Are Tech & Automakers not considering there may be a backlash to self driving cars

[hellified]

Era 2 is where the major shifts will take place in terms of ownership and responsibility and how the job market is affected.

This MAY be what the future will like in 2050....you wake up, get dressed and go to work or whatever appointments you have. When you step out the house, a car is waiting for you having pulled in front of your house at the requested time. You get in and the computer in the car syncs up with your smart phone and all the features in the car adjusts to your personal settings. radio stations, seat levels, heat or cooling, etc.

The car gets you to your destination and you get out, go to your job or appointment and when your done you set up another pick up on your phone and as you walk to the curb another car pulls up, you get in and go to wherever you want without saying a word. And the process repeats over again.


[YT]IS9ZkYx5v-I[/YT]

If you noticed there is no steering wheel in the thing. You're ONLY interface with the car is through a touchscreen. You can't operate the vehicle. If that's the case then this opens up a whole bunch of questions for the users/consumers...

IF I DON'T/CAN'T OWN THE VEHICLE THEN:

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ACCIDENTS? If I'm not operating the car then I refuse to assume any responsibility.

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR UPKEEP? If I'm just a passenger in the thing then how am I responsible for the upkeep...I don't have that responsibility with a cab or bus and I'm just a passenger in those vehicles too.

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INSURANCE? Again as a passive passenger I don't pay insurance for using a cab or bus so why should I for a self driving car I can't own?

And there are a myriad of other issues that branch off from those that remain to be dealt with. But there is also a very basic backlash that I don't think car manufacturers have thought about or anticipated.

http://madconceptz.blogspot.com/2016/07/are-tech-and-automakers-not-considering.html

 

[Victarion]

Call me when I can play riddles with it.

 

[DA_Champion]

I think that self-driving cars will be the greatest economic boom in the USA in the next thirty years, maybe half as large as the internet revolution.

 

[hellified]

I think that self-driving cars will be the greatest economic boom in the USA in the next thirty years, maybe half as large as the internet revolution.

how?

 

[DA_Champion]

how?

Read the graphic at the top.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I don't really see it as an economic boom. I also don't think it will be some stark transformation. Assisted parking is already a feature on many current cars. I think cars will just gradually become more and more automated, that before you know it, you have a car that can drive itself.

Also, many car companies are being smart and embracing this trend. So, it's not like we are seeing a rise of start up companies that only develop self-driving cars.

 

[DA_Champion]

I don't really see it as an economic boom. I also don't think it will be some stark transformation. Assisted parking is already a feature on many current cars. I think cars will just gradually become more and more automated, that before you know it, you have a car that can drive itself.

Also, many car companies are being smart and embracing this trend. So, it's not like we are seeing a rise of start up companies that only develop self-driving cars.

Every year in the United States, there are 33,000 traffic fatalities, and 2.35 million people are injured or disabled. Cut that by 90%, minimum. That's a whole lot more economic efficiency, a whole lot less time lost, a whole lot fewer cars to replace, a whole lot fewer lives ruined, lowered insurance premiums, and so on.

As a comparison, ~11,000 Americans are killed every year by guns. Bringing in self-driving crimes will be the equivalent of eliminating homicides from guns ... three times over.

Then you have the time spent in traffic. The time wasted in traffic. That is the greatest inefficiency of cars -- you have to drive them. My sister who lives in Florida spends two hours a day driving. Bring in self-driving cars, the speed limit will be faster, traffic will be lower, and she will spend maybe one hour a day in her car, and she won't be wasting her time driving, she'll be able to read or talk on the phone.

Then there is the issue of housing. People pay more money to live close to work. Once self driving cars eliminate commuting time or reduce it by more than half, people will have more freedom as to where to live.

It's going to be a revolution for sure.

 

[ThePhantasm]

call me when we're talking abot flying cars

 

[hellified]

Read the graphic at the top.

Every year in the United States, there are 33,000 traffic fatalities, and 2.35 million people are injured or disabled. Cut that by 90%, minimum. That's a whole lot more economic efficiency, a whole lot less time lost, a whole lot fewer cars to replace, a whole lot fewer lives ruined, lowered insurance premiums, and so on.

As a comparison, ~11,000 Americans are killed every year by guns. Bringing in self-driving crimes will be the equivalent of eliminating homicides from guns ... three times over.

Then you have the time spent in traffic. The time wasted in traffic. That is the greatest inefficiency of cars -- you have to drive them. My sister who lives in Florida spends two hours a day driving. Bring in self-driving cars, the speed limit will be faster, traffic will be lower, and she will spend maybe one hour a day in her car, and she won't be wasting her time driving, she'll be able to read or talk on the phone.

Then there is the issue of housing. People pay more money to live close to work. Once self driving cars eliminate commuting time or reduce it by more than half, people will have more freedom as to where to live.

It's going to be a revolution for sure.

People keep saying its like horse and buggy to cars or the industrial revolution or the electronic revolution...this is different from that.

past revolutions made major shifts in things but they actually CREATED jobs in and of themselves...The industrial revolution brought with it mass manufacturing which meant building factories and machines and hiring people to operate that stuff...in fact you had to hire people to make the material that was needed to make the factories and machines. People didn't need to acquire new skills as much as redirect the skills they had for a new function.

A guy that used to till the land with a team of mules and hoe is now sitting in a machine to do it but HE's still on the farm tilling the land. In the robot/AI age he's not even in the machine on the farm anymore..And the computers (programmed by someone else) knows how to farm as efficiently or better than he does because they don't need breaks and don't have to worry about injuries and work place hazards. So where does that leave him?

Well he'll just figure it out or someone will come up with new way...and if they don't then what??

Not everybody can code and not everybody WANTS to code. Technology is moving faster than its even been....much faster than it was during the industrial revolution. The biggest difference is before machines were created to do more work but PEOPLE had to operate the machines...today machines are created to do more work and the machines can operate THEMSELVES.

So where does that leave people who can't make that pivot? And theres going to be MILLIONS of people who can't make that pivot.

This next leap in tech and cultural revolution MAY open up a way for national basic income....I mean people/cargo moving is some of the most basic labor jobs most people have or can get. Hell Uber showed that ANYONE can be a cab driver... and that also tends to be the job many immigrants get and if those jobs get replaced with AVs (automated vehicles) whats going to happen to those millions of people? What thing is on the horizon that can compensate for the lost labor??

There may be no choice but to either expand welfare or create a basic income entitlement.

 

[ThePhantasm]

People keep saying its like horse and buggy to cars or the industrial revolution or the electronic revolution...this is different from that.

a horse is basically a self-driving car if you don't use the reins and don't care much about speed

(one horse only has about the equivalent of one horsepower [1 hp])

 

[Thundercrack85]

Every year in the United States, there are 33,000 traffic fatalities, and 2.35 million people are injured or disabled. Cut that by 90%, minimum. That's a whole lot more economic efficiency, a whole lot less time lost, a whole lot fewer cars to replace, a whole lot fewer lives ruined, lowered insurance premiums, and so on.

As a comparison, ~11,000 Americans are killed every year by guns. Bringing in self-driving crimes will be the equivalent of eliminating homicides from guns ... three times over.

Then you have the time spent in traffic. The time wasted in traffic. That is the greatest inefficiency of cars -- you have to drive them. My sister who lives in Florida spends two hours a day driving. Bring in self-driving cars, the speed limit will be faster, traffic will be lower, and she will spend maybe one hour a day in her car, and she won't be wasting her time driving, she'll be able to read or talk on the phone.

Then there is the issue of housing. People pay more money to live close to work. Once self driving cars eliminate commuting time or reduce it by more than half, people will have more freedom as to where to live.

It's going to be a revolution for sure.

You are assuming that people will stop driving. I don't see that happening in the foreseeable future, even if they have cars that have an autopilot mode. I agree there would be a decrease in fatalities, but self-driving cars being available does not necessarily mean that people will stop driving.

I also question how much it will eliminate commuting time. You still need to get there. And unfortunately people even now already have to talk on the phone while driving.

 

[Thundercrack85]

People keep saying its like horse and buggy to cars or the industrial revolution or the electronic revolution...this is different from that.

past revolutions made major shifts in things but they actually CREATED jobs in and of themselves...The industrial revolution brought with it mass manufacturing which meant building factories and machines and hiring people to operate that stuff...in fact you had to hire people to make the make that was needed to make the factories and machines. People didn't need to acquire new skills as much as redirect the skills they had for a new function.

A guy that used to till the land with a team of mules and hoe is now sitting in a machine to do it but HE's still on the farm tilling the land. In the robot/AI age he's not even in the machine on the farm anymore..And the computers (programmed by someone else) knows how to farm as efficiently or better than he does because they don't need breaks and don't have to worry about injuries and work place hazards. So where does that leave him?

Well he'll just figure it out or someone will come up with new way...and if they don't then what??

Not everybody can code and not everybody WANTS to code. Technology is moving faster than its even been....much faster than it was during the industrial revolution. The biggest difference is before machines were created to do more work but PEOPLE had to operate the machines...today machines are created to do more work and the machines can operate THEMSELVES.

So where does that leave people who can't make that pivot? And theres going to be MILLIONS of people who can't make that pivot.

This next leap in tech and cultural revolution MAY open up a way for national basic income....I mean people/cargo moving is some of the most basic labor jobs most people have or can get. Hell Uber showed that ANYONE can be a cab driver... and that also tends to be the job many immigrants get and if those jobs get replaced with AVs (automated vehicles) whats going to happen to those millions of people? What thing is on the horizon that can compensate for the lost labor??

There may be no choice but to either expand welfare or create a basic income entitlement.

I think you'll see the rise of an anti-robot, anti-AI political ideology.

In the ideal future, we'd all have robot butlers, and self-driving cars. But that's not what's going to happen. You're going to see unprecedented job losses, at the hands of robots, software and further automation. That I think will lead to a new populist political revolution (not the violent kind per-se).

After all, America is on paper at least a democracy. Until the rich can get their robots to vote, they'll still have to make compromises with the poor masses.

So, for example, I could see laws requiring companies to employ a certain amount of people. Or people will boycott companies who lay off human workers.

 

[hellified]

You are assuming that people will stop driving. I don't see that happening in the foreseeable future, even if they have cars that have an autopilot mode. I agree there would be a decrease in fatalities, but self-driving cars being available does not necessarily mean that people will stop driving.

I also question how much it will eliminate commuting time. You still need to get there. And unfortunately people even now already have to talk on the phone while driving.

Auto pilot isn't enough to significantly bring down accident rates. in order for AVs safety feature they have to be the only vehicle like that on the road...(don't know how motor bikes fit into it) thats why the chart reads like that..

the end game is to have fully AVs on the road.

 

[hellified]

I think you'll see the rise of an anti-robot, anti-AI political ideology.

In the ideal future, we'd all have robot butlers, and self-driving cars. But that's not what's going to happen. You're going to see unprecedented job losses, at the hands of robots, software and further automation. That I think will lead to a new populist political revolution (not the violent kind per-se).

After all, America is on paper at least a democracy. Until the rich can get their robots to vote, they'll still have to make compromises with the poor masses.

So, for example, I could see laws requiring companies to employ a certain amount of people. Or people will boycott companies who lay off human workers.

and if anyone thinks unions are going roll over..

 

[Thundercrack85]

Auto pilot isn't enough to significantly bring down accident rates. in order for AVs safety feature they have to be the only vehicle like that on the road...(don't know how motor bikes fit into it) thats why the chart reads like that..

the end game is to have fully AVs on the road.

I just don't see people relinquishing their rights to drive a car. It's one thing to have the option to have your car drive itself, another to have to give up the ability to drive. Perhaps there will be lanes for fully automated cars. Or, perhaps some cities will require cars to be automated while in the city, but even that seems a bit unlikely outside of cities like New York and San Francisco given American attitudes towards government control.

 

[KevanG]

Call me when I can play riddles with it.

Alright Eddie.

 

[hellified]

I just don't see people relinquishing their rights to drive a car. It's one thing to have the option to have your car drive itself, another to have to give up the ability to drive. Perhaps there will be lanes for fully automated cars. Or, perhaps some cities will require cars to be automated while in the city, but even that seems a bit unlikely outside of cities like New York and San Francisco given American attitudes towards government control.

well thats what the article means in part about a backlash...read the link..

THE BASIC PRIDE OF CAR OWNERSHIP.

For 100 years since cars became ubiquitous on US roads, its been drilled into out heads and conscience that we MUST own a car and that OWNING a car brings a certain amount of pride and satisfaction:

Its the last advert that illustrates my point, for decades car manufacturers have been telling us that owning and operating a car means FREEDOM, PRIDE, LIBERTY its a status symbol and a very real extension of who you are.

And now theyre going to start telling us we don't NEED that anymore?

We're going to have to unlearn the great feeling of freedom in operating a vehicle and let it take us wherever we want rather than us charting our own way. There will be no more exploring as the car will only go where GPS will allow it. While you won't get lost anymore you also won't be "discovering" a location either as you will need to have a destination when you get in the thing.

And this is, I believe, where the public backlash will begin.

Driving in itself is a skill and there's a basic modicum of pride that comes with being able to operate a complex machine. As a driver and having wanted to drive I can't imagine not doing that anymore.

Hey, I can see the advantages of self driving cars:

• If only self driving cars are on the roads they will all be in sync and accidents will be reduced greatly.
• Ease of availability in getting around will increase as all vehicles will be accessible.
• elderly people and people who never learned to drive will have greater mobility and independence.

But I also see some of the drawbacks:

• Less individuality as you won't own a car that you can customize to your personality.
• Increased technology means you're more interconnected to the grid than you may care to be.
• You will be limited to scope and scale of what the car manufacturer wants you do with with the car.
• Decreased spontaneity as you will need a destination for everywhere you go.

The very reasons and things they've said we NEED to OWN are car for the last 100 years are the the things they're going to say we DON'T need to own a car for in the near future. And as the technology gets better and more reliable it will be used to replace humans so the people moving and cargo moving industries will see massive layoffs and reductions. We're talking about MILLIONS of people potentially being thrown out of work because the most basic level jobs, cab drivers, bus drivers, truckers, delivery drivers will be done by self driving vehicles.

And its not just drivers that will be affected. Most if not all vehicles will be automated by 2050 which means the car service and support industry will be restructured as well, meaning not only will YOU be banned from fixing the thing, the mechanic you trusted and have been going to for years...either he will have to be an authorized service tech of the manufacturer or his business gets enveloped by the maker. Notice how individualized things are going away?

You USED to take your car to Miller's Auto Service in next couple of decades Millers will become GM Service Station Number 7.
http://madconceptz.blogspot.com/2016/07/are-tech-and-automakers-not-considering.html
This isn't farfetched or a long way off either...

 

[Silicon Surfer]

What nobody seems to be considering is hackers. What happens when hackers start having competitions to see who can cause the bigger multi-car pileup? Can you imagine the consequences of a computer plotted 5000 car pileup?

 

[cheungcheung]

Uber and Lyft have both partnered with car companies for self driving cars. This is definitely the future.

If taxi drivers think they're behind the 8-ball now by not having a competing mobile app, just wait a few years. That industry is going the way of the dinosaur. Just like when ATMs came around and folks didn't have to go see a bank teller to withdraw or deposit money.

 

[Spider-Fan83]

I kinda feel like the self driving car concept only works if they are the only cars on the road

for it to truly work safely everyone would have to have one

cause other drives are fair to unpredictable

 

[hellified]

I kinda feel like the self driving car concept only works if they are the only cars on the road

for it to truly work safely everyone would have to have one

cause other drives are fair to unpredictable

thats the endgame...but right now I don't think people truly understand what that entails and how it will impact their freedom

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I'm not giving up my ability to drive without a fight.

 

[hellified]

I'm not giving up my ability to drive without a fight.

oh you can have the ability you'll just lose the RIGHT..

GM: That Car You Bought? We’re Really The Ones Who Own It.

Congratulations! You just bought a new Chevy, GMC, or Cadillac. You really like driving it. And it’s purchased, not leased, and all paid off with no liens, so it’s all yours… isn’t it? Well, no, actually: according to GM, it’s still theirs. You just have a license to use it.

At least, that’s what an attorney for GM said at a hearing this week, Autoblog reports. Specifically, attorney Harry Lightsey said, “It is [GM’s] position the software in the vehicle is licensed by the owner of the vehicle.”

GM’s claim is all about copyright and software code, and it’s the same claim John Deere is makingabout their tractors. The TL;DR version of the argument goes something like this:

• Cars work because software tells all the parts how to operate
• The software that tells all the parts to operate is customized code
• That code is subject to copyright
• GM owns the copyright on that code and that software
• A modern car cannot run without that software; it is integral to all systems
• Therefore, the purchase or use of that car is a licensing agreement
• And since it is subject to a licensing agreement, GM is the owner and can allow/disallow certain uses or access.

The U.S. Copyright Office is currently holding a series of hearings on whether or not anyone other than the manufacturer of a car has a right to tinker with that car’s copyrighted software. And with the way modern design goes, that basically means with the car, at all.

Folks who like to tinker with their cars, as well as independent (non-dealer) mechanics say they need the copyright exemption in order to be allowed to continue repairing their own cars, or keeping their businesses open. Manufacturers, like GM, say that it’s a safety issue: if people who aren’t authorized mess with any one piece of software, they could make the entire ecosystem of connected code unsafe.

http://madconceptz.blogspot.com/2016/07/are-tech-and-automakers-not-considering.html

This is the argument being made for people actually DRIVING the damn things..what do you think is going to happen when the damn things are driving themselves and you're just a passenger in it?

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

This stuff is scary. There will be a MAJOR backlash to this.

 

[Enriquespy]

I would feel much safer on an automated car than in a car drived by humans.