Autonomous Cars at Disney World..

[21stamps]

Car manufacturers are way ahead of the law and ethics discussions that need to happen before this technology goes any further. Over the next year or two you are going to see a lot of additional clamping down of the technology by various authorities because these are discussions that are just starting to happen by those outside the auto industry.

In particular, things like the basic ethics the cars should be programmed with. Who does the on-board computer decide is the priority to keep safe? If an incident is about to happen, does the vehicle make a maneuver guaranteed to keep the driver safe, but could jeopardize other vehicles or pedestrians, or does it avoid third-party damage as much as possible, which may put you at more risk? If it picks in between, how does it do so? What criteria does it use?

These aren't decisions we want car makers making. Until these things are worked out, and regulated, truly automated vehicles are still a fantasy to go mainstream.

Car manufacturers are way ahead. The technology is there. A lot of Americans drive cars that have several autonomous features already, but not the majority. These features do make things more safe, but I think I said this earlier- more people need the cars with these features so we can get accustomed to them slowly, as more features come out- the more we are familiar with them.

My opinion though- we are several + several decades away from seeing fully autonomous cars as the majority of vehicles on the road.

The government is already imposing so many conditions on new vehicles being made..when a new body style comes out, old ones are grandfathered in.

Personally, I can not stand features such as Start/Stop. I purposely am driving a less fuel efficient turbo engine to avoid that feature.lol.
And I hate giving up the fuel economy, but avoiding my car shutting off every time I stop is worth it!

 

[21stamps]

I know this is only an opinion and it's going to sound like a declarative statement but.... autonomous vehicles are coming and in the not too far future you will not have a choice to operate your own vehicle. Whether this takes 10 years of 30 years. Self driving cars will be going the way of the horse and buggy. They are dangerous and inefficient.

Look at Ford this quarter. The CEO is under heat from Wall Street to improve margins so they had to cut 1400 jobs. But he actually has foresight and is spending a lot of money on R&D on the changing landscape of cars and car ownership. Wall street(or their board for that matter) doesn't care about the 5-10 year plan they want quarterly earnings. Mark Fields to his credit does not want to be left behind. Under his watch the company had the 2nd best earning ever in 2016 but since the stock price fluxuated the board is having a fit, He is pouring billions into driverless technology and robo-taxis to compete with next decade's market. I think that is a smart move.

They have to, GM has invested hefty sums in autonomous technology. Ford can't be left behind.

 

[21stamps]

Personally enjoy driving, after all these years only one ticket and never an accident. I will not put my family in one of those little self driving cars that are not much more than a lawn mower with a shell around it and bigger tires. No thanks but for those that that think self driving cars are great I say go for it. I won't.

A lot of people still enjoy driving and agree with you.. I don't think the sports car peeps will make the switch anytime soon.

 

[DizArielFan]

What kind of scenario are you thinking of here, a case where the software has a problem and the "driver" needs to step on the break? In a fully autonomous car people aren't going to be paying enough attention to step in if something goes wrong.

There are many possible scenarios, too many to list. I will give one example though which I personally experienced, I was driving on the FDR in Manhattan and it was raining, a car going the other way hit a huge puddle, splashing so much water on the windshield that I was blind for 5-7 seconds even with wipers going full speed. Imagine if it was an autonomous car with it's myriad of sensors, cameras, radar etc. The car, unless it's programmed to slow or stop if something like that happens will need to be manually controlled. Imagine if it's muddy water, I can go on and on.

 

[njDizFan]

There are many possible scenarios, too many to list. I will give one example though which I personally experienced, I was driving on the FDR in Manhattan and it was raining, a car going the other way hit a huge puddle, splashing so much water on the windshield that I was blind for 5-7 seconds even with wipers going full speed. Imagine if it was an autonomous car with it's myriad of sensors, cameras, radar etc. The car, unless it's programmed to slow or stop if something like that happens will need to be manually controlled. Imagine if it's muddy water, I can go on and on.

I think you are vastly underestimating the technology and the billions and billions of dollars being invested by the largest tech corporations and venture capital firms that basically rule our lives. Laws and people's perspective change quite quickly when our corporate overlords deem it to be so.

Of course this is coming from a person who feels that sapiens a species is basically going to be irrelevant and on the verge of extinction in 100 years lol. I don't think anybody wants me to go down that rabbit hole in this thread.

 

[21stamps]

I think you are vastly underestimating the technology and the billions and billions of dollars being invested by the largest tech corporations and venture capital firms that basically rule our lives. Laws and people's perspective change quite quickly when our corporate overlords deem it to be so.

Of course this is coming from a person who feels that **** sapiens a species is basically going to be irrelevant and on the verge of extinction in 100 years lol. I don't think anybody wants me to go down that rabbit hole in this thread.

Honestly, I think people are overestimating the amount of people who would be able to make the switch when it came available.

Here's 5 reasons why-

#1- Affordability

#2 - Love of driving.

#3- Distrust

#4 - see # 1

#5 - see # 1


The majority of people now aren't driving cars that park themselves, automatic high beams, adaptive cruise control, lane alert, break support, etc etc etc.. and this tech has been out for a while.

 

[danlb_2000]

There are many possible scenarios, too many to list. I will give one example though which I personally experienced, I was driving on the FDR in Manhattan and it was raining, a car going the other way hit a huge puddle, splashing so much water on the windshield that I was blind for 5-7 seconds even with wipers going full speed. Imagine if it was an autonomous car with it's myriad of sensors, cameras, radar etc. The car, unless it's programmed to slow or stop if something like that happens will need to be manually controlled. Imagine if it's muddy water, I can go on and on.

But in that scenario the "driver" will likely not be able to react quick enough to do anything about it, they "driver" may even be asleep. Once cars go full autonomous there is no way to make the "driver" pay attention to the road, we have a hard enough time doing that now when cars are operated manually.

 

[GoofGoof]

No different then a train or whatever without a driver. The expense of the system is questionable compared to having a more flexible transportation solution. When you build what you have pictured there it will be in use for a long time to pay for it's self and there is no flexibility to where it goes. Really you are only saving the cost of the driver.

This is all true and exactly why it works so well for WDW. You have the really low hanging fruit of the parking lot trams. They run on a pretty consistent course now and don't interact with other drivers so it's a real easy switch over to driverless trams. The next step would be short trips on paths where it would be easy to carve out dedicated lanes. WDW has plenty of land and it would be relatively easy and cheap to build dedicated lanes. The more expensive parts would be paths which would require crossing a highway. I think it works economically for things like parking trams and shorter trips, but may not be as cost effective for longer trips (for example AKL to MK). For those trips I still see busses as being the most viable option. As far as flexibility you could add additional cars to a "route" during peak times and/or supplement with busses. The end game is definitely to reduce costs by eliminating drivers. I think in the short to medium term we could see maybe half of the resort to park routes serviced by monorail/boat/gondola/autonomous shuttles while the other half would still have busses.

 

[rael ramone]

This is all true and exactly why it works so well for WDW. You have the really low hanging fruit of the parking lot trams. They run on a pretty consistent course now and don't interact with other drivers so it's a real easy switch over to driverless trams. The next step would be short trips on paths where it would be easy to carve out dedicated lanes. WDW has plenty of land and it would be relatively easy and cheap to build dedicated lanes. The more expensive parts would be paths which would require crossing a highway. I think it works economically for things like parking trams and shorter trips, but may not be as cost effective for longer trips (for example AKL to MK). For those trips I still see busses as being the most viable option. As far as flexibility you could add additional cars to a "route" during peak times and/or supplement with busses. The end game is definitely to reduce costs by eliminating drivers. I think in the short to medium term we could see maybe half of the resort to park routes serviced by monorail/boat/gondola/autonomous shuttles while the other half would still have busses.

I wonder how a driverless tram would work with the regulations about guests being completely behind the line before it moves, and the fact that guests don't comply with that necessarily. My quick trip out to 'Walts Park' a month or so ago the tram sat there for it seemed minutes because a person (who may or may not have understood English) had a foot over the line. The tram eventually left, without the guests cooperation. A 'driverless' tram may have stayed there forever without some sort of human component - and it's not the job of other guests to do crowd control for the Big Corporation.

 

[njDizFan]

Honestly, I think people are overestimating the amount of people who would be able to make the switch when it came available.

Here's 5 reasons why-

#1- Affordability

#2 - Love of driving.

#3- Distrust

#4 - see # 1

#5 - see # 1


The majority of people now aren't driving cars that park themselves, automatic high beams, adaptive cruise control, lane alert, break support, etc etc etc.. and this tech has been out for a while.

I understand that but we have to think about the future generations of drivers. Will somebody born 15 years from now have the same interests. They will be digital natives like no other generation before. Born into a world where technology will be so closely integrated into the fabric of daily activity( VR, wearables, total and constant connection to the web). Nobody owned a smart phone 10 years ago, 20 years ago only 20 million people had access to the internet, and that was a chore.

Kids that will be ready to drive 30 years from now will impervious to the antiquated ideas of todays generation. And as far as affordability...why pay $500/month for a car that sits in your driveway 23 hours a day. I think the long term future is autonomous cars that are not owned by the individual but available upon request. Who is going to own that network of vehicles? Google, Amazon or some company of that ilk I would imagine.

 

[mbesty]

There are many possible scenarios, too many to list. I will give one example though which I personally experienced, I was driving on the FDR in Manhattan and it was raining, a car going the other way hit a huge puddle, splashing so much water on the windshield that I was blind for 5-7 seconds even with wipers going full speed. Imagine if it was an autonomous car with it's myriad of sensors, cameras, radar etc. The car, unless it's programmed to slow or stop if something like that happens will need to be manually controlled. Imagine if it's muddy water, I can go on and on.

Lol this is laughable you do understand the level of the technology is beyond being obstructed by rain? It's not like Tesla has to pull suspend it auto driving mode on rainy days

 

[GoofGoof]

I wonder how a driverless tram would work with the regulations about guests being completely behind the line before it moves, and the fact that guests don't comply with that necessarily. My quick trip out to 'Walts Park' a month or so ago the tram sat there for it seemed minutes because a person (who may or may not have understood English) had a foot over the line. The tram eventually left, without the guests cooperation. A 'driverless' tram may have stayed there forever without some sort of human component - and it's not the job of other guests to do crowd control for the Big Corporation.

That's a good question. Maybe they will be designed different with doors. If the door isn't closed the tram won't move. I think they will still need CMs organizing the crowd at least during peak times of park opening and closing. The savings probably just comes from eliminating the drivers themselves. I don't know about the trams, but the bus drivers need to have more qualifications and are paid more than the average CM. A kid from the college program can organize crowds.

 

[GoofGoof]

I understand that but we have to think about the future generations of drivers. Will somebody born 15 years from now have the same interests. They will be digital natives like no other generation before. Born into a world where technology will be so closely integrated into the fabric of daily activity( VR, wearables, total and constant connection to the web). Nobody owned a smart phone 10 years ago, 20 years ago only 20 million people had access to the internet, and that was a chore.

Kids that will be ready to drive 30 years from now will impervious to the antiquated ideas of todays generation. And as far as affordability...why pay $500/month for a car that sits in your driveway 23 hours a day. I think the long term future is autonomous cars that are not owned by the individual but available upon request. Who is going to own that network of vehicles? Google, Amazon or some company of that ilk I would imagine.

Technology or not I just don't see people giving up car ownership. In very limited situations like living in Manhattan car sharing works but I don't see it being the norm for everyone. You don't need the cars to be autonomous to have car sharing. It exists today and is not widely popular.

 

[njDizFan]

Technology or not I just don't see people giving up car ownership. In very limited situations like living in Manhattan car sharing works but I don't see it being the norm for everyone. You don't need the cars to be autonomous to have car sharing. It exists today and is not widely popular.

Car clubs are up on 30% this past year, Uber., Lyft, DriveNow, Car2Go, ZipCar (some of these owned or invested in by rental companies or car manufacturers), all the ride share companies are profitable and expanding. Once the autonomous car comes to fruition for these taxi style services they will merge into a big convenient alternative to car ownership. Like anything either it's going to keep expanding or it will crash, I know where I would place my bet.

 

[seascape]

Technology or not I just don't see people giving up car ownership. In very limited situations like living in Manhattan car sharing works but I don't see it being the norm for everyone. You don't need the cars to be autonomous to have car sharing. It exists today and is not widely popular.

For most people it will come down to money. The cost of owning a car is over 55 cents a mile. The cost of having an autonomous car drive you will be less. Consider buying a 35,000.00 car. It lasts 10 years. Add 1,000.00 a year in insurance. Then add in gas, 20 miles a gallon for 15,000 miles a year at 2.75 per gallon. That would be 2,062 and maintenance of 100 a month or 1200 a year. The cost of owning car would be 7,762.5 a year not counting the sales tax and yearly registration fee and drivers license.

Now consider the fact that many of us currently fly to Orlando, take the magical express to WDW and never get in a car while there. It loojs like many of us have shown we dont need to drive and if this were an option many of us would give up driving. In the future we will be able to pull up our autonomous car app, have a car come and take us wherever we want to go. Then when we are finished pick us up and return us home. The cost will be lower and we will not have any of the liability because we will not own the vehicle and the company we pay will have it.

As someone who in my 50s I look forward to the time this option wil exist. I remeber a friend of my grandfather, who lost his drivers license in Connecticut when he turned 94 and could no longer get one. He was dependent on others or using taxis. He would have loved the independence that we will have in the future and all while saving money.

 

[GoofGoof]

Car clubs are up on 30% this past year, Uber., Lyft, DriveNow, Car2Go, ZipCar (some of these owned or invested in by rental companies or car manufacturers), all the ride share companies are profitable and expanding. Once the autonomous car comes to fruition for these taxi style services they will merge into a big convenient alternative to car ownership. Like anything either it's going to keep expanding or it will crash, I know where I would place my bet.

Car sharing clubs may be growing and may continue to grow but it still represents a fraction of the total drivers, less than 1% of the population currently. It's a niche market almost exclusive to urban centers where people generally don't use cars as frequently. It also generally appeals to a younger crowd.

 

[GoofGoof]

For most people it will come down to money. The cost of owning a car is over 55 cents a mile. The cost of having an autonomous car drive you will be less. Consider buying a 35,000.00 car. It lasts 10 years. Add 1,000.00 a year in insurance. Then add in gas, 20 miles a gallon for 15,000 miles a year at 2.75 per gallon. That would be 2,062 and maintenance of 100 a month or 1200 a year. The cost of owning car would be 7,762.5 a year not counting the sales tax and yearly registration fee and drivers license.

Now consider the fact that many of us currently fly to Orlando, take the magical express to WDW and never get in a car while there. It loojs like many of us have shown we dont need to drive and if this were an option many of us would give up driving. In the future we will be able to pull up our autonomous car app, have a car come and take us wherever we want to go. Then when we are finished pick us up and return us home. The cost will be lower and we will not have any of the liability because we will not own the vehicle and the company we pay will have it.

As someone who in my 50s I look forward to the time this option wil exist. I remeber a friend of my grandfather, who lost his drivers license in Connecticut when he turned 94 and could no longer get one. He was dependent on others or using taxis. He would have loved the independence that we will have in the future and all while saving money.

You are basing this all on the assumption that the cost will be significantly less than owning a car, but that's not a guarantee. The companies that will own these vehicles will still need to pay for fuel and maintenance and insurance plus the cost of the cars themselves. They will need to make a profit too. I think in urban areas where there are many people taking short trips the economics may work similar to Uber and traditional taxis now, but what about in more rural areas where someone needs to drive 25 minutes just to get to a supermarket. It's going to be much more expensive to get a car to come out and pick that person up. Now let's say that person needs to drop their kids off at school at 8am, go to a doctors appointment at 10am, the supermarket at 1pm, then pick their kids up at school at 4pm and take one kid to baseball practice at 5pm and the other to dance at 5:30. Then pick them both up later and take them home, but when they get home they realize the son left his glove at the ball field so they need to go back. That's a lot of back and forth but pretty common and not even a busy day for a family with kids. There's no way paying per trip is going to be economic for them.

It works a lot better when you live in a city, walk or take the subway to work and the bar at night and only use your car a few times a week or just on the weekends for trips to Target, Home Depot or the grocery store or to visit your family. That demographic may see great appeal, but they already see it without autonomous cars.

 

[21stamps]

That's not true BTW. Most of the self driving tech is off the shelf from other companies.

It actually is quite true.
GM is one of the most hefty investors in it right now.

https://amp.businessinsider.com/how-general-motors-driverless-cars-will-be-different-2017-1

http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/...ages/news/us/en/2016/dec/1215-autonomous.html

http://marketrealist.com/2017/03/general-motors-advances-autonomous-vehicle-program/


"General Motors is testing more than 40 autonomous vehicles on public roads in San Francisco and Scottsdale. Currently, General Motors’ driverless car testing fleet is the largest in the automotive industry (VCR). General Motors is ahead of its direct US peers including Ford (F).

General Motors wants to deliver fully autonomous vehicles in the market before its peers."

 

[21stamps]

Might want to go to Pittsburgh and check out how well those vehicles work....

500 million in the auto industry isn't much for buying another company, tooling up for a new model can cost 300 million. Another fact is the car business is slowing down which in one of the articles GM was all rosy about the auto industry. You do realize these guys talk one thing and are thinking another? I'm sure they are working on a autonomous drive car and so is the industry in general. Just don't get to excited like it's right around the corner. It's not.

Gm finally sold Opel, it has lost money on it for 20 years, far more then they have spent on auto driving tech. For that matter GM did go bankrupt so how much faith do you put in the reorganized GM to make good decisions? I can tell you their stock price is doom and will be for a long time. That's what happens when you lose 100's of billions of other peoples money.

I don't think you read any of my posts. I'm the one who's been saying that fully autonomous cars, as the majority, are several upon several decades away. Multiple times in this thread.lol

GM is not what you think right now. You can read about them. They have bounced back in a major way. It's impressive. Their ratings are impressive, and the cars are becoming impressive. They've seriously turned things completely around- all easily researched.

There's really no dispute, GM is investing heavily, more than anyone else, in this technology right now. There's probably hundreds of articles on the subject.

 

[21stamps]

But in that scenario the "driver" will likely not be able to react quick enough to do anything about it, they "driver" may even be asleep. Once cars go full autonomous there is no way to make the "driver" pay attention to the road, we have a hard enough time doing that now when cars are operated manually.

This is why manufactures have more autonomous features in some of their cars now- to prevent someone sleeping.. to make an adjustment...or to wake them up.

I understand that but we have to think about the future generations of drivers. Will somebody born 15 years from now have the same interests. They will be digital natives like no other generation before. Born into a world where technology will be so closely integrated into the fabric of daily activity( VR, wearables, total and constant connection to the web). Nobody owned a smart phone 10 years ago, 20 years ago only 20 million people had access to the internet, and that was a chore.

Kids that will be ready to drive 30 years from now will impervious to the antiquated ideas of todays generation. And as far as affordability...why pay $500/month for a car that sits in your driveway 23 hours a day. I think the long term future is autonomous cars that are not owned by the individual but available upon request. Who is going to own that network of vehicles? Google, Amazon or some company of that ilk I would imagine.

Outside of an immediate city area that doesn't work. People drive 30+ minutes to work, they have to take their kids to school, sports, outings, the grocery, quick trip to Target at 10pm because they realized that something is needed for school tomorrow. All of this can be in the same day. Most of it is several days per week. I do not believe that would be less than $500 per month. And I do not think that someone in suburbia will have a Google or Amazon car within 5 minutes of their home at all times.