Here's how driverless cars could change cities for better

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Here's how driverless cars could change cities for the better


As the multi-pronged debate over autonomous vehicles rages on, a new study finds that self-driving cars could have some major urban implications, aside from the elimination of virtually all cars: Namely, they might help to create more open space.

Led by Luis Martínez of the International Transport Forum, researchers at the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development estimate that a fully automated fleet of self-driving vehicles will reduce cars on the road by 90 percent.

The researchers estimate that with so-called shared ride vehicles—also called taxibots—"[n]early the same mobility can be delivered with 10% of the cars TaxiBots combined with high-capacity public transport could remove 9 out of every 10 cars in a mid-sized European city."

To arrive at their conclusions, the researchers simulated a city's worth of driving from a real dataset of vehicle trips in Lisbon, Portugal. They then estimated how many of those rides could be grouped together, measuring the impact on driving time, city space, and vehicle usage.

The first thing that would go, according to the study, is public transit. "For small and medium-sized cities, it is conceivable that a shared fleet of self-driving vehicles could completely obviate the need for traditional public transport," the researchers write.

Read more: www.psmag.com/business-economics/rise-of-the-taxibot#ixzz3ZNcl5IFv

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Here's another article/opinion piece about how this could have an effect on jobs:

How Uber’s Autonomous Cars Will Destroy 10 Million Jobs And Reshape The Economy by 2025


I have spent quite a bit of time lately thinking about autonomous cars, and I wanted to summarize my current thoughts and predictions. Most people – experts included – seem to think that the transition to driverless vehicles will come slowly over the coming few decades, and that large hurdles exist for widespread adoption. I believe that this is significant underestimation. Autonomous cars will be commonplace by 2025 and have a near monopoly by 2030, and the sweeping change they bring will eclipse every other innovation our society has experienced.

They will cause unprecedented job loss and a fundamental restructuring of our economy, solve large portions of our environmental problems, prevent tens of thousands of deaths per year, save millions of hours with increased productivity, and create entire new industries that we cannot even imagine from our current vantage point.

The transition is already beginning to happen. Elon Musk, Tesla Motor’s CEO, says that their 2015 models will be able to self-drive 90 percent of the time.1 And the major automakers aren’t far behind – according to Bloomberg News, GM’s 2017 models will feature “technology that takes control of steering, acceleration and braking at highway speeds of 70 miles per hour or in stop-and-go congested traffic.”2 Both Google3 and Tesla4 predict that fully-autonomous cars – what Musk describes as “true autonomous driving where you could literally get in the car, go to sleep and wake up at your destination” – will be available to the public by 2020.

Read more at: sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/01/27/how-ubers-autonomous-cars-will-destroy-10-million-jobs-and-reshape-the-economy-by-2025-lyft-google-zack-kanter/

[Politically_Incorrect12]

First Self-Driving Semi Hits American Roads

Self-driving cars seem likely enough; there’s still several tech and legal hurdles to clear, not to mention the question of how much they’ll cost, but most experts inside and out of the auto industry see them as inevitable given enough time. Now, Daimler’s Freightliner unit wants to push long-haul trucking in the same direction.

Unveiled atop the Hoover Dam, the Freightliner Inspiration Truck is the first semi granted a license in the United States for autonomous driving, for tests on Nevada highways (note the special license plate in the photos below.) Equipped with arrays of cameras and radars, along with extensive software controls, the two Inspiration Trucks built by Freightliner can steer in a lane, maintain speeds and brake without human intervention at highway speeds. It also has to know when to alert the driver to take control; that driver of course has to handle all non-highway duties as well.

Read more at:  www.yahoo.com/autos/first-self-driving-semi-hits-american-roads-118281496057.html

[bean29]

Ten years from Now! amazing.

Why is the city of Milwaukee Planning to invest $124 Million in a Streetcar project

www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/milwaukee-council-set-to-vote-on-approve-streecar-plan-b99441994z1-291390051.html

guess they could not come up with a better idea to waste the taxpayer $$$$.

[happyhoix]

May 6, 2015 15:28:52 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

To arrive at their conclusions, the researchers simulated a city's worth of driving from a real dataset of vehicle trips in Lisbon, Portugal. They then estimated how many of those rides could be grouped together, measuring the impact on driving time, city space, and vehicle usage.

Grouped together, as in I use a cell phone app to call a taxi and it shows up already half full?  I don't see a lot of people willing to do that.  At least not here in the states.  I'll split a cab with friends, but a cab showing up with a stranger already in it seems weird.

Transit companies must be salivating at the thought of self driving busses though.  Bus drivers in a lot of areas make pretty good money, have decent benefits, some of them still get pensions.  That's a huge burden off the agency if you can automate the job.

No, as in I need to go from point A to point B, then somone else needs picked up two blocks away from point B and taken to point C, and someone else needs picked up five blocks from point C and moved to point A.

Think about how much time your car sits in your garage or sits in the parking lot at work, not being used. In theory, if all cars were driverless, they wouldn't park downtown at all, they would constantly be on the move, until they weren't needed (say, overnight) when they would be programmed to move out of the city center, to parking garages in the suburbs.

You would sign up for a service who would guarantee they would always have a car when you needed it, either with a standing order for a pick up, or say 10 - 15 minutes after you ordered one. I can see how there would be levels of service - say, a Day's Inn type company with plain jane cars, no Wi Fi, and you would have to share if the service had someone else going the same way, vs a Hilton service where they guaranteed certain amenities and that you never had to share your car with anyone, ever.

Imagine drunk drivers or the elderly being required to only ever use the self driving cars. Imagine being able to put your kid in a car and send him to a sleep over 20 minutes away without having to drive him there yourself. Imagine being able to go to sleep in Atlanta and wake up in Cincinnati. I can't wait.

From what I understand, the technology is to the point where cars can drive themselves (and do a better job than humans) except when the roads are icy or when it's rainy (something about the sensors they use to judge the road getting messed up on wet or shiny surfaces). Once they get that solved, the next hurdle will be making the cars cheaply enough they're affordable.

[Robert not Bobby]

But I like driving.

[wyouser]

hmmmm.  Computors eliminate ALL humans....California water problem solved!!!

[Angel!]

May 6, 2015 16:18:41 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

In theory, if all cars were driverless, they wouldn't park downtown at all, they would constantly be on the move, until they weren't needed (say, overnight) when they would be programmed to move out of the city center, to parking garages in the suburbs.

That doesn't even work in theory.  Between 6-8am hundreds of thousands of people drive into San Jose for work.  They don't move around much once they're at work.  From 5-7pm those same hundreds of thousands of people drive back to the suburbs, where they again don't move around all that much until the next day.  So every morning you'd have a shit ton of smart cars drive into San Jose, then have nothing to do until that evening, when they were all used to leave again.  The same thing happens in every city.  The demand for cars peaks while everyone goes to work, dwindles way down, then peaks again when they all go home.  Most of the self driving cars would be puttering around downtown with nothing to do during the workday, jamming up traffic for no reason whatsoever.  Or they'd do exactly what people already do with their cars, drive to work, then sit there parked downtown, until they were needed to drive home again.

If they were automated and shared people could commute in for work in the morning, then there car would be used as a taxi all day by others before it commuted them out in the evening.  It would basically wipe cab companies off the map.  However, there would still be gridlock every morning and evening because our cities are designed to concentrate workers in one place while they live in another.  And most of the shared smart cars would still sit idle downtown most of the time because there's not nearly as much demand to move people around the city during the day as there are people commuting into the city for work each day.

They don't just putter around.  The ones that aren't needed go park outside of downtown for the day.  No more need for all the wasted space for parking structures in downtown areas.  Move them outside the major downtown areas.

As for gridlock, it might still exist, but it will go way down.  They are working on vehicle to vehicle communication where all the connected cars know what is going on.  They watch for traffic ahead of where you can see and take alternate routes as needing.  Between the instant reaction time of a computer vs a real person & being connected to a network, the cars can drive much closer together & at higher speeds.  They can also adjust speeds to merge effectively on a freeway & keep traffic moving.  Then car crashes are going to go way down, which is often a significant cause of delay.  If you connect the vehicle network to the roadway network (signals), now you can move people through urban areas and almost avoid stopping at signals altogether.  Cars will be able to calculate the most effective routes, choose the right speeds to avoid red lights, & signals can turn in time for the large approaching queue.  In addition, the car will know in 0.5 seconds the light is going to be green, so no need to start slowing for the red light you are approaching. 

It also becomes much easier to create zipper lanes if you have cars driving themselves.  With people driving, you need clear signing & barriers.  Computers running things you could easily make the switch from 6 lanes inbound/2 lane outbound of a city during the AM peak to the reverse in the PM peak.  Plus, the system would know upcoming demand and be able to adjust accordingly. 

[Opti]

I wonder what is going to happen when driverless cars are involved in accidents. Because it will happen.

And because they are machines, not people, will they be programmed well enough to know its OK to run over a squirrel or dog or do a slight crash to avoid hitting a child?

The car cycle is long. I don't see driverless cars everywhere for awhile, but I could be wrong.

[Opti]

Lot of the plusses sound cool, but what happens when the computer glitches, the networks go down? I'd like to know what the fallback plans are.

[EVT1]

May 6, 2015 17:26:09 GMT -5 Opti said:

I wonder what is going to happen when driverless cars are involved in accidents. Because it will happen.

And because they are machines, not people, will they be programmed well enough to know its OK to run over a squirrel or dog or do a slight crash to avoid hitting a child?

The car cycle is long. I don't see driverless cars everywhere for awhile, but I could be wrong.

I would think when a vehicle senses something in the road or approaching the road it would react faster and would know immediately if it was safe to swerve or not.  They would probably program it to not hit and run too

[zibazinski]

I would so love to automate the drive between Michigan and Florida!!

[Opti]

May 6, 2015 17:44:15 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

May 6, 2015 17:26:09 GMT -5 Opti said:

I wonder what is going to happen when driverless cars are involved in accidents. Because it will happen.

And because they are machines, not people, will they be programmed well enough to know its OK to run over a squirrel or dog or do a slight crash to avoid hitting a child?

The car cycle is long. I don't see driverless cars everywhere for awhile, but I could be wrong.

I would think when a vehicle senses something in the road or approaching the road it would react faster and would know immediately if it was safe to swerve or not.  They would probably program it to not hit and run too

They are going to be faster, that's a given. But I think it will be awhile before they are programmed to judge on what they are or are not hitting. They'd have to know it was a person, not a deer, a dog, etc. to decide on the hit and stay or leave decision.

I guess I just see many situations I don't know that they will program in initially. Avoiding objects does not require as complex programming as knowing what the objects are and making judgment calls. Residential areas with kids and pets probably harder to program than highway driving.

[Opti]

May 6, 2015 18:18:26 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Lot of the plusses sound cool, but what happens when the computer glitches, the networks go down? I'd like to know what the fallback plans are.

The fallback is built in sensors on the car.  It won't know what the road conditions are like three miles ahead, if the network goes down, but it will still see what the road looks like around it.  Just like a person driving would.

I'm actually more concerned about the programming and sensor failure in the car than the network. If the fallback is operator control, most issues might not be a problem.

[Phoenix84]

May 6, 2015 15:28:52 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

To arrive at their conclusions, the researchers simulated a city's worth of driving from a real dataset of vehicle trips in Lisbon, Portugal. They then estimated how many of those rides could be grouped together, measuring the impact on driving time, city space, and vehicle usage.

Grouped together, as in I use a cell phone app to call a taxi and it shows up already half full?  I don't see a lot of people willing to do that.  At least not here in the states.  I'll split a cab with friends, but a cab showing up with a stranger already in it seems weird.

Transit companies must be salivating at the thought of self driving busses though.  Bus drivers in a lot of areas make pretty good money, have decent benefits, some of them still get pensions.  That's a huge burden off the agency if you can automate the job.

I don't see it happening either.  I think a lot of the predictions are exaggerated or won't happen.

Americans just won't get rid of personal vehicles alltogether.  Even if it's like a taxi and you're the only one in it and you only have to wait 30 seconds for a ride, there is still issues.  People would leave personal belongings in the car.  People would dirty up/stink up the car. I know people who don't even like to use the public bathrooms, can you imagine lots of people want to get into a car that everyone and their brother has sat in?

I can see self driving cars taking off, but I think many will still buy their own.  I don't see business models like Uber becoming the overwhelming mainstream when driverless technology is perfected as suggested in the article.

[Phoenix84]

May 6, 2015 16:57:23 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

But I like driving.

Driving is OK, but it's not as cool as napping in your car, using the built in wifi to fuck around online during your commute, or whatever.  If they can make driverless cars work, I fully expect them to eventually outlaw human operated vehicles entirely.  More people die in traffic accidents than gun and drug deaths combined.

Yeah, if this techonlogy takes off, I fully expect automated cars to become mandatory.  Who knows, we may be one among the last to ever actually drive a car in the U.S.

[Phoenix84]

May 6, 2015 17:26:09 GMT -5 Opti said:

I wonder what is going to happen when driverless cars are involved in accidents. Because it will happen.

And because they are machines, not people, will they be programmed well enough to know its OK to run over a squirrel or dog or do a slight crash to avoid hitting a child?

The car cycle is long. I don't see driverless cars everywhere for awhile, but I could be wrong.

I think the predictions of it being commonplace by 2025 and used almost exclusively by 2030 is pretty generous. I think it'll take longer than that.

[Opti]

May 6, 2015 18:52:52 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

May 6, 2015 17:26:09 GMT -5 Opti said:

I wonder what is going to happen when driverless cars are involved in accidents. Because it will happen.

And because they are machines, not people, will they be programmed well enough to know its OK to run over a squirrel or dog or do a slight crash to avoid hitting a child?

The car cycle is long. I don't see driverless cars everywhere for awhile, but I could be wrong.

I think the predictions of it being commonplace by 2025 and used almost exclusively by 2030 is pretty generous. I think it'll take longer than that.

Agreed. I looked up history on the Prius. First one in 1997, we still have the majority of cars being gas only even though battery & hybrid cars are becoming more common.

[Phoenix84]

The legalities of traffic accidents with driverless cars will be interesting.  Computer controlled cars will reduce, but will never likely eliminate traffic accidents. So when this fancy computer controlled car causes injury, property damage, and death, it's the car manufacturer/controller that will get sued, not the passenger. Is Toyota, GM, ect. prepared to take on that liability?

[NastyWoman]

I hate driving and vote for my back-up solution: a "beam-me-up-Scotty" 

[NastyWoman]

double post.  I really must dislike driving...

[Angel!]

May 6, 2015 17:33:27 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

They don't just putter around. The ones that aren't needed go park outside of downtown for the day. No more need for all the wasted space for parking structures in downtown areas. Move them outside the major downtown areas.

So during peak traffic times, like morning and evening commute hours the car will drive me into downtown, then drive itself back out.  And in the evening drive back in to pick me up, then drive me back to the burbs?  This is going to cut down on traffic how?  You're talking about adding more driving miles for every single commuter.

I get that the cars themselves will be better able to avoid traffic, move at higher speeds when there is traffic, and all that awesome stuff.  And don't get me wrong, it all does sound totally awesome.  Cutting down on congestion by 90% though... I don't see it.  To do that we have to change the model of everyone working in a concentrated area in the middle of the city, but living outside of it in the burbs.  As long as we're still trying to move them all from place to place every morning and evening we're going to have traffic and a bunch of idle cars needing to stay somewhere near downtown all day.

A small fraction of them can play taxi while I'm at the office, but there isn't enough demand for all of them to do that.  If they're all 15 passenger vans and commuters share them to go into work and get back home, I could see it.  I also don't see people signing up for a service that did that though.  You wouldn't be able to stop on the way home for a gallon of milk or whatever, and you'd have no control over which obnoxious, creepy, or unshowered person would be sitting thigh to thigh with you everyday.  The service would have to be dirt cheap to make it worth it, and I don't see cars with that many sensors and whatnot being all that cheap to maintain.

Lol, cutting congestion 90%. No wonder you're skeptical. The article doesn't word it well, but it means cut 90% of cars in existence, not from the road at one time. Meaning a city could function as it does today with 10% of the cars.

I don't buy it for the US. First it is based on European cities, so the data won't necessarily translate. Second, a lot of people would still want a personal car even if it isn't a necessity. How many living in NYC still own a car?

Just given that the peak hour of traffic is 8-12% of the daily traffic on a given road, I'm having trouble imagining getting by with 10% of the vehicles.Though I would guess you could cut the number of cars by 50% pretty easily as people start to accept a model where you don't own a car. Maybe someday that goes lower, but that is probably decades after self-driving cars become the norm.

[Opti]

May 6, 2015 19:29:45 GMT -5 NastyWoman said:

I hate driving and vote for my back-up solution: a "beam-me-up-Scotty" 

That is one thing I've always wanted. A transporter. That would be so cool.

[Angel!]

May 6, 2015 19:01:26 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

The legalities of traffic accidents with driverless cars will be interesting.  Computer controlled cars will reduce, but will never likely eliminate traffic accidents. So when this fancy computer controlled car causes injury, property damage, and death, it's the car manufacturer/controller that will get sued, not the passenger. Is Toyota, GM, ect. prepared to take on that liability?

It is interesting how people always focus on what will happen when there are crashes and who will be to blame. Right now around 35,000 die each year in crashes in the US. I think it is pretty easy to say when the technology is adequately advanced that would be reduced by at least 90%. But instead of focusing on the 31,500+ lives that could be saved every year, we are considering holding off on advancement because someone has to be blamed for the remaining 3,500 or fewer deaths.

Just seems like a backwards way of looking at things. Kind of like the people who done wear seatbelts because in some fluke crash they might do more harm than good. Excellent idea to give up protection in 99% of crashes because 1% of the time you will be worse off.

Yes, this technology won't save every life, but it will get us a hell of a lot closer than we are ever going to get relying on human judgement in driving.

Maybe they need to start one of those funds like they have with vaccines where if you can prove you have been harmed or killed, then you will be entitled to a payout. I wonder who funds that for vaccines? I bet it isn't the pharmaceutical companies. I'm guessing it was come up with to protect them from lawsuits, but I could be wrong.

[Deleted]

May 6, 2015 21:21:34 GMT -5 Angel! said:

May 6, 2015 19:01:26 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

The legalities of traffic accidents with driverless cars will be interesting.  Computer controlled cars will reduce, but will never likely eliminate traffic accidents. So when this fancy computer controlled car causes injury, property damage, and death, it's the car manufacturer/controller that will get sued, not the passenger. Is Toyota, GM, ect. prepared to take on that liability?

It is interesting how people always focus on what will happen when there are crashes and who will be to blame. Right now around 35,000 die each year in crashes in the US. I think it is pretty easy to say when the technology is adequately advanced that would be reduced by at least 90%. But instead of focusing on the 31,500+ lives that could be saved every year, we are considering holding off on advancement because someone has to be blamed for the remaining 3,500 or fewer deaths.

Just seems like a backwards way of looking at things. Kind of like the people who done wear seatbelts because in some fluke crash they might do more harm than good. Excellent idea to give up protection in 99% of crashes because 1% of the time you will be worse off.

Yes, this technology won't save every life, but it will get us a hell of a lot closer than we are ever going to get relying on human judgement in driving.

Maybe they need to start one of those funds like they have with vaccines where if you can prove you have been harmed or killed, then you will be entitled to a payout. I wonder who funds that for vaccines? I bet it isn't the pharmaceutical companies. I'm guessing it was come up with to protect them from lawsuits, but I could be wrong.

Trust in humans to think of "the way to profit (or pay damages)" being more important than the "greater good"...


And people wonder why some of us have so little hope for us.

[Phoenix84]

May 6, 2015 20:57:54 GMT -5 Opti said:

May 6, 2015 19:29:45 GMT -5 NastyWoman said:

I hate driving and vote for my back-up solution: a "beam-me-up-Scotty" 

That is one thing I've always wanted. A transporter. That would be so cool.

You're a Purdue engineer, get crackin'

[Deleted]

Ooooohhhhh k.

That's new.

There's a message at the top of my previous post that says: "Your Post is quarantined until reviewed by staff."



There's nothing in the post that's "quarantine" worthy! Wonder what tripped the "quarantine".





ETA: and now it's gone (the weird message, not the post). One of the Admins must have seen it and unquarantined it! Thanks!

[mmhmm]

May 6, 2015 22:48:20 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Ooooohhhhh k.

That's new.

There's a message at the top of my previous post that says: "Your Post is quarantined until reviewed by staff."



There's nothing in the post that's "quarantine" worthy! Wonder what tripped the "quarantine".





ETA: and now it's gone (the weird message, not the post). One of the Admins must have seen it and unquarantined it! Thanks!

It was a malfunctioning plugin, Richard. All's well now.

[Deleted]

I was doing the good ol' fashioned head scratch over it... honest.

[mmhmm]

May 6, 2015 22:52:21 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I was doing the good ol' fashioned head scratch over it... honest.

Don't feel alone. So were we.