text access.
> 
> In 1998 I got my first cell phone.  Big clunky Motorola flip phone.   If you had told me back then that in 20 years everyone would have one and that they would be cameras, computers, phones and sending written messages more than talking, I would have laughed too.



It's not the possibility of the technology being viable that makes me think 20 years is not enough time.  It is a combination of people's lack of desire to have self driving cars, combined with possible resistance from manufacturers, and the possibility of the cars being more expensive.  If I thought the public was clamoring for self driving cars, I would be more inclined to believe 20 years is a reasonable period for such cars to become the majority.  As it stands, I don't think all that many people would be willing to trust the ability of self driving cars to safely function, nor do I think all that many people want to give up their own control over their vehicles.  I wish they would, as I would prefer self driving cars being the norm, but I simply do not see it.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 24, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > 20 years is a lifetime for new technology.
> ...



I have cruise control on my car and have never used it

I like having control of my car. If I had an option for a self driving car, I would never engage it. 

Damn car is driving too slow, why won't it pass that car?
Why is it taking this route?  There is always traffic this time of day


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 24, 2017)

The flow of traffic goes at 5-10 mph over the speed limit
Will self driving cars be programmed to follow the posted speed limit?


----------



## Montrovant (Nov 24, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



That is not me at all, but I think far more people have your frame of mind than mine when it comes to driving.


----------



## Montrovant (Nov 24, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> The flow of traffic goes at 5-10 mph over the speed limit
> Will self driving cars be programmed to follow the posted speed limit?



If a majority of people used self driving cars, I think that it would lead to traffic moving more smoothly, so that even going the speed limit might tend to lessen trip times.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 24, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The flow of traffic goes at 5-10 mph over the speed limit
> ...



Doesn't matter

I don't want to drive at 65. Neither do most other drivers


----------



## TomParks (Nov 24, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> Bob Lutz: Kiss the good times goodbye
> 
> Interesting article.



Nobody is giving up their cars for the last time......these people need to get their heads out of the clouds


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 24, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Most drivers don't want to have an accident either.  But pretty much every one of them do.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 24, 2017)

TomParks said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Bob Lutz: Kiss the good times goodbye
> ...



I agree.  They will keep their cars.  But much of the urban and suburban areas will be driverless only.  Cuts down on accidents by a huge margin, makes commuting shorter and can even be productive, and human error will be all but eliminated in driving these areas.

It won't happen at once.   Just some smaller, high traffic areas at first.  Then people see they can avoid delays and accidents, while they get to watch their phones or get some work done, and things will spread.


----------



## BulletProof (Nov 24, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> 10 years?  That would require both for self-driving cars to be deemed safe enough for mass production, and for mass production to happen.  10 years is far too fast a time frame.  As far as I'm aware, no self driving vehicles have been produced in large numbers to date.  It also assumes that states will be willing to accept those autonomous cars on the roads, and won't pass any legislation hindering or preventing their use.  And it further assumes that self driving cars will be competitively priced within 10 years.
> 
> While I think it's likely that, at some point, self driving vehicles will become the norm, 10 years is far too short a time for it to happen.



Tesla claims they're making cars now that are self-driving ready.  All they have to do, so to speak, is flip a switch.  I think the only real technology hurdle is the wait for the software to mature.

The cost should be small, when production goes mainstream.  A few cameras and sensors with a computer.  This is small enough that savings in insurance will cover the cost.

Some states will respond very quickly when the cars are ready, others shouldn't take long.

The minute self-driving cars are deemed safe enough, they'll explode into the mainstream.


----------



## TomParks (Nov 24, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> TomParks said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Once a car is hacked its all over, but a friend who sells insurance told me there has to be a driver behind the wheel anyway so there really wont be much savings


----------



## petro (Nov 24, 2017)

Constant electronic recalls and software programming issues in virtually every make and model vehicle regardless  of price range.
I will never trust a driverless car due to the fact that no technology is  imperfect.
Also in a cold weather climate I would never trust automatic systems in deep snow or black ice. It sure as hell couldn't tow a trailer in winter safely as no programming could " feel" the road. Half the traffic in my area is work trucks traveling differing routes to differing jobs for many trades. These auto pods would never be practical for those in the trades of construction who travel to multiple destinations.
Want safer roads? Make it damn tougher to get a license.  Penalize the hell out if the idiots who cause issues on the road.


----------



## Montrovant (Nov 24, 2017)

BulletProof said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > 10 years?  That would require both for self-driving cars to be deemed safe enough for mass production, and for mass production to happen.  10 years is far too fast a time frame.  As far as I'm aware, no self driving vehicles have been produced in large numbers to date.  It also assumes that states will be willing to accept those autonomous cars on the roads, and won't pass any legislation hindering or preventing their use.  And it further assumes that self driving cars will be competitively priced within 10 years.
> ...



It may take quite a bit of time for testing.  I know that various companies are working on autonomous cars, but a technology like this needs very extensive testing because of how often people drive.  At least at first, many people are not going to trust self driving vehicles.  Any incidents in which such a vehicle causes an accident will make it harder to convince the public they are a good idea, even if they are actually safer than human drivers.

And again, I don't think there is a lot of public desire for self driving cars.  People will need to be convinced that autonomous vehicles are worth spending their money on instead of traditional vehicles.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 24, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Consistent with their fear of change.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Nov 24, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> Bob Lutz: Kiss the good times goodbye
> 
> Interesting article.




5 years? More predictions by the lunatic left ..


----------



## Wyatt earp (Nov 24, 2017)

This has to be the most retarded article i have ever skimmed though..popular mechanic or popular science on steroids


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 25, 2017)

TomParks said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > TomParks said:
> ...



Current law says there has to be a driver ready to take over.   That can change easily enough.   As for the hacking, it is simple enough to have basic safety protocols untouchable via wireless.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 25, 2017)

bear513 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Bob Lutz: Kiss the good times goodbye
> ...



Typical.   You don't read the article and then try to make it about liberals.  Perhaps a liberal would have actually read the article and see that it said *20 years* before there would be an actual switch to driverless cars.  The entire "5 year" comment was simply about how long they would allow people to drive after that.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 25, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> BulletProof said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



I think the convincing will come about by having relatively small areas go driverless.  As an example, the suburbs to the north of Atlanta.  Traffic up Hwy 400 is some of the worst in the city during rush hour.  If they take part or all of that single highway and make it driverless only, people will have the option of using driverless cars or driving another route.  Once it becomes apparent that the traffic flows smoother and faster without the idiots causing accident, people swerving in and out of lanes, and generally doing what they do to make rush hour worse, it will spread.

The same thing happened when the MARTA trains extended up that way.   People said "No one wants to go to work and not have their car" or "No one will want to be stranded downtown without their car or pay per trip".   Now MARTA is just part of many people's commutes.  The parking lots at the MARTA stations above I-285 are full during the week.


----------



## gipper (Nov 25, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


If everyone is in autonomous vehicles, the speed limit can be greatly increased.  I believe the article posted in the OP references vehicles on the interstate traveling at high rates of speed (120-150 mph), since there won't be dummies like you doing stupid shit on the highway.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 25, 2017)

gipper said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



It could work except you have to plan for the unexpected. The car in front of you blowing a tire, a deer running on the road


----------



## gipper (Nov 25, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Do you think humans can handle the unexpected better than a computer?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 25, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



With cameras and ultra sonic sensors, the autonomous car would likely see the hazard sooner.  It would certainly react quicker, with more information of whether it is safe to swerve and/or brake.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 25, 2017)

gipper said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



No, we cannot.   The reaction time may be similar, but the computer will be constantly "seeing" all around the vehicle.  It will already know the safest path to avoid a hazard.   Plus, with ultra sonic sensors, the autonomous car can see through rain and fog, plus see in front of the vehicle in front of them.

Add to that, an autonomous car is never distracted, exhausted or under the influence.


----------



## gipper (Nov 25, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Of course.  That is my point.

Anyone who thinks a human would react as fast or faster than a computer to the unexpected, isn't too smart.  If Leftnutter thinks this, he is even nuttier than I thought.


----------



## Desperado (Nov 25, 2017)

Interesting Article programming the car to make moral decisions:
Self-driving cars programmed to decide who dies in a crash
*Self-driving cars programmed to decide who dies in a crash*


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 25, 2017)

Desperado said:


> Interesting Article programming the car to make moral decisions:
> Self-driving cars programmed to decide who dies in a crash
> *Self-driving cars programmed to decide who dies in a crash*



Since human error (distracted driving, driving under the influence ect) is the cause of the overwhelming majority of accidents, the number of accidents will drop dramatically with autonomous cars.

As for deciding who will die, if we could react with the speed and information available to the autonomous car, we would do the same.  If there is no way to avoid the accident, and the choice is between hitting a pedestrian on a high speed roadway and hitting a wall, is it the fault of the computer or the dumbass pedestrian?


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 25, 2017)

gipper said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


In some ways ...yes

But this is in reference to the speeds a driverless car could safely go. Higher speeds mean larger following distances and fewer cars


----------



## gipper (Nov 25, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting Article programming the car to make moral decisions:
> ...


Agreed.  We all know this is coming.  The State will demand it and claim it will save thousands of lives, which I suspect it will.  Imagine what it will do to auto insurance costs. 

I particularly like the elimination of high speed cop chases.  We had two recently in our area and a young lady on her way home for the holidays from college, was killed.  Another incident resulted in a cop rolling his cruiser killing him.  This kind of senseless loss of life infuriates me.


----------



## gipper (Nov 25, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Okay...it get you now.  I am not sure your position is correct.  If all vehicle are going the same speed, I suspect the speed could be higher. 

In addition, I would hope we could attain technology that would keep animals from entering the roadway.


----------



## Montrovant (Nov 25, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > BulletProof said:
> ...



That would be.....difficult.  Telling people that high traffic areas are now off limits to all but self driving cars would cause a huge uproar.  It also could cause worse congestion in the areas surrounding the self driving section as people are forced to take new routes.  I question whether local politicians would be willing to take that kind of risk.  I could see a driverless vehicle lane, like an HOV lane, but banning human driven vehicles from a whole high traffic area?  I don't think that's likely.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Nov 25, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> That would be.....difficult.  Telling people that high traffic areas are now off limits to all but self driving cars would cause a huge uproar.



I've found people as a whole to be sheep.....no matter what you do to them as a whole...they just keep bending over and keep taking it.
Politics and government thrive on that very thing.

Toll roads for example.   They ALWAYS are touted as "temporary" but once in place, the cash flow is just too good to let go of.   South Florida for example.....

Now people there feel they're getting a "good deal" when the state offers a choice of transponders to pay for, as the tolls creep higher and higher and lanes on one of the busiest highways on the planet are stolen and changed into HOV (PAY LANES) causing the traffic situation to get even worse....try driving I-95 in Miami ANY day of the week

But the sheep just say...."baaa ba baaaaaaa"

It wouldn't be difficult at all.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Nov 25, 2017)

gipper said:


> Okay...it get you now.  I am not sure your position is correct.  If all vehicle are going the same speed, I suspect the speed could be higher.
> In addition, I would hope we could attain technology that would keep animals from entering the roadway.



Driverless machines will never be "maintenance free" machines.
Parts WILL fail at very bad times and the results could be a lot worse for everyone around counting on their technology to keep them safe.  Especially if the technology is being relied on to move cars faster and faster in tightly packed herds.

So that "herd" of driverless cars safely all going 120mph suddenly becomes a killing field.

Could the cars react faster and prevent a massive pile-up?   We can speculate.
Could terrorists hack the cars or use broad area jamming devices to cause wrecks?  Again, we can speculate.


----------



## Manonthestreet (Nov 25, 2017)

From my cold dead hands....


----------



## Wyatt earp (Nov 25, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...




And that's why I am putting a new motor in my Chevy,  so in can use it for another 20 years .


----------



## cars1631 (Mar 4, 2018)

Self-driving or autonomous cars are coming to the streets whether it is what the consumers want or not. For many people, having a computer system take them from one place to another without having to drive themselves is a welcome change. For me, I enjoy driving so I do not look forward to the possibility of losing the ability to drive from one location to another. Although, that is not my argument against autonomous cars. My biggest concern about self-driving cars is over the maintenance of both the computer system and the functions of the cars themselves. Currently cars require maintenance on engines, breaks, drivetrains, and other systems. Although the engine maintenance would be somewhat different due to hybrids and electric motors, maintenance would still need to occur. Then there is the problem with putting a computer system at the wheel; that would need maintenance too. My question is what happens when the computer system malfunctions. Currently, when a system fails, such as brakes or the engine, a driver can pull of the side of the road and generally avoid a problem. If the computer system driving the car has similar issues, does it have the capabilities to avoid a problem? This is not much of a concern if the car has a system where the individual can take control manually if something does go wrong. Although, GM recently announced the plan to mass-produce an autonomous car with no pedals or steering wheel, reported by this NPR article (GM Says Car With No Steering Wheel Or Pedals Ready For Streets In 2019). This means that the individuals in the car have no ability to take control of the manually if the computer system decides to glitch. The companies making these cars to drive themselves need to make sure to create a computer system that does not start having issues like our phones and laptops do after a few years. Being that these systems are much more advanced, that should be the case.

Another question to ask about self-driving cars is are they programmed to handle any unforeseen issues like downed trees, animals in the road, freak weather or even quick lane changes from cars being manually driven, especially as self-driving technology mixes with manual drivers on the road. Human drivers tend to make gut decision while driving and sometimes things go bad. Sometimes those decisions do not work, but many times in a situation where a crash is unavoidable and a driver has to make a decision, the decision made is the less severe option. The question then in a self-driving car is how has the technology been programmed to make these decisions? Now this dives into another argument of artificial intelligence, but it is an important question to ask. One option is to program the car to make the decision to kill or hurt the fewest amount of possible (Self-driving cars programmed to decide who dies in a crash). This USA Today article discusses some of the hypotheticals that go along with this issue. The problem is that they are just hypotheticals, although the article argues that it is time to discuss the hypothetical situations a self-driving car may encounter because the technology is close to being mass-produced. Much of the self-driving technology is still in the development phase and issues described above are rare. Is that though because there are only a few manufacturers that have advanced autonomous features on their cars, like Tesla, while most drivers still drive themselves. Unfortunately, this question probably cannot be answered until self-driving cars become mass-produced and there are many cars on the road that experience these unforeseen issues and data comes out to answer it. Much of the concern over self-driving cars is a trust issue; consumers do not trust a computer over themselves in an adverse situation. Until there is data to show drivers that self-driving cars are safer than they are as drivers, many will continue to drive themselves. Whether one is against self-driving cars or for them, they are going to make their way to the consumers regardless of what people want.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 5, 2018)

You know, one of the things that scares me about these self driving cars is that they are computer controlled. 

We already know that you can hack newer vehicles to do all sorts of things like speed up, stop, etc.  How much worse do you think it could be?  What if someone hacked your smart car, locked the doors and drove you off of a cliff?


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 5, 2018)

ABikerSailor said:


> You know, one of the things that scares me about these self driving cars is that they are computer controlled.
> 
> We already know that you can hack newer vehicles to do all sorts of things like speed up, stop, etc.  How much worse do you think it could be?  What if someone hacked your smart car, locked the doors and drove you off of a cliff?



I would guess that will be one of, if not the, biggest fears regarding self driving vehicles.


----------



## evenflow1969 (Mar 6, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> Bob Lutz: Kiss the good times goodbye
> 
> Interesting article.


_I fix computers, I am against it. Especialy if there is no way to take over! _


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 7, 2018)

gipper said:


> Anyone who thinks a human would react as fast or faster than a computer to the unexpected, isn't too smart


This oversimplifies the problem.  Regardless of reaction time, the laws of physics are the same for computer-driven cars as they are for human-piloted cars. At 100+ miles per hour, reaction time may not make any difference to survivability.


----------



## BulletProof (Mar 7, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> This oversimplifies the problem.  Regardless of reaction time, the laws of physics are the same for computer-driven cars as they are for human-piloted cars. At 100+ miles per hour, reaction time may not make any difference to survivability.



Computers can respond 100 times faster than people, and without getting distractec, and you think a car going 100+ miles per hour gives the computer no advantage over a human?  Is it really possible to flunk an IQ test?


----------



## Indeependent (Mar 7, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> Bob Lutz: Kiss the good times goodbye
> 
> Interesting article.


Porsche is currently pumping massive bucks into flying cabs.
The day of owning a vehicle and driving it manually is thankfully coming to a close.


----------

