Goin' down the highway at 75...

[Holdfast]

Personally, I'm looking forward to even more of this stuff. I really just want a car that can drive itself. With an option for manual control, sure, when I want to have some fun behind the wheel, but otherwise I don't want to be bothered with it.

I'm still trying to figure out how the whole liability thing is going to work the first time someone in their Honda gets into an accident. "I wasn't driving, the car was!". That's one of the main things that's going to prevent self-driving cars from being a practical reality any time soon, even if it's technically feasible. The automakers know it too, which is why they're not the ones really pushing the technology beyond a bit of sponsorship.

Eh, in time they'll just record all the car's driving data onto a black box which will show whether it was a technological issue in the self-driving software or the owner at fault.

Besides, a few disclaimers about always maintaining due attention even when using driver's aids will probably sort it out.

We're so close to it being a reality at the moment (the tech side is basically done) that I think it's quite likely the legal aspects will get sorted out in due course. Might take a decade or two but it'll happen. The fuel efficiency and improved traffic flow arguments will eventually hold sway over the risks, I'm guessing.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Personally, I'm looking forward to even more of this stuff. I really just want a car that can drive itself. With an option for manual control, sure, when I want to have some fun behind the wheel, but otherwise I don't want to be bothered with it.

I'm still trying to figure out how the whole liability thing is going to work the first time someone in their Honda gets into an accident. "I wasn't driving, the car was!". That's one of the main things that's going to prevent self-driving cars from being a practical reality any time soon, even if it's technically feasible. The automakers know it too, which is why they're not the ones really pushing the technology beyond a bit of sponsorship.

Eh, in time they'll just record all the car's driving data onto a black box which will show whether it was a technological issue in the self-driving software or the owner at fault.

Besides, a few disclaimers about always maintaining due attention even when using driver's aids will probably sort it out.

We're so close to it being a reality at the moment (the tech side is basically done) that I think it's quite likely the legal aspects will get sorted out in due course. Might take a decade or two but it'll happen. The fuel efficiency and improved traffic flow arguments will eventually hold sway over the risks, I'm guessing.

Don't most cars already have black boxes that activate during an accident? I thought that's how Toyota figured out most of the people who claimed to have the "runaway acceleration" problem were full of shit.

 

[Holdfast]

I'm still trying to figure out how the whole liability thing is going to work the first time someone in their Honda gets into an accident. "I wasn't driving, the car was!". That's one of the main things that's going to prevent self-driving cars from being a practical reality any time soon, even if it's technically feasible. The automakers know it too, which is why they're not the ones really pushing the technology beyond a bit of sponsorship.

Eh, in time they'll just record all the car's driving data onto a black box which will show whether it was a technological issue in the self-driving software or the owner at fault.

Besides, a few disclaimers about always maintaining due attention even when using driver's aids will probably sort it out.

We're so close to it being a reality at the moment (the tech side is basically done) that I think it's quite likely the legal aspects will get sorted out in due course. Might take a decade or two but it'll happen. The fuel efficiency and improved traffic flow arguments will eventually hold sway over the risks, I'm guessing.

Don't most cars already have black boxes that activate during an accident? I thought that's how Toyota figured out most of the people who claimed to have the "runaway acceleration" problem were full of shit.

Not sure, to be honest.

Most have a computer that records lots of data, esp. about faults. But that's not quite the same thing.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Eh, in time they'll just record all the car's driving data onto a black box which will show whether it was a technological issue in the self-driving software or the owner at fault.

Besides, a few disclaimers about always maintaining due attention even when using driver's aids will probably sort it out.

We're so close to it being a reality at the moment (the tech side is basically done) that I think it's quite likely the legal aspects will get sorted out in due course. Might take a decade or two but it'll happen. The fuel efficiency and improved traffic flow arguments will eventually hold sway over the risks, I'm guessing.

Don't most cars already have black boxes that activate during an accident? I thought that's how Toyota figured out most of the people who claimed to have the "runaway acceleration" problem were full of shit.

Not sure, to be honest.

Most have a computer that records lots of data, esp. about faults. But that's not quite the same thing.

This article from 2005 indicates about 15% of cars on the road in the US have some kind of accident recording device. I'd imagine the number is substantially higher by now. Interesting.

 

[Lindley]

If all cars are controlled remotely

That won't happen. If there are self-driving cars, their navigation decisions would need to be made autonomously, or at most in coordination with the computers of the vehicles in their immediate vicinity. Any link-up to a central machine would need to be supplemental at most, because the risk of jamming or natural interference would be too significant.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

If all cars are controlled remotely

That won't happen. If there are self-driving cars, their navigation decisions would need to be made autonomously, or at most in coordination with the computers of the vehicles in their immediate vicinity. Any link-up to a central machine would need to be supplemental at most, because the risk of jamming or natural interference would be too significant.

Yeah, I had a little at that statement, too. But I don't think he really meant "remotely controlled," just "autonomously controlled." Precision, people!!

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

If all cars are controlled remotely

That won't happen. If there are self-driving cars, their navigation decisions would need to be made autonomously, or at most in coordination with the computers of the vehicles in their immediate vicinity. Any link-up to a central machine would need to be supplemental at most, because the risk of jamming or natural interference would be too significant.

I suppose you're right. In fact I believe the episode of Mega Engineering that I saw (which really turned me on to the concept) suggested this very thing.

In any case, I long for the day where we can get into cars without having to drive them. Imagine having one waiting for you whenever you want it, and you just get in, tell it where you want to go, and then go. No driving necessary. If nothing else, it would sure help disabled drivers...

 

[Robert Maxwell]

If all cars are controlled remotely

That won't happen. If there are self-driving cars, their navigation decisions would need to be made autonomously, or at most in coordination with the computers of the vehicles in their immediate vicinity. Any link-up to a central machine would need to be supplemental at most, because the risk of jamming or natural interference would be too significant.

I suppose you're right. In fact I believe the episode of Mega Engineering that I saw (which really turned me on to the concept) suggested this very thing.

In any case, I long for the day where we can get into cars without having to drive them. Imagine having one waiting for you whenever you want it, and you just get in, tell it where you want to go, and then go. No driving necessary. If nothing else, it would sure help disabled drivers...

If we could combine those "smart cars" with intelligent scheduling and routing, it could even be an efficient alternative to public transportation. Imagine everyone in a neighborhood pitching in to buy one or two self-driving cars, and then feeding their schedules to the vehicles so they will plan routes accordingly. If a few people want to go to the same place at the same time, instant carpool.

At least, that seems like a natural outgrowth if we're going to have self-driving cars in the first place.

 

[Canadave]

That won't happen. If there are self-driving cars, their navigation decisions would need to be made autonomously, or at most in coordination with the computers of the vehicles in their immediate vicinity. Any link-up to a central machine would need to be supplemental at most, because the risk of jamming or natural interference would be too significant.

I suppose you're right. In fact I believe the episode of Mega Engineering that I saw (which really turned me on to the concept) suggested this very thing.

In any case, I long for the day where we can get into cars without having to drive them. Imagine having one waiting for you whenever you want it, and you just get in, tell it where you want to go, and then go. No driving necessary. If nothing else, it would sure help disabled drivers...

If we could combine those "smart cars" with intelligent scheduling and routing, it could even be an efficient alternative to public transportation. Imagine everyone in a neighborhood pitching in to buy one or two self-driving cars, and then feeding their schedules to the vehicles so they will plan routes accordingly. If a few people want to go to the same place at the same time, instant carpool.

At least, that seems like a natural outgrowth if we're going to have self-driving cars in the first place.

You've basically just described Personal Rapid Transit, between the two of you.

 

[SPCTRE]

^ So 85 mph is considered fast in the States?

Well, it could earn a ticket for reckless driving, as opposed to "just" speeding in most areas. But I've been on plenty of freeways where most of the cars--few are actually on the road--are doing 80 mph.

I realize there is a multitude of reasons for the more restrictive speed limits etc, but still, I can never help but snort when I hear Americans talk about what they consider "fast driving".

You see, my Grandma is 72 years old now, and she usually goes at a steady 100 mph on the Autobahn which isn't even considered to be very fast - mind you, she's a very defensive driver. Hell, she doesn't even like driving

Well, I guess it's all relative

 

[Roger Wilco]

So?

That's 3 or 4 car lengths, quite the distance and in an emergency could mean the difference between stopping and crashing. So that half-second it takes one to move their foot from the floor to the pedal, rather than the foot already being in the area, can make all of the difference in the world.

Yes, that's why you're supposed to keep an appropriate distance to the car in front of you.

 

[RoJoHen]

Indeed. I was taught to keep one car length distance for every 10 mph you're going. So if you're going 75mph, there should be 8 car lengths in between you and the car in front of you.

 

[Lindley]

^ So 85 mph is considered fast in the States?

Well, it could earn a ticket for reckless driving, as opposed to "just" speeding in most areas. But I've been on plenty of freeways where most of the cars--few are actually on the road--are doing 80 mph.

I realize there is a multitude of reasons for the more restrictive speed limits etc, but still, I can never help but snort when I hear Americans talk about what they consider "fast driving".

You see, my Grandma is 72 years old now, and she usually goes at a steady 100 mph on the Autobahn which isn't even considered to be very fast - mind you, she's a very defensive driver. Hell, she doesn't even like driving

Well, I guess it's all relative

Are you certain that's MPH and not KPH? Some lower-end cars have difficulty even getting up much past 80 MPH.

 

[Roger Wilco]

realize there is a multitude of reasons for the more restrictive speed limits etc, but still, I can never help but snort when I hear Americans talk about what they consider "fast driving".

You see, my Grandma is 72 years old now, and she usually goes at a steady 100 mph on the Autobahn which isn't even considered to be very fast - mind you, she's a very defensive driver. Hell, she doesn't even like driving

Well, I guess it's all relative

But the difference is not that Germans are some kind of daredevil race and Americans are pussies, but that many of the roads in the US, especially inter-state highways are very different from Autobahns. They are designed and built in a much cheaper way; not even Schumacher could drive 100 mp/h on a two-lane road with a crumbly surface that goes up and down constantly. You have to consider just how much larger and less densely populated the USA are compared to western Europe.

 

[SPCTRE]

^ As I said, I realize that there's a multitude of reasons for the difference in perception and regulations

Edit: And I'm not touching the minefield that is the subject of speed limits in Austria

Are you certain that's MPH and not KPH? Some lower-end cars have difficulty even getting up much past 80 MPH.

I am indeed talking about MPH, it is true that we tend to use KPH around here, I just calculated the values for your convenience.

My Grandma drives a 1996 Opel Corsa B (the smallest and least powerful car built by Opel) with a top speed of ~105 mph.

 

[Captain Ice]

Indeed. I was taught to keep one car length distance for every 10 mph you're going. So if you're going 75mph, there should be 8 car lengths in between you and the car in front of you.

This is similar to the two second rule I was taught. The two second rule works like this:

1. Pick a fixed reference point (I like to use the edge of the shadow created by bridges for this for example).

2. As soon as the rear end of the vehicle in front of you passes this reference point, start counting one...one thousand, two...one thousand, three...one thousand, etc.

3. Stop counting as soon as your front bumper passes the fixed point.

4. If you were not able to get to two, back off a bit and do it again.

Two seconds at 60 mph translates to about 5-6 car lengths.

 

[FordSVT]

Well, it could earn a ticket for reckless driving, as opposed to "just" speeding in most areas. But I've been on plenty of freeways where most of the cars--few are actually on the road--are doing 80 mph.

I realize there is a multitude of reasons for the more restrictive speed limits etc, but still, I can never help but snort when I hear Americans talk about what they consider "fast driving".

You see, my Grandma is 72 years old now, and she usually goes at a steady 100 mph on the Autobahn which isn't even considered to be very fast - mind you, she's a very defensive driver. Hell, she doesn't even like driving

Well, I guess it's all relative

Are you certain that's MPH and not KPH? Some lower-end cars have difficulty even getting up much past 80 MPH.

Aside from a couple of small exceptions like the Smart Fortwo, you can't buy a car in the US that won't do over 100 mph. A few big trucks are governed for 100mph because of their tires, but most vehicles will do at least 110. The Yaris, Versa, Accent, Fiesta and Fit all do 110-115 mph. I had a Versa rental a couple of months ago and it would hit 100 mph by the end of the on-ramp (no traffic around), so it's not even like it takes forever to get there.

Unless you're talking about old, falling apart 80s small cars that have about 65 hp left...

Fastest I've ever driven on a public road was an indicated 154 mph (248 kph) in my old 99 Cobra. That was buried to the floor and drag limited, she wouldn't have gone any faster unless it was down hill. I had my 05 Mustang to about 145 with a little room to go, never buried it. I've taken my 350Z to about 130 mph; it will go faster I just haven't bothered since I bought it. I usually have the top down when I drive it so I'm not inclined to travel that rapidly.

And before anyone mentions it, I drive that fast infrequently and only when the situation allows me to do so, on wide, well maintained, divided highways with excellent line of sight and without any traffic where I put no one at risk but myself. I live in Atlantic Canada, we don't really have much traffic here most of the time.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I suppose you're right. In fact I believe the episode of Mega Engineering that I saw (which really turned me on to the concept) suggested this very thing.

In any case, I long for the day where we can get into cars without having to drive them. Imagine having one waiting for you whenever you want it, and you just get in, tell it where you want to go, and then go. No driving necessary. If nothing else, it would sure help disabled drivers...

If we could combine those "smart cars" with intelligent scheduling and routing, it could even be an efficient alternative to public transportation. Imagine everyone in a neighborhood pitching in to buy one or two self-driving cars, and then feeding their schedules to the vehicles so they will plan routes accordingly. If a few people want to go to the same place at the same time, instant carpool.

At least, that seems like a natural outgrowth if we're going to have self-driving cars in the first place.

You've basically just described Personal Rapid Transit, between the two of you.

Neat! I knew it wasn't a novel idea. Wiki page for anyone interested.

 

[Iasius]

I've never used my car's cruise control. If I ever took a long road trip, I probably still wouldn't use it.

I like cruise control in construction zones especially. Makes sticking to the lower speed limit easier, especially when there's no traffic around.
When I visit my parents, I drive through (a good part of) a 45 mile long construction zone with speed limits varying from 37 mph to 63 mph and I usually drive back at night when there's almost no traffic.