Driverless cars?

It is easier since aircraft don't have to avoid any obstacles, but the control code for the aircraft is far more complex. Autonomous cars will use optical object recognition and will have radar to back it up if anything gets misidentified.

(I think Google's uses laser 3D scanning which is another possibility)

In reply to Streetwiseguy:

Excellent point.

The same thing SVreX mentioned applies to Tesla's cars. Tesla has NO dealer network and service points are few and far between. IIRC the ones in the Southeast are in Atlanta and Raleigh. You say, so what? Here's the problem: right now their cars are typically sold as second cars for one percenters who have another vehicle if the Tesla croaks. Tesla will tow the car and fix it for free, that's a good thing. Unless you are 350 miles from a service point, that is. Tesla also makes a big noise about its direct sales system that eliminates the traditional dealership. But there's a problem.

Tesla is trying to break into the lower priced (~$30-$35k) market. That's great, until you realize that once again if it croaks you are stuck and most people looking at that price range won't have a backup vehicle, maybe there's two cars in the family but that means one for him and one for her, no backup if one of the DD's breaks. If you buy, say, a Ford Edge at least there's a dealer service point in just about every major and many minor cities/towns, for instance there are at least three here in the Armpit. If you have a Tesla here in the Armpit and it breaks you have a real problem because as mentioned it has to go to Atlanta or Raleigh.

GameboyRMH wrote: It is easier since aircraft don't have to avoid any obstacles, but the control code for the aircraft is far more complex. Autonomous cars will use optical object recognition and will have radar to back it up if anything gets misidentified. (I think Google's uses laser 3D scanning which is another possibility)

I don't do memes, but I think this is where we post a picture of a BIG fly, with the caption, "Abort, abort!"

In reply to GameboyRMH:

While I agree with you that highly (often triple) redundant aviation grade control systems are extremely reliable, I have extreme doubts anything built by an automaker will be voluntarily built to such standards. Check out the programming nightmare (minimal stack buffer, thousands of global variables, laughable failsafes, etc. etc.) unearthed during the Toyota unintended acceleration investigations, and that was just the throttle, not driving the whole car.

Or as Feynman put it "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." Reality being that doing this stuff correctly is very expensive.

SVreX wrote: In reply to GameboyRMH: I think you are mistaken. Median household income here is $26,000.

$24k here! Winnar!

Edit: Wait that's the mean, median is about $17k (I thought that sounded high!)

what about the costs of the rest of the stuff around the car in 1980 and today? Gas, insurance, maintenance, repairs. I think maintenance and repair costs are WAY down from 1980.

Anyway, thats not really my point.

My point is that the insurance cost for a driverless car should be exponentially lower than a standard car (insurance companies are all about risk, right?). Basically insurance companies will figure out which type of vehicle crashes more (duh) and then adjust their rates accordingly. Though the driverless car will be more expensive, I predict that:

driverless car > standard car

driverless insurance <<<<<<< standard insurance

so

driverless car + insurance < standard car + insurance

In reply to GameboyRMH:

The technical discussion of the optics/ laser/ object recognition, etc is very interesting.

Let's talk about deer.

There are an estimated 1.2 million deer/ vehicle collisions per year which cost more than $4 BILLION dollars annually.

Insurance Journal article

I respectfully submit that NO ONE will ever be able to write a program that can predict a deer's behavior.

That Impreza I have advertised in the $2015 Classifieds was damaged by a deer running into the side.

Car didn't hit anything. Deer hit the car. Still creates work for a body shop.

rcutclif wrote: driverless car > standard car driverless insurance <<<<<<< standard insurance so driverless car + insurance < standard car + insurance

Good point, the driverless gear on even the earliest driverless cars could pay off from insurance savings in just a few years - although the first cars might be high-end models with other expensive stuff in them.

The article I linked stated that Google's system could not tell the difference between a rock and a balled up piece of paper. It also has no way of knowing if a pedestrian it 'sees' is just someone on the sidewalk or a cop directing traffic. Snow and heavy rain will also confuse the thing.

I can just see sitting in one of the things going down a two lane mountain road when suddenly leaves start swirling around in front of it. There are a massive number of variables which a human will recognize quickly and 3D scanning etc simply cannot.

I truly believe the whole driverless car thing appeals to the lazy among us, those who feel they cannot be bothered to put a minimum of effort into anything. These are the same people who become completely helpless in the face of the failure of technology.

In reply to GameboyRMH:

Where do you live?

SVreX wrote: [stuff about deer strikes]

OK there are many deer strikes in North America, and an autonomous car may only be as good at dodging them as a pro driver, which is still not very good. But what percentage of all auto damage is caused by deer strikes? I'd think it would be a tiny percentage that won't sustain the auto body industry to its current size.

SVreX wrote: In reply to GameboyRMH: Where do you live?

Barbados.

There were something like 1.25 million deer strikes in the US last year according to this article: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/01/deer_car_crashes_how_to_avoid_and_survive_collisions_with_north_america.single.html

GameboyRMH wrote:

rcutclif wrote: driverless car > standard car driverless insurance <<<<<<< standard insurance so driverless car + insurance < standard car + insurance

Good point, the driverless gear on even the earliest driverless cars could pay off from insurance savings in just a few years - although the first cars might be high-end models with other expensive stuff in them.

I would postulate that the initial actuarial tables will do that, based on the "sales pitch" and speculative savings (like Gameboy is suggesting),

BUT...

That they will later equalize.

A totaled vehicle will be a HIGHER cost to the insurance companies, etc.

GameboyRMH wrote:

SVreX wrote: In reply to GameboyRMH: Where do you live?

Barbados.

I knew that.

You confused me when you mentioned San Francisco.

I'm pretty sure Barbados doesn't count.

Curmudgeon wrote: There were something like 1.25 million deer strikes in the US last year according to this article: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/01/deer_car_crashes_how_to_avoid_and_survive_collisions_with_north_america.single.html

Looks like in 2012 there were 5.4M accidents in total:

http://www.millerandzois.com/car-accident-statistics.html

So assuming that includes deer strikes and assuming other "environmental damage" is zero (probably not far off), the auto body industry's customer base just shrank to 23% its previous size.

Driverless cars won't necessarily shrink the number of accidents or claims that much. It's easy to assume that electronic technology will fix everything but I'm not seeing it. In fact I think it might make things worse; assuming that there are backups installed to allow operation by the occupants they won't have the necessary experience to make a difference if something goes awry.

Our future:

GameboyRMH wrote:

SVreX wrote: [stuff about deer strikes]

OK there are many deer strikes in North America, and an autonomous car may only be as good at dodging them as a pro driver, which is still not very good. But what percentage of all auto damage is caused by deer strikes? I'd think it would be a tiny percentage that won't sustain the auto body industry to its current size.

It doesn't matter what percentage it is of all auto damage.

It matters what percentage it is of all auto damage that gets repaired by a body shop.

Totaled doesn't count.

Owner repaired doesn't count.

Paid out by the insurance company but not repaired doesn't count.

I have spoken to several body shops where I live. Deer represent a very large percentage of their annual income.

Several of the shops have said in the Summer, "Things are slow. Good thing Fall is coming" (more deer strikes).

It is seasonal- kind of like Christmas to retailers.

It is not a small economic impact.

Curmudgeon wrote: Driverless cars won't necessarily shrink the number of accidents or claims that much.

If not then they won't get used. Bleeding-edge autonomous car tech can already beat the hell out of a human in good conditions, if they can get similar improvements in poor driving conditions then auto accidents will be so rare, they'll be individually newsworthy. Today's average driver is not only horribly unskilled as usual, but since the invention of the cell phone, can't be assed to pay attention to where they're driving. Computers will be watching and knowing all angles all the time with inhumanly sharp attention. How can that not lead to a massive improvement?

See: taking over in case of something really confusing the much vaunted autonomous systems.

GameboyRMH wrote:

Curmudgeon wrote: There were something like 1.25 million deer strikes in the US last year according to this article: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/01/deer_car_crashes_how_to_avoid_and_survive_collisions_with_north_america.single.html

Looks like in 2012 there were 5.4M accidents in total: http://www.millerandzois.com/car-accident-statistics.html So assuming that includes deer strikes and assuming other "environmental damage" is zero (probably not far off), the auto body industry's customer base just shrank to 23% its previous size.

That says "5,419,000 police-reported motor vehicle traffic crashes." That is not the same thing as the amount of damage to the vehicles handled by the body shop and repair industry.

This is obviously a complex question, which will require the expertise of many, many lawyers and insurance adjusters and actuarial tables to sort out.

Not a question that can be answered by a simple guy from GA and another from Barbados.

You are optimistic toward the technology. I believe in the law of unintended consequences, and don't really believe it will put body shops out of business.

In fact, I think it is a great business opportunity. We will need more shops more capable of handling repairs to the higher level of technology.

Curmudgeon wrote: See: taking over in case of something really confusing the much vaunted autonomous systems.

But how often will it get "really confused" and will the driver even get any hints that they should take over?

Consider the "paper blowing across the road" scenario you pointed out. With on-road debris, the safe thing to do is assume they're made of stone anyway - but a paper or bag blowing is a thing you should ignore. Improvements in object recognition could look for things that aren't touching the ground at all, things that don't match a human size/form, things that float like a human shouldn't, and assume that it's safe to hit them.

Even if the car misidentifies paper as a dangerous obstacle, it won't need to cause an accident. Nearby cars can be alerted of emergency maneuvers, either via V2V comms or very quick perception without comms. A car may stop for paper in the road for no reason, but the car behind it will stop for a stopped car, and so on.

GameboyRMH wrote: Today's average driver is not only horribly unskilled as usual, but since the invention of the cell phone, can't be assed to pay attention to where they're driving.

Typo??

Perhaps not.

Not a typo. I can be assed to fix typos