Electric cars - Tesla and global

[PDW]

To tell the truth, I don't understand all this brewhaha over self-driving vehicles ? What's the point ? If you don't want to drive, get on the streetcar. Seems very much like an "answer" in search of a problem, to me. One where the answer is going to be worse than the problem.

Try driving Melbourne-Sydney or even worse, Adelaide-Perth. Long boring distances that just have to be covered.

Good luck with the street car - better have plenty of books to hand while you wait for one to come along though.

PDW

 

[john.k]

Viable self drive electric cars are the missing link for succesful car sharing........not for everyone ,maybe,but a solution to car ownership problems for those who have no parking facilities in big cities.....Mandated by governments as an alternative to spending billions on road networks .I see the concept really taking off in the near future.

 

[CarbideBob]

There is different types of driving and ranges.
I have long wanted a car or truck that could do 4-8 hours north in wide open roads while napping.
This would make weekend trips nicer and more often.
Like a train car you could just relax and nap or not.
Imagine if you could do this from one coast the other. The car would refuel all on it's own on the trip and stops when you wanted to get out and pee or wanted food.
Bob

 

[Ziggy2]

I think you misunderstand what Level 5 Autonomy means. It is not about COMPETING with professional drivers but rather about being able to operate anywhere, anytime, in any weather in the same world where humans have driven for over a century. That world includes not only vehicles and people but also animals, fallen tree branches, and wind blown debris including trash barrels. It is a world where rain, snow, and wind make things difficult and change the normal rules. It is also a world where construction work and temporary obstacles radically change the driving rules. Will an SDV be able to reliably identify the cop on detail and recognize and obey his hand signals? Many times a city lane is blocked for construction or utility work and a cop directs those in one direction to stop while he waves the others through. For those traveling in the direction that is blocked they must proceed into the lane where normally it would be wrong way driving, a violation of the rules.

On the subject of safety and the oft-repeated claim that switching to SDVs will drastically reduce injuries and fatalities advocates are pushing a false assumption that the MAJORITY of drivers are dangerous. The majority of drivers actually do a pretty good job under often challenging conditions and it has long been known that a small minority of drivers cause the majority of the carnage. Most serious drunk driving accidents involve alcoholics and hard core power drinkers who tend to be repeat offenders and most reckless driving accidents involve a small group of drivers who refuse to accept any limits on their behavior. These are the type who will often continue to drive even after their license is suspended or revoked, and even jail time only temporarily removes them from the roads until they kill someone.

The notion, repeated here and elsewhere by SDV advocates that humans are too dangerous to be allowed to continue driving after SDVs become common is a dangerous assault on the concept of human liberty, and the likelihood that in the long term we will even be allowed to OWN personal SDVs does not look good if you read what many environmental advocates are saying.

Self-driving cars might be "a coming congestion disaster" | TreeHugger

302 Found​

In a future post I will go into how a switch to SDVs will not eliminate human error and why the issue of modern computers, operating systems, and software WILL be a factor in real world SDVs. In the meantime, here's a hint.

Should We Just Accept the Safety Risks of Self-Driving? - CityLab​

The CityLab article raises an interesting question of accepting "reasonable" casualty rates.

What I find intriguing is that with current human operated automobiles we accept present accident and fatality rates without too much thought to it. At the same time we are concerned with accident and fatality rates of ADVs even though they are at likely lower rates then the human driven vehicle rates.

Now if we compare these reactions to how the public has reacted towards the Boeing 737Max problems, I see a major disconnect. It appears that we as humans are more willing to accept increased risks if we are in control and would find rates that are significantly less in situations that we are not in control unacceptable.

I suspect a major component to this disconnect is that we tend to view ourselves as having a sense of immortality and that only accidents happen to other people and not us when we are in control. At the same time we demand absolute perfection from automated systems designed, built, and maintained by fallible humans.

Another major component to this is that we culturally require the suppliers of products to be totally safe and will punish them financially through litigation. At the same time we tend to be more tolerant of individual failures and do not subject individual failures to the same standard.

This will require a paradigm shift in how we view fault tolerance and liability.

 

[john.k]

When all city traffic is limited to 15mph,the share cars wont kill anyone when they collide,if indeed they do .Problem solved in many ways....The SDVs wont need traffic lights ,they will seamlessly move without stopping,thereby ,producing a trip time less than conventional driven cars with all the stops and delays.

 

[EmGo]

I’m supposed to take a streetcar from Chicago to Des Moines? Which line would that be?

Right. You guys have absolute shit for public transportation, and it makes no sense. Around town cars make sense. For going 500 miles they do not.

But y'all killed what made sense, trains. Now you want "self-driving vehicles" to accomplish what's already there, except falling apart through neglect.

I can walk out the door at 7:00 a.m. and be in downtown Beijing, 800 miles away ? in the afternoon. No muss, no fuss, no self-driving car crashing into a trailer because it thought it was a cloud, get up, walk around, eat a snack, take a nap, oogle the girls, lovely. Self-driving vehicles are a half-ass solution in search of a problem that was solved 100 years ago.

US has a third-world transportation system. May as well be in Africa.

 

[CarbideBob]

..... I’m supposed to take a streetcar from Chicago to Des Moines? Which line would that be?

You take the bus or the train if you do not want to drive or have no car.
Google it.
Now if you want to go to Copper Harbor here in the yoouper country options get more limited once you pass the normal stops.
The last bit is the most expensive and I'm sure in remote areas anywhere in the world this is true.
One can not compare "served" areas to remote in mass transit.
Flint to downtown Chi-town, the train ride is kind of cool although most do not consider it. No complaints at all and you spend some other money maybe getting around the town.
Being a wide open corn field midwest guy this was a new experience and surprised how you can get just about anywhere for very little money.
There is this whole series of inside running around this city that you can tour.

That is the thing, easier to jump in the car and you have transportation when you get there even if you spend more money.
Make no doubt, since the 70's I drive my car, van, motorcycle or truck from here to the south end of Florida non-stop so 21 hours plus behind the wheel.
(I just simply love Florida coast be it Daytona or Naples... the sound and feel, lay me out at night to die....)
I always have a spare driver but I like to drive and have never rolled over.
A SDV would be cool,....Maybe when I get older....
Bob

 

[gbent]

Right. You guys have absolute shit for public transportation, and it makes no sense. Around town cars make sense. For going 500 miles they do not.

But y'all killed what made sense, trains. Now you want "self-driving vehicles" to accomplish what's already there, except falling apart through neglect.

I can walk out the door at 7:00 a.m. and be in downtown Beijing, 800 miles away ? in the afternoon. No muss, no fuss, no self-driving car crashing into a trailer because it thought it was a cloud, get up, walk around, eat a snack, take a nap, oogle the girls, lovely. Self-driving vehicles are a half-ass solution in search of a problem that was solved 100 years ago.

US has a third-world transportation system. May as well be in Africa.

Spoken by someone who lives in a country smaller than many US states. It appears you don't have any concept of the size of the USA, or the vast distances from place to place in the center of the country. Public transportation requires riders, and much of this country doesn't have any.

 

[tdmidget]

Spoken by someone who lives in a country smaller than many US states. It appears you don't have any concept of the size of the USA, or the vast distances from place to place in the center of the country. Public transportation requires riders, and much of this country doesn't have any.

Pretty sure that no state is larger than China, in fact, the whole USA is smaller than China.

 

[PDW]

Spoken by someone who lives in a country smaller than many US states. It appears you don't have any concept of the size of the USA, or the vast distances from place to place in the center of the country. Public transportation requires riders, and much of this country doesn't have any.

Bwahahahahahaaaaaaa.

He lives in China. China is bigger than the USA, hard though it might be for you to accept such a thing.

And yeah, public transport is mainly a function of population density if you want it without truly eye-watering public/tax subsidies.

PDW

 

[gustafson]

Spoken by someone who lives in a country smaller than many US states. It appears you don't have any concept of the size of the USA, or the vast distances from place to place in the center of the country. Public transportation requires riders, and much of this country doesn't have any.

A very high percentage of the population lives in an area around a metropolis. A very high percentage of those people's trips could effectively be served by public transportation.

No one wants to run a subway in Montana or North Dakota

 

[john.k]

I live 10 miles from a metropolis(sort of) ,and I can see empty public transport busses going past all hours of the day or night....How much would be saved if self driving cars could pick up the one or two passengers on demand,with busses only needed at peak usage .self driving busses.

 

[EmGo]

And yeah, public transport is mainly a function of population density if you want it without truly eye-watering public/tax subsidies.

China desn't have subsidies because The People own everything

But I wonder about that statement. A hundred years ago there were public roads but they were shabby. There were private railroads which made a profit and carried thousands of people (yet with a population density half as much or less than today.)

Then the goobermint stepped in with public / tax subsidies and built the interstate freeway system. GM and Goodyear et al destroyed the public transportation that was in place. Most cities now would be in heaven if we had the public transport that was in place in 1890. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that without tax subsidies, public transportation would be the only systems that supported themselves ?

What does Caltrans cost every year ? How much tax is there on a gallon of gasoline ? What is the cost of white flight ? How much does it cost to bury the best farmland in the world under eight-lane freeways ? Autos are subsidized up the wazoo, saying that public transport requires subsidies ignores the fact that autos are more heavily subsidized than urban and interurban transport ever was. All those systems that got decimated in the thirties were private and got no subsidies. They were decimated by government subsidies to the car.

I spent the summer fooling around in BC and the northwest. Did not buy a car. Used public transport everywhere. Except for carrying lumber and bottom paint (did that on the bus once, admit it was a mistake, that stuff is HEAVY !) public transportation was not only workable, it was more pleasant. Had some downsides but for a great deal of the time you don't need a goddamned car. In fact I was happy to not have a goddamned car with everything it entails. I saved money and had a better time. And lost some unsightly fat, too ...

imnsho opinion, self-driving shit is a waste of energy. Cars in general are bad for society. Putting our efforts into better methods of going places and moving things around would be more effective / positive / helpful / whatever. Cars are good sometimes. But like the guy with a hammer, not everything is a nail.

 

[PDW]

imnsho opinion, self-driving shit is a waste of energy. Cars in general are bad for society. Putting our efforts into better methods of going places and moving things around would be more effective / positive / helpful / whatever. Cars are good sometimes. But like the guy with a hammer, not everything is a nail.

This is why I have a boat. Definitely my preferred method of travel.

Unfortunately it's a very slow way of getting places.

And yeah when I'm in Sydney I nearly always travel by public transport. There are 3 major reasons.

1. The road network is clogged and parking is a major PITA.

2. I don't have to get to a job in peak hour (or at all) and deal with changes in connections/lost time in transit.

3. I have a Senior's Card (old fart) and can go anywhere on the Sydney public transport system for $2.50 a day.

I think self-driving cars are a really good idea. That's not to say that I think they're likely to be rolled out with seriously robust software minimising accidents any time soon. But I can hope.....

PDW

 

[EmGo]

This is why I have a boat. Definitely my preferred method of travel.

Unfortunately it's a very slow way of getting places.

Sometimes 7 mph is enough

View attachment 272746

 

[neilho]

...How much tax is there on a gallon of gasoline ? What is the cost of white flight ? How much does it cost to bury the best farmland in the world under eight-lane freeways ? Autos are subsidized up the wazoo, saying that public transport requires subsidies ignores the fact that autos are more heavily subsidized than urban and interurban transport ever was..... but for a great deal of the time you don't need a goddamned car. ...Cars in general are bad for society. Putting our efforts into better methods of going places and moving things around would be more effective / positive / helpful / whatever. Cars are good sometimes. But like the guy with a hammer, not everything is a nail.

Yup, yup, yup.

And try looking at it from a public health point of view. 40,000 drivers/passengers in the USA (2018) dead from accidents + 7000 or so pedestrians and bicyclists. They're killers...

 

[DDoug]

This is why I have a boat. Definitely my preferred method of travel.

Unfortunately it's a very slow way of getting places.

Get a float plane....

 

[Scottl]

Yup, yup, yup.

And try looking at it from a public health point of view. 40,000 drivers/passengers in the USA (2018) dead from accidents + 7000 or so pedestrians and bicyclists. They're killers...

Which works out to something like 0.015% of population per year. Now to put it in perspective.

How much of that carnage is from people driving illegally, particularly habitual drunks and "youths" driving stolen cars and other criminal activity?

How many people who AREN'T especially dangerous will be adversely affected by having their personal autonomy (ability to travel where they like, when they like) taken away using this justification?

What will the majority of us get in this trade, exchanging our personal liberty to POSSIBLY eliminate the loss of 0.015% of the U.S. population per year?

I say "possibly" because the likelihood that SDVs can drastically reduce injuries and deaths AND travel efficiently enough to satisfy our fast-paced society is probably pretty small.

For many people, living in a city apartment and existing without a personal vehicle is something they want and for them I say fine, have at it but if you don't think universal adoption of SDVs and even BEVs will devastate rural areas you are buying into a fantasy. I for one don't care to live in an apartment in a city, traveling only by foot, bicycle, public transit and hired rides and there is a substantial portion of the population who share that view.

 

[EmGo]

What will the majority of us get in this trade, exchanging our personal liberty to POSSIBLY eliminate the loss of 0.015% of the U.S. population per year?

Self-driving vehicles have nothing to do with your liberty, you can own your own.

But beyond that, even if society tossed cars aside and made them unobtanium, people had MORE liberty before we had the auto. Plus the idea that you have "liberty" in a car is ridiculous. On the road you are subject to unreasonable search and seizure at all times. Driver's licenses are the same as a national ID card. Private insurance is forced down your throat or it's jail time ! Bah, people who talk "liberty" in the context of cars don't know the meaning of the word. Cars are one of the easiest ways to deprove people of liberty.

We had "liberty" and a hell of a lot more of it for three hundred years before the auto came along. What's liberating is going somewhere and you don't have to park the damn thing. You don't have to worry about it getting broken into or stolen or scratched. There's no bloody parking meters to feed. No car means you're on your own, Jack, free as a bird.

Possessions own us.

travel efficiently enough to satisfy our fast-paced society is probably pretty small.

Maybe we should look at that, too. We are all going to die. Why do we have to hurry up to get there?

For many people, living in a city apartment and existing without a personal vehicle is something they want and for them I say fine, have at it but if you don't think universal adoption of SDVs and even BEVs will devastate rural areas you are buying into a fantasy. I for one don't care to live in an apartment in a city, traveling only by foot, bicycle, public transit and hired rides and there is a substantial portion of the population who share that view.

That's fine, I am not trying to forcce you to do anything. But on the other hand, this pretense that cars are self-supporting and the best thing since sliced bread is not true. The auto is gigantically subsidized and quite destructive, saying public transportation is a public burden is not honest. Plus the reason public transportation is now mostly owned by cities and the feds is that the feds and states subsidized autos to the point they ran off the private companies transporting passengers.

There are a lot more negatives to cars than just the number of people killed in accidents each year.

I just think self-driving is a waste because instead of addressing the problem, it is continuing down the same destructive path we already travel. If the spindle speed is too high, jacking it up another 500 rpm ain't gonna fix the problem.

 

[Scottl]

Self-driving vehicles have nothing to do with your liberty, you can own your own.

Or so people THINK right now when they are still at the experimental stage. A lot of entities including Uber and cab companies are pushing the idea that individuals shouldn't be allowed to own them but rather that they should be reserved for fleet pay-to-ride usage. They have a lot of support from "experts" touting safety, maintenance, and environmental issues as justification for banning individual ownership.

EG, I get that you hate the automobile, joining such illustrious company as Al Gore and other similar paragons of virtue. As such, you are fully entitled to choose not to own one yourself but you have no right to choose for the rest of us.