The Future of driving

Many urban areas are at or in gridlock during much of the day.. Yet Population continues to grow. Real estate is becoming far too expensive to expect new or wider roads. While there might be some relief as they stack highways (Like in San Francisco) realistic solution is to maximize the existing roads. I'm sorry but that means automated driving isn't far off..

One car length for every 10 MPH of speed wastes too much road space.. Drivers failing to pay attention means lanes that are nearly twice as wide as the car is.. Computer controlled cars will allow much higher density and speed.. Trips across the city will go from 1+hour to under 20 minutes..

Fractional ownership of vehicles will become the norm.. battery powered urban cars will be parked near every point of possible use and you'll summon one to your location using your smart phone.. Teasla's already got that capability.

Little old ladies will zoom by at 100+ MPH while they do their knitting.. Guys will car pool to work watching a sporting event or doing cross word puzzles.. They will be at ground level while the upper level will be reserved for the real high speed users. The trans city/state/country vehicles.. Trucks will use the 1st lower level while mass transit will be in the sub level..

Self drive will be reserved for those few living in rural or sparsely populated areas and the occasional Track event..

Where do I sign?

Here are some other benefits I can think of:

• Road trips: go to sleep at home and wake up where you were going, much cheaper and easier than getting the family onto a plane
• The bar scene: or even just road sodas
• Emergency vehicles will have real priority
• Productivity: what is the average commute time? 1 hr per day (total)? What happens to the GDP if we can recapture even 1/2 of that for every working and driving american? Or we could use the opportunity to spend more time at home not at work. What if you could run on the treadmill while driving to work?

berkeley that. I like driving.

frenchyd wrote: Little old ladies will zoom by at 100+ MPH while they do their knitting.. Guys will car pool to work watching a sporting event or doing cross word puzzles.. They will be at ground level while the upper level will be reserved for the real high speed users. The trans city/state/country vehicles.. Trucks will use the 1st lower level while mass transit will be in the sub level..

This exists- they are call trains. We took a train in Rome instead of hiring a car- cost 1/10 as much, and got us there in the same amount of time. Was awesome.

I think these futurist predictions about fractional ownership and self-driving cars are ignoring the fact that better solutions already exist...

1. Lower speed limit to 25 mph for all urban and suburban surface streets (aka non-highways)
2. Add bicycle lanes, possibly by eliminating driving lanes where multiples exist.
3. Develop functioning mass transit.
4. ???
5. Enjoy utopia.

In reply to WilD:

I think self-driving cars are the next gen mass transit. Infinitely customize-able mass transit, that is.

I am however with you on encouraging bicycle transportation.

I'm still waiting for my flying car

In reply to Wall-e:

Me too. They promised us.

I have to agree with the OP's vision of the future.

If you look back the interstate HWY system was a project started by Eisenhower in the 50's that pulled the US out of a lethargic economy. It then allowed the car industry as we know it to flourish for the next 55 years.

IF the US takes a leadership position in this field, end enacts policy that favors the new paradigm, not only will they get an opportunity to drive the concept worldwide, but they will define driving for the world once again.

As to if it is a good thing or not, don't care since it is inevitable.

never gonna happen. Too many people don't have the money for service on their 1990 something commuter. How are they going to buy an automated car? And how are the upper class muckity mucks going to show their superiority without a hopelessly extravagant super car to show off in? Ain't no CEO gonna live like the masses going a preprogrammed speed!

Seriously.....

alfadriver wrote: This exists- they are call trains. We took a train in Rome instead of hiring a car- cost 1/10 as much, and got us there in the same amount of time. Was awesome.

The thing about rail is it costs a LOT of time and money to install. Minneapolis-St. Paul has been developing a light rail system, and each new leg costs hundreds of millions to build, and takes years. If you're talking about interurban rail going from one city to the next, it will take billions of dollars.

The ironic thing is that we used to have one of the best streetcar systems in the country, but it was torn out in the 1950s and replaced with buses.

bravenrace wrote: In reply to Wall-e: Me too. They promised us.

I'm still waiting on my Mr. Fusion for my Delorean.

itsarebuild wrote: never gonna happen. Too many people don't have the money for service on their 1990 something commuter. How are they going to buy an automated car? And how are the upper class muckity mucks going to show their superiority without a hopelessly extravagant super car to show off in? Ain't no CEO gonna live like the masses going a preprogrammed speed! Seriously.....

If someone can't afford to service their 1990 commuter, just wait until they have to start insuring it after the insurance companies figure out that automated cars crash at a SIGNIFICANTLY reduced rate. Suddenly, insurance payments to drive yourself will be much higher than car payments for a self-driving car. Plus with self-driving cars, you don't have to own a whole car, you just have to own it for the time you are inside it, which would make an ownership option at a cheaper rate for people who seek that option.

Also, similarly, nothing will stop your muckity mucks from buying hopelessly extravagant super cars and driving themselves down the road (with insurance they can afford) at well above posted speed limits. In fact, what better way to impress suitors than to show them you can still afford silly luxury things like 'human-driven vehicle insurance'?

Almost everyone I know with a $100k+ job and a suburban commute would buy one today. They already buy $80 Suburbans to drive their kids to school so money really isn't the issue for a lot of them. Give them an opportunity to relax on their way to and from work and the quality of life difference alone would be worth it.

In reply to itsarebuild: You won't buy the car you will subscribe to a car service. Mucky muck types can subscribe to nicer ones or special access vehicles. Most folks are already used to car payments or leases, not to mention cell phones, cable, etc.

rcutclif wrote:

itsarebuild wrote: never gonna happen. Too many people don't have the money for service on their 1990 something commuter. How are they going to buy an automated car? And how are the upper class muckity mucks going to show their superiority without a hopelessly extravagant super car to show off in? Ain't no CEO gonna live like the masses going a preprogrammed speed! Seriously.....

If someone can't afford to service their 1990 commuter, just wait until they have to start insuring it after the insurance companies figure out that automated cars crash at a SIGNIFICANTLY reduced rate. Suddenly, insurance payments to drive yourself will be much higher than car payments for a self-driving car. Plus with self-driving cars, you don't have to own a whole car, you just have to own it for the time you are inside it, which would make an ownership option at a cheaper rate for people who seek that option. Also, similarly, nothing will stop your muckity mucks from buying hopelessly extravagant super cars and driving themselves down the road (with insurance they can afford) at well above posted speed limits. In fact, what better way to impress suitors than to show them you can still afford silly luxury things like 'human-driven vehicle insurance'?

I think the automated vehicles are an inevitability. They'll be treated just like smart phones. The question of how insurance will be handled is the most interesting aspect about it to me. Maybe because its the biggest unknown at this point.

I honestly don't foresee it happening in my life time.

If i cant drive myself im moving deep in too the mountains again and just driving off road vehicles. This isnt anything i look forward too ever.

The way I see it, initially "self driving" will be an option on cars----in designated lanes...ala HOV lanes currently. You can't mix automated cars and human-driven cars on the same roadways----the humans are too unpredictable. Also, the insurance liability would be a nightmare if something did go wrong.

Within 15-20 years, instead of cruise control, we'll have "autopilot" or some such thing. Drive your car into the "automated" lane, turn the switch, and the car will take over---- until you exit. Then you'll drive the rest of the way home like in a normal car.

Yes, this will eliminate being able to drive drunk legally--- as the "operator" will always have to be sober.

As much as the tech-geeks want automated cars to completely take over--- it isn't feasible without designated driving lanes. Humans make errors that computers can't be programed for. Humans can also be angry, vindictive, and crash into you on purpose. Automated cars will not be able to accurately predict this sort of human behavior.

I suppose it will be an improvement for the 90% of people who don't care about driving. I don't see the magical reduction in traffic snarls, or commuting time--- you'll just be able to relax while you are headed back and forth towards work-- like a personal train.

Unless the govt subsidizes these automated cars, it will take a long, long time for them to take over. The cost will be too high, and there are enough folks barely making it these days. The cost for the poor will be too high---- they can barely afford what they are driving now.

They can automate my car after they pry the steering wheel out of my cold, dead hands!

rcutclif wrote: - Road trips: go to sleep at home and wake up where you were going, much cheaper and easier than getting the family onto a plane

Part of me wonders how hard the airline (and possibly train) lobbyists would fight against automated cars for this very reason? Although, I guess it would really only affect commuter planes. I don't see anyone doing a cross country car ride over a 3 hour flight.

I think it will be quite some time before we see automated cars on the road. First, they'll have to be approved to be on the road with regular drivers. It'll be a novelty at first and then a number of people will buy them. Then, you'll have a major accident with one, where the passenger of said car (because it'll be a while before getting to this detail) will claim no responsibility or sue the manufacturer. Then they'll be pulled off the road for a while.

Regarding insurance, I would love to think that insurance won't be as much of an issue. Because the automated cars would (in theory) result in less accidents, the insurance companies wouldn't need to collect as much money for said accidents. But, we all know they'll want to keep up profit margins and sheer size (Headline: "Automated cars kill small business insurance companies!!") they will jack up the rates on "human drivers".

If my commute was longer than the 10 minutes it is now, climbing in a car that takes me to work while I do other things is appealing. When my son and I travel (like we did Sunday night) for karting, being able to let the car drive while I slept would have been awesome. (Although I'm sure it'll be a while before they can tow trailers).

What I think would be a better alternative are automated roads. Like, when I get on I-35 from Austin to head to Dallas, the car takes over and gets me there while I do other things. When I get off the road, I take back over the controls for around town, parking, etc. Slow adoption like that would make more sense and probably be adopted better.

-Rob

Also, humans are very unpredictable when walking.. let alone driving. I do not see automated cars in city limits, unless on roads where humans cannot accidently venture on foot. (elevated or subterranean)

Out on the highways though, go for it! I am all for letting some computer take the tedium out of hours and hours and hours of mostly driving straight while trying to avoid people drifting into your lane or braking for no apparent reason.

I am all for mass transit though. I like riding the train

I would like to talk to the people engineering these autonomous machines (Apple, Google, Mercedes Benz, etc). I have acquaintances that constantly post links to Silicon Valley drivel stating that this is ~10-15 years out. It's hard for me to imagine placing absolute trust of the safety of my family in the hands of software and sensors. The largest automaker in the world can't even get throttle by wire right -- software problems led to loss of human life: Toyota's killer firmware: Bad design and its consequences

It's easier for me to imagine central control of flow on an interstate for instance over totally autonomous capability.

One other comment. One thing to note is who's some of the bigger pushers for this. Google and Tesla (and maybe Apple and Facebook). They're computer geeks. They expect to be able to make sweeping changes and revolutionize an industry in months. That's all well and good when you're talking about your phone or your computer. But this is getting into the transportation industry. It won't change as quickly. It will take decades to get things moving. I wonder if they'll have the attention span to wait that long?

-Rob

stuart in mn wrote:

alfadriver wrote: This exists- they are call trains. We took a train in Rome instead of hiring a car- cost 1/10 as much, and got us there in the same amount of time. Was awesome.

The thing about rail is it costs a LOT of time and money to install. Minneapolis-St. Paul has been developing a light rail system, and each new leg costs hundreds of millions to build, and takes years. If you're talking about interurban rail going from one city to the next, it will take billions of dollars. The ironic thing is that we used to have one of the best streetcar systems in the country, but it was torn out in the 1950s and replaced with buses.

Still, the answer still exists, and is being used in many other, high density, urban cities.

It's funny that "more roads" are cheaper than "rail". How the math works in that is beyond me- in terms of passenger density. None the less- billions for cars that make their own rail like set ups, but less dense, or billions for high density rail? We get to choose.

A couple of posters have mentioned bike lanes, or the increase of biking for getting to work. That may work in some cities with wide open spaces but here in Chicago the only way they install bike lanes is to take away lanes from cars. This only add to congestion and slow traffic. Which may be what then want. Make it so bad that you do use Public Transit or bikes. Now I have a bike but have never considered using it to commute to work and at this point in my life I don't have to work. But even if I would I don't think I could of would consider doing that during the months or Dec-March. It snows in Chicago and they don't plow all that well and where do you think they put that snow, in the bike paths!