[photoptimist]

The highways are for the most part...during the weekdays.... not terribly busy. I do a lot of back road driving in obscure and little traveled areas...summer, winter, spring and fall...I have a pretty good , general idea of this large western region and usually just use my in car compass to guide me around different areas. Of course being a Pentaxian I carry my K-1 with 28-105 and K-5 with Sigma 150-500, in case I see some forgotten iron (old machine), wild life (animal, bird) or old building in gracious decay...to photograph.

I do have a back roads map book (paper) and have never really gotten lost, as long as I have a compass, either in car or hand held. I don't use a GPS direction finder....nor do I want to, as the 'old' technology and my brain so far has worked out real well.

So how is the autonomous system going to work for guys like me, who drive down old back roads, farm roads...not all of them are mapped. I drive down steep inclines...shifting down to first or second...slowly plan where I plant my wheels as I go through badly rutted...or snow drift plagued roads , etc.

As a photographer, you might even prefer an autonomous vehicle because it will enable you to spend more time looking out the window for photo opportunities.

But how will it work for you? It might be easy:

1) Voice command: You'll simply tell the car to "turn right," "turn-left," "stop here," etc. as your whims and swinging compass needle dictate. The car will have the latest satellite imagery of the entire area and can tell you if the selected turn leads to a washed-out bridge or dead-end road. And if there are enough autonomous vehicles in operation or using shared-tracking services like Waze, then you might even get road condition reports from the most recent other cars to pass that way.

2) Off-roading isn't that hard. Some of the early DARPA autonomous vehicle contests were explicitly for off-road vehicles. There's a need for autonomous off-road in military, agricultural (e.g., autonomous tractors), and natural resource applications (e.g., autonomous logging and mining trucks).


But maybe an autonomous vehicle isn't for you. The makers of these vehicles will cater to the people that really want or need them. The percentage of young people getting drivers licenses has been dropping. Many young people see no reason to learn to drive. And the number of elderly who cannot drive is climbing. Non-drivers might buy these cars. Others might not want the hassle of owning a car (we got rid of our last car in 1999). Non-owners will probably rent these vehicles by the ride, by the hour, or by the day. For example, we use Uber/Lyft, a neighborhood carshare share service, and regular rental cars as needed depending on how far we going. We even rented a large cargo van for camping for last year's solar eclipse and a trip to Canada.

[ThorSanchez]

So how is the autonomous system going to work for guys like me, who drive down old back roads, farm roads...not all of them are mapped. I drive down steep inclines...shifting down to first or second...slowly plan where I plant my wheels as I go through badly rutted...or snow drift plagued roads , etc.

You're going to get in your old Buick and drive wherever you want. The end.

Hi Les...

The futerists I think are just dull and lacking in individualism.

Exactly. I'm sure you can find endless quotes from 1800 or 1900 or 1930 or 1960 about the nightmarish conditions the human race will be subjugated to in 2018. By later in life Henry Ford became an unrepentant nostalgist, going so far as founding a utopian community/rubber plantation in the Amazon jungle because he'd grown totally disenchanted with the total insanity of American lifestyle and culture of the 1910s and 1920s. Life would never go back to the idyllic conditions of the 1870s.

Many people have difficulty envisioning a world that is somewhat different than their own, but also wonderful and exciting and challenging and engaging. For hundreds of years the world has constantly changed, but if anything we've increased the opportunities for more and more people to live an exciting life well.

Autonomous cars will end up just fine, and make life better for many.

[Racer X 69]

I don't know why there's this strong undercurrent in any discussion like this that eventually the government is going to take away our human-driven cars and we'll all be wearing white jumpsuits as we wander aimlessly into our grey transportation pods.

Obviously there are a substantial number of people who will want to drive their own cars. These people presumably vote. It seems unreasonable that a large number of people wanting to do things that are currently legal will in the next decade or so have that right (and the use of $billions worth of their property) ripped from them involuntarily.

I'm going on record as saying that if in 2055 you want to drive your unmodified 1963 Split Window Corvette you'll have no troubles. Besides the difficulty in finding gasoline, and the high insurance premiums that will go along with unaided human driving. At worst self-driving will be like driving a Tesla Model S today. Expensive enough to be out of the reach of many, inconvienent in some ways, but still very do-able if you really want to.

The Red Barchetta

You Tube

You Tube

My uncle has a country place
That no one knows about.
He says it used to be a farm
Before the Motor Law.
And on Sundays I elude the Eyes,
And hop the Turbine Freight
To far outside the Wire
Where my white-haired uncle waits.

Jump to the ground
As the Turbo slows to cross the borderline.
Run like the wind
As excitement shivers up and down my spine.
Down in his barn
My uncle preserved for me an old machine
For fifty-odd years.
To keep it as new has been his dearest dream.

I strip away the old debris
That hides a shining car:
A brilliant red Barchetta
From a better vanished time.
We fire up the willing engine
Responding with a roar.
Tires spitting gravel,
I commit my weekly crime.

Wind
In my hair
Shifting and drifting
Mechanical music
Adrenaline surge...

Well-weathered leather,
Hot metal and oil,
The scented country air.
Sunlight on chrome,
The blur of the landscape,
Every nerve aware.

Suddenly ahead of me
Across the mountainside
A gleaming alloy air-car
Shoots towards me, two lanes wide.
I spin around with shrieking tires
To run the deadly race
Go screaming through the valley
As another joins the chase.

Drive like the wind
Straining the limits of machine and man.
Laughing out loud with fear and hope
I've got a desperate plan.
At the one-lane bridge
I leave the giants stranded at the riverside.
Race back to the farm
To dream with my uncle at the fireside.

[Just1MoreDave]

There was discussion about sensors a few days ago. It's pretty common for manufacturers to put sensors up in the center of the windshield, behind the rear view mirror. This is my wife's Mercedes:



They are in the area covered by wipers, and in this case, that sensor area is heated too. The car does have parking sensors in the bumper that get snow-clogged in heavy snow. If you are going 19mph or less, you have to switch off the parking sensors.

The automation this car does have works very well. I've driven lots of cars where you couldn't trust the cruise control to stay within 5mph of the chosen speed, and an outside temperature readout was only accurate by sheer chance. This car has automatic wipers, headlights, climate control and cruise control, all 100% reliable. After a very short time, I just trusted the car to take car of stuff. But for some reason, the traction control is terrible.

[ChrisPlatt]

A 1967 Dart GTS 383.

Nothing autonomous about it..

My friend's first car was his parent's old '67 Dart. Theirs was a two-door sedan with Slant-Six.

If the occupant of the passenger seat was leaning against the door when making a sharp left turn the door might open up on it's own.
Once leaving the Rosedale movie theater I nearly wound up sprawled across Rockaway Boulevard. Seemed pretty autonomous to me!

Chris

[MarkJerling]

My friend's first car was his parent's old '67 Dart. Theirs was a two-door sedan with Slant-Six.

If the occupant of the passenger seat was leaning against the door when making a sharp left turn the door might open up on it's own.
Once leaving the Rosedale movie theater I nearly wound up sprawled across Rockaway Boulevard. Seemed pretty autonomous to me!

Chris

A common feature of early UK wooden framed sports cars. I know someone who temporarily lost his girlfriend at a roundabout.

[PDL]

My friend's first car was his parent's old '67 Dart. Theirs was a two-door sedan with Slant-Six.

If the occupant of the passenger seat was leaning against the door when making a sharp left turn the door might open up on it's own.
Once leaving the Rosedale movie theater I nearly wound up sprawled across Rockaway Boulevard. Seemed pretty autonomous to me!

Chris

Spotted the guy who did not wear a seatbelt "back in the day".

The first car my father bought brand new off the lot was a 66 coronet. He wanted a standard but all they had were automatics. So we ended up with "Gypsy", named after Gypsy Rose Lee, because it was a stripped down basic car. My dad had the dealership put a third seatbelt in the front bench seat and made sure that the rear seat had three sets of seatbelts. The only real "option" was a AM-FM radio. Rubber floor mats, cheap cloth/vinyl seats and hub covers (caps would be a generous statement). It did have a huge trunk with a 318V8 and a three speed auto. No sway bars, on California highway 1 nearly everyone in the car got sick from rolling side to side. It died in the mid 70's when a Ford Torino skipped over the center lane and took out its front end. Everyone was OK but I had to let my Mom and Dad use my first car (64 1/2 Mustang - really a first run mustang called the 65 but it wasn't). They bought another stripped down Chrysler product (Plymouth Duster) that I ended up getting when I gave my Mustang away. The name of the Duster was something I can not repeat here since the moderators would have a fit.

Anyway, back on the subject of Autonomous Cars, I was watching a show last night about AI and after listening to the generalizations on how AI was going to cure all of our traffic ills, I had to switch it to something else. Like most propaganda about AI/Autonomous vehicles, the people on the show were saying that personal ownership of cars/trucks/whatever would be a thing of the past and that the number of vehicles on the road would diminish. Maybe in high density cities where scheduled transportation can be arranged, but for heavens sake you still need to move millions of people in and out of the city center on a daily basis. Rush hours are called rush hours for a reason. The logistics of moving large numbers of people with independent schedules/departures/arrivals is still going to take large numbers of vehicles.

[photoptimist]

Anyway, back on the subject of Autonomous Cars, I was watching a show last night about AI and after listening to the generalizations on how AI was going to cure all of our traffic ills, I had to switch it to something else. Like most propaganda about AI/Autonomous vehicles, the people on the show were saying that personal ownership of cars/trucks/whatever would be a thing of the past and that the number of vehicles on the road would diminish. Maybe in high density cities where scheduled transportation can be arranged, but for heavens sake you still need to move millions of people in and out of the city center on a daily basis. Rush hours are called rush hours for a reason. The logistics of moving large numbers of people with independent schedules/departures/arrivals is still going to take large numbers of vehicles.

There's some truth to what you say. The total number of vehicles "on the road" certainly has spikes during the day. But it's not as bad as it seems for two reasons:

First, Autonomous Cars can use platooning in which the following distances between cars drop significantly (to 1/2 car length) even as the cars travel at full speed. The result improves the capacity of the roadway, increases average velocity, and improve fuel efficiency in both the lead car and followers. Improving the smooth flow of traffic cuts everyone's commuting time and reduces the number of cars on the road because all the cars get off the road at their destination that much sooner.

Second, the daily in-and-out-of-the-city pattern is an artifact of old urban planning strategies that segregated commercial and residential uses of land. That zoning strategy created the current pattern of core commercial districts surrounded by sprawling residential areas that then forced everyone to drive long distances every day. In recent years, there's been a change in urban planning to favor mixed-used developments with retail on the first floor, then some floors of offices, and then some floors of residential units. Mixed use increases the density of people, reduces the average distance between things, reduces the percentage of trips that require a car, and balances the pattern of movements around the city.

For people living in a city, there's no need to "pre-schedule" a car. There would always be some nearby -- typically only 2 to 5 minutes away. And any time spent waiting for the car to arrive would be totally compensated by avoiding the time spent trying to find a parking space and then walking from the parking lot to the door.

[onlineflyer]

First, Autonomous Cars can use platooning in which the following distances between cars drop significantly (to 1/2 car length) even as the cars travel at full speed. The result improves the capacity of the roadway, increases average velocity, and improve fuel efficiency in both the lead car and followers. Improving the smooth flow of traffic cuts everyone's commuting time and reduces the number of cars on the road because all the cars get off the road at their destination that much sooner.

Yes, until a vehicle gets a flat, or a mechanical, or an intermittent electrical fault. Machines are not perfect, just like humans are not perfect.

[PDL]

There's some truth to what you say. The total number of vehicles "on the road" certainly has spikes during the day. But it's not as bad as it seems for two reasons:

First, Autonomous Cars can use platooning in which the following distances between cars drop significantly (to 1/2 car length) even as the cars travel at full speed. The result improves the capacity of the roadway, increases average velocity, and improve fuel efficiency in both the lead car and followers. Improving the smooth flow of traffic cuts everyone's commuting time and reduces the number of cars on the road because all the cars get off the road at their destination that much sooner.

Second, the daily in-and-out-of-the-city pattern is an artifact of old urban planning strategies that segregated commercial and residential uses of land. That zoning strategy created the current pattern of core commercial districts surrounded by sprawling residential areas that then forced everyone to drive long distances every day. In recent years, there's been a change in urban planning to favor mixed-used developments with retail on the first floor, then some floors of offices, and then some floors of residential units. Mixed use increases the density of people, reduces the average distance between things, reduces the percentage of trips that require a car, and balances the pattern of movements around the city.

For people living in a city, there's no need to "pre-schedule" a car. There would always be some nearby -- typically only 2 to 5 minutes away. And any time spent waiting for the car to arrive would be totally compensated by avoiding the time spent trying to find a parking space and then walking from the parking lot to the door.

First, autonomous cars can "platoon" only when the majority of the cars are following the same algorithms and communications protocols. I am sorry to say that with the plethora of technology companies out there trying to get into this, that common protocols (aka. co-operation) are going to take decades to work out.

Second, the so called old urban planning will still be with us for the next few centuries. Reworking physical infrastructure is expensive and extraordinarily disruptive in terms of time and money. Time is always there and money is scarce and varies from place to place. (Sorry Moderators) The political climate is also very volatile, local and state government can not carry out the expense of getting these projects done and the variability of Federal funding and attitude will drag major changes to a halt.

Then there is the fallacy that there will be enough autonomous vehicles on hand to solve traffic issues. The majority of cars on the road today are single occupancy and I see no reason to think that autonomous cars are going to change that. There are the logistical issues with where to put them when they are not in use => parking spots. (Please read my comment about the City of Seattle not having enough parking now - Oh and they are actively pressuring parking lots to reduce size or go away). I my neighborhood there are quite a few well to do people that work for a wide range of companies. Do you really think that they would lower themselves to ride to their office/workplace in the equivalent of a car pool? I don't think so. Since these guys have multiple cars/trucks now, they are going to buy their own autonomous vehicle will all the goodies that they deem necessary to have.

And as for having empty cars just waiting for you (no need to pre-schedule), where are those cars when they are in "waiting" mode? Well they are on the streets taking up parking or adding to traffic congestion. I think your imagination is getting the better of you.

[ChrisPlatt]

A recent study finds 30% of city traffic results from drivers looking for a parking spot.
I wonder how will privately-owned autonomous vehicles deal with the parking issue?

Chris

[photoptimist]

Yes, until a vehicle gets a flat, or a mechanical, or an intermittent electrical fault. Machines are not perfect, just like humans are not perfect.

It is true that machines are not perfect, just like humans are not perfect. But machines can be designed to be far closer to perfect that drunk, tired, distracted, cellphone using humans.

If any of the cars gets a flat or mechanical issue, it simply slows down and all the cars behind it immediately slow down. The reaction time is only a few milliseconds which is why a 1/2 car length following distance is very safe for a machine.

[photoptimist]

First, autonomous cars can "platoon" only when the majority of the cars are following the same algorithms and communications protocols. I am sorry to say that with the plethora of technology companies out there trying to get into this, that common protocols (aka. co-operation) are going to take decades to work out.

There's no need for any communication between the vehicles at all beyond brake lights and turn signals.

Second, the so called old urban planning will still be with us for the next few centuries. Reworking physical infrastructure is expensive and extraordinarily disruptive in terms of time and money. Time is always there and money is scarce and varies from place to place. (Sorry Moderators) The political climate is also very volatile, local and state government can not carry out the expense of getting these projects done and the variability of Federal funding and attitude will drag major changes to a halt.

The reworking is already happening one building at a time. And there's no need for any infrastructure investment. Smart signals and smart roads are a pipe dream and none of the autonomous vehicle makers are waiting for them to be built. In fact, the only viable autonomous vehicle is one that doesn't need smart roads because so many of the roadways and other cars on the road are dumb. And if an autonomous car can function without complex communications, then there's no economic incentive for the car maker to add that complexity (vehicle-to-infrastructure and vehicle-to-vehicle communications) to a vehicle.

Then there is the fallacy that there will be enough autonomous vehicles on hand to solve traffic issues. The majority of cars on the road today are single occupancy and I see no reason to think that autonomous cars are going to change that. There are the logistical issues with where to put them when they are not in use => parking spots. (Please read my comment about the City of Seattle not having enough parking now - Oh and they are actively pressuring parking lots to reduce size or go away). I my neighborhood there are quite a few well to do people that work for a wide range of companies. Do you really think that they would lower themselves to ride to their office/workplace in the equivalent of a car pool? I don't think so. Since these guys have multiple cars/trucks now, they are going to buy their own autonomous vehicle will all the goodies that they deem necessary to have.

You are right about the single occupancy issue. Only about 9% of commuters carpool and that is not likely to change. Nor do autonomous cars require that to change.

Technically, the vast majority of current dumb cars sit in a zero-occupancy state while their owner is at work, shopping, home, etc.

And as for having empty cars just waiting for you (no need to pre-schedule), where are those cars when they are in "waiting" mode? Well they are on the streets taking up parking or adding to traffic congestion. I think your imagination is getting the better of you.

Waiting mode is already a serious problem with dumb cars. Right now, every driver has their dumb car waiting for them 100% of the time that they are not in the vehicle. A person who goes to work in a downtown office building needs 8-10 hours of parking-space time at whatever $/hour that costs. But if the vehicle that took the worker to their office can drive off and pick up other people during the day, the amount of required parking space time drops from 8 to 10 hours per worker per day to some fraction of that. Instead of the worker having to pay to park their car the entire time they are at work (and lot of employers don't cover parking costs), the car earns some money during the day. The percentage of time each car spends parked will drop significantly.

Moreover, for every worker who lets their car earn money during the day, some number of other people will realize they won't need to bring a car into the city or own a car in the city because of this pool of available smart cars brought in by commuters. Thus, the total number of cars downtown will drop and the total number of required parking spaces will drop even more. In turn, getting rid of on-street parking frees-up another lane for traffic. Instead of paying billions to build a new road, cities only need to remove some on-street parking.

Places like Seattle and Boston are going to make parking so unpleasant and expensive that only the richest people will be able to afford it. In some of Boston's most expensive neighborhoods, buying a parking space can cost over half a million dollars. Even in more modest neighborhoods, the cost of space often runs $50,000. The parking space is more valuable than the car parked in it! City dwellers and commuters who don't want to pay huge sums for parking are going to find that sharing autonomous vehicles will be very attractive.

[dbs]

Hi all
Photoptamist the peak time you still need all the vehicles at once regardless if they can be used by others during your working time.Maybe we need autonomous cars and not so highly structured working hours to then ease the "rush hour".

Dave

[onlineflyer]

I've heard the same types of arguments by a segment of the population about how great electric vehicles are and how much they are going to change everything, for at least 30 years. Yes, three decades, beginning with the Clean Air Act of 1990 and California's zero emission mandate, requiring 2% of all light vehicles sold in CA to be zero emission vehicles. Well, where are we after 30 years? Still striving to achieve that magic 2% number.

The penetration rate of autonomous vehicles will be painfully slow. First there is the factor of economics and whether of not you believe it, that will be a major challenge. These news systems to control the vehicle will be costly, given the complexity of the various added systems and the required redundancy to make them as near fail safe as possible. The auto industry is based on economies of scale and the numbers just don't add up, similar to that of electric vehicles that sill need tax credits to gain a sliver of market share. Second, there are over two hundred million (yes, 200,000,000) light vehicles registered in the U.S. Mixing autonomous vehicles with non-autonomous vehicles is a formula for disaster and when accidents happen, who will be sued? Yes, the vehicle manufacturer because they have the deepest of pockets. Third, most individuals really don't understand what an autonomous vehicle is and what are it's potential liabilities. Forth, most consumers don't want to share a vehicle, yes, there are exceptions but not the number required to make autonomous vehicles a mass market success. Who wants a mess left in their vehicle from someone who had a pizza party in their vehicle. Don't think it will happen? Well, guess again.

Thirty years ago, there were numerous market research studies that projected the tremendous demand for electric vehicles. So why is its penetration sooooo low? Well, the people responding to the surveys really didn't understand the pros and cons of an ev, starting with the higher cost of purchase and the reduced utility of the vehicle. Autonomous vehicles will only be successful if consumer buy in full throttle but, guess again, there is no throttle.