Merged POLL: Driverless Cars are going to become mandatory by 2050

No elaboration required.

But a poll is.

I'm sorry that you had to wait 3 minutes for me to complete the poll baron, I'll do better in the future. I look forward to your ever more calm demeanor and your ever more lovely creativity in our discourse.

I voted "No they won't", although that falls a long way short of expressing my absolute and utter certainty that the premise is impossible. I would have answered the same for 2150, 2250, 3050 and 9950.

Yes, No and Your options suck.

There will be some roads that will be driverless only. But not all roads and definitely not the road in front of your existing house (though some new developments will spring up that are driverless only).

K dude well an opinion like "GEE, it may happen, maybe it won't" is like, not even worth thinking about because you could say that about anything so you have said nothing! OK GOODNIGHT

There will be mandatory public transportation before there will be mandatory driverless cars.

Less infrastructure required for PT and better bang for the buck.

CynicalSkeptic said:

not the road in front of your existing house

Click to expand...

That's where it is most likely to be required my friend, because I don't want drunk and moronic people running over my kids in front of my house, so when the technology is better than keeping airline passengers alive, it will be the law.

BStrong said:

There will be mandatory public transportation before there will be mandatory driverless cars.

Less infrastructure required for PT and better bang for the buck.

Click to expand...

False, mandatory driverless will save trillions because no accidents, zero transit holdups, erasure of liability, and there is zero restriction, in the long term the rising tide will raise all ships. Dude, get yourself an iced tea and an ipad and start getting into the real economics of this. You're a skeptical guy? OK, only read independent private future projections of what will happen. Pick the top 10 consultants. Gee I wonder what McKinsey's people are saying these days? I don't know about them actually, if you find out about that firm, let me know.

I voted no. Who knows what the future will bring, but I think if we presume we mean cars as something similar to what cars are now, I don't think so. Driverless cars are more likely to be like transistorized buggy whips or motorized slide rules.

Of course it's easy to vote on this because I won't live to find out.

Joey McGee said:

That's where it is most likely to be required my friend, because I don't want drunk and moronic people running over my kids in front of my house, so when the technology is better than keeping airline passengers alive, it will be the law. Sorry you could not be more backwards if you were trolling.

Click to expand...

You will be free to move to a neighborhood that is driverless only rather than take away the rights of your neighbors to keep their old vehicles running.

CynicalSkeptic said:

You will be free to move to a neighborhood that is driverless only rather than take away the rights of your neighbors to keep their old vehicles running.

Click to expand...

Just say how you feel fella!

Two arguments here.

How hard is it to give up freedom for the good? When was the last time you heard of a vigilante that you respected? Most of all of us recognize why revenge is bad and jail is good. Now, I want to have my own car, I don't want to be driving in a car that is controlled by computers that are too complicated for me to understand and overseen by laws and courts too convoluted for me to ever understand even if I went to law school for 8 years. But you know what? I want everyone to be alive. So if we can create a system where everyone gets to live, and no one takes away your car, maybe subsidizes your car. Oh, forgot to tell you, the government will save billions every year and the economy will get trillions of injections through productivity every year, we'll upgrade your car for free. And all of those people who cant go to the dance because they are 84 and live by themselves, a robot car will take their wheelchair into the car and lock it and take them there... you really can't have a vision where dudes are still allowed to drive drunk on the public roads when we have *********** QUANTUM COMPUTING

bruto said:

I voted no. Who knows what the future will bring, but I think if we presume we mean cars as something similar to what cars are now, I don't think so. Driverless cars are more likely to be like transistorized buggy whips or motorized slide rules.

Click to expand...

I give this post a +10.

Clap your hands people.



Please stay around as long as you can! And consider going the Ted Williams route

I voted no.

The tech may be there. It may make sense economically. It may even be more convenient, and safer than independent driving.

But many people like to drive. They like the freedom. The like the control. Or they just won't trust the cars (even if their mistrust is misplaced).

I expect the standard will be more of a partnership between the tech and the driver. Some people may be ok with turning over control completely. But it will not be mandatory (except perhaps in certain zones, like parking garages or tourist venues).

Denver said:

But many people like to drive. They like the freedom. The like the control.

Click to expand...

How about we all get together and say **** THOSE PEOPLE and say, instead of 33000 dead in the US every year, lets make this technology work for enjoying driving and preventing deaths. You think we can make quantum *********** computers, and send a colony to mars, but we cant figure out how to both let you drive and take control when you're about to get in a crash? THIS IS A NONISSUE when will everyone stop posturing? Not until a lot of people are DEAD

BStrong said:

There will be mandatory public transportation before there will be mandatory driverless cars.

Less infrastructure required for PT and better bang for the buck.

Click to expand...

But at some point the cost will be down on a driverless car, and it will be an untenable proposition to hold on your manual car when there is 10 thousands of death on the road each years.

Plus you are assuming it is an OR proposition. i think on the contrary it will be an AND with first and foremost probably the PT which will be driverless then switching to car first as an incentive (you get 75% off your insurance !) then later as another incentive (your insurance is 300% if you don't use driverless) and finally obligatory by law.

If the tech mature enough the buggy whip thing will be manual driving.

And I *********** welcome our car overlord, because I am sick of seeing car burning red lights, burnings stops, and ignoring my right of way from the right.

Joey McGee said:

False, mandatory driverless will save trillions because no accidents, zero transit holdups, erasure of liability, and there is zero restriction, in the long term the rising tide will raise all ships. Dude, get yourself an iced tea and an ipad and start getting into the real economics of this. You're a skeptical guy? OK, only read independent private future projections of what will happen. Pick the top 10 consultants. Gee I wonder what McKinsey's people are saying these days? I don't know about them actually, if you find out about that firm, let me know.

Click to expand...

I can believe that driverless cars will be safer and result in better traffic flow than cars driven by humans, but you seem to assume that they will be perfect, and that politicians will never fail to fund adequate infrastructure. This seems just about impossible to me. Fewer accidents and traffic jams than with cars driven by humans? Very likely. Zero accidents and traffic delays? No way.

CORed said:

I can believe that driverless cars will be safer and result in better traffic flow than cars driven by humans, but you seem to assume that they will be perfect

Click to expand...

No man, I'm a Darwinist, we are just trying our best here, this is clearly better. Not quite sure why you projected this angle onto me.

, and that politicians will never fail to fund adequate infrastructure.

Click to expand...

Oh I have no doubt that they will fail to do this even if everyone who reads my words agrees with me, that's just how it works. But they will be wrong, since my logic is perfect.

This seems just about impossible to me

Click to expand...

You are a poor student of the revolutions of history

. Fewer accidents and traffic jams than with cars driven by humans? Very likely. Zero accidents and traffic delays? No way.

Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]Pedantic talking about zero? Most optimal should I have said that>? GoD I feel like Jay Leno right now for some reason but I'm really Conan having a nightmare about how he is Jay.... love you all i kid

No, they won't be.

I don't doubt there will be such cars, and they will be popular. But people like driving. Politicians are not going to commit electoral suicide by preventing them from doing so.

Too soon. I hope it happens sometime but it don't think it will by 2050.

I think it might make sense for some highways, but it will be less easy to implement the further away you get from urban areas.

Perhaps the whole transportation system will change somehow. Sometimes innovation is hobbled by old ways of doing things that were necessary in the past. Maybe "cars" will end up utterly different from what they are now.

I wonder if pilotless planes could come earlier though.

Joey McGee said:

How about we all get together and say **** THOSE PEOPLE and say, instead of 33000 dead in the US every year, lets make this technology work for enjoying driving and preventing deaths. You think we can make quantum *********** computers, and send a colony to mars, but we cant figure out how to both let you drive and take control when you're about to get in a crash? THIS IS A NONISSUE when will everyone stop posturing? Not until a lot of people are DEAD

Click to expand...

Posturing? What am I posturing about?

Joey McGee said:

False, mandatory driverless will save trillions because no accidents, zero transit holdups, erasure of liability, and there is zero restriction, in the long term the rising tide will raise all ships. Dude, get yourself an iced tea and an ipad and start getting into the real economics of this. You're a skeptical guy? OK, only read independent private future projections of what will happen. Pick the top 10 consultants. Gee I wonder what McKinsey's people are saying these days? I don't know about them actually, if you find out about that firm, let me know.

Click to expand...

In the S.F. bay area they are already building "transit villages"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_village

http://www.transformca.org/resource/it-takes-transit-village

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2005/10/31/focus2.html

Adjacent to public transportation hubs, and S.F. is actively pursuing policies to restrict the use of private vehicles by city residents and visitors:

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Turns-onto-Market-Street-by-private-cars-barred-6434413.php

I know you're obsessed with the concept of driverless cars, but the government solution isn't necessarily going to be your solution. It would be far better from the standpoint of local politicians to reduce road use by anytype of private vehicle, and having high density urban housing near transportation hubs will kill two birds with one stone,

Aepervius said:

But at some point the cost will be down on a driverless car, and it will be an untenable proposition to hold on your manual car when there is 10 thousands of death on the road each years.

Plus you are assuming it is an OR proposition. i think on the contrary it will be an AND with first and foremost probably the PT which will be driverless then switching to car first as an incentive (you get 75% off your insurance !) then later as another incentive (your insurance is 300% if you don't use driverless) and finally obligatory by law.

If the tech mature enough the buggy whip thing will be manual driving.

And I *********** welcome our car overlord, because I am sick of seeing car burning red lights, burnings stops, and ignoring my right of way from the right.

Click to expand...

My experience with city politics and city administrators lead me to believe that when they can solve multiple issues with an increase in their tax base and a decrease in their budget they will do so.

Here's one local plan, adopted in 2001:

http://www.ssf.net/DocumentCenter/Home/View/776

Update: 2016:

http://www.smdailyjournal.com/artic...roposal-to-advance-in-2017/1776425173313.html

The city seeks the high density housing to increase property tax income, in conjunction with the transit hub the selling point is that residents will not necessarily need to own or operate a personal motor vehicle.

In the S.F. bay area, transit villages are being built or being proposed to be built all along the BART system:

http://www.walnut-creek.org/department-services/planning-zoning/wc-bart-transit-village

http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2008/news20080717

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/environmental_justice/case_studies/case6.cfm

http://www2.oaklandnet.com/government/o/PBN/OurOrganization/PlanningZoning/DOWD008406

http://www.vmwp.com/projects/pleasanton-bart-transit-village.php

It's not at all uncommon. At some point when the intersection of vehicle registration and insurance costs drive the cost up sufficiently to effectively preclude personal vehicle use, mass transit will be a more cost effective answer for government than self driving vehicles and the required infrastructure.

BStrong said:

In the S.F. bay area they are already building "transit villages"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_village

http://www.transformca.org/resource/it-takes-transit-village

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2005/10/31/focus2.html

Adjacent to public transportation hubs, and S.F. is actively pursuing policies to restrict the use of private vehicles by city residents and visitors:

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Turns-onto-Market-Street-by-private-cars-barred-6434413.php

I know you're obsessed with the concept of driverless cars, but the government solution isn't necessarily going to be your solution. It would be far better from the standpoint of local politicians to reduce road use by anytype of private vehicle, and having high density urban housing near transportation hubs will kill two birds with one stone,

Click to expand...

We are quite clearly talking two different languages here. 1 million people die every year from car accidents on earth. 33 000 in the us. 2300 in canada. How the **** are you talking about anything like what the *********** **** I am talking about which is ending EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE DEATHS?

Joey McGee said:

False, mandatory driverless will save trillions because no accidents, zero transit holdups, erasure of liability, and there is zero restriction, in the long term the rising tide will raise all ships. Dude, get yourself an iced tea and an ipad and start getting into the real economics of this. You're a skeptical guy? OK, only read independent private future projections of what will happen. Pick the top 10 consultants. Gee I wonder what McKinsey's people are saying these days? I don't know about them actually, if you find out about that firm, let me know.

Click to expand...

Sorry I missed this the first time I read it.

If you believe any system of anything involving human beings will eliminate liability, you'd better bone up on human nature.

BStrong said:

Sorry I missed this the first time I read it.

If you believe any system of anything involving human beings will eliminate liability, you'd better bone up on human nature.

Click to expand...

OH WOW! NOTHING CAN BE PERFECT SO WE SHOULDN'T EVEN TRY TO GET CLOSE????

Explain yourself.

Joey McGee said:

We are quite clearly talking two different languages here. 1 million people die every year from car accidents on earth. 33 000 in the us. 2300 in canada. How the **** are you talking about anything like what the *********** **** I am talking about which is ending EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE DEATHS?

Click to expand...

Because I'm talking about actuality while you have a delusion that you've found a perfect solution to a problem, and your solution is perfect and undeniable.

Good luck with that Leonardo.

Potentially, theoretically, as long as the backups and triple back ups dont go down, we will be able to build a system that means that no matter who is driving down your street, when your 8 year old boy chases his basketball in the street into traffic, every single car will stop. Who is against this and why? Can we start over?

BStrong said:

Because I'm talking about actuality while you have a delusion that you've found a perfect solution to a problem, and your solution is perfect and undeniable.

Good luck with that Leonardo.

Click to expand...

So what percentage do you sign on at Mickey Rourke?

100% is no good, how about 90%?

Would you like me to start sourcing scientific material on the percentage of deaths we could prevent?

I *********** googled it. 90%. Sleep well friend.

Google it : what percentage of road deaths could driverless cars prevent? Yeah people getting paid 200k a year already *********** calculated it... don't give up your day jobs guys.

Joey McGee said:

kuffaw

You and me know both well enough...

You think that it's important that what you say be expressed... not that you actually literally believe it as a philosophical position... I mean... you might be serious but that would surprise me

Click to expand...

I am serious. I just answered a poll with what I thought, and explained why.
I don't understand why you think that is posturing, or what surprises you about my opinion.

I hope it will happen, but it is irrelevant. I live in California and will ride the wonderful bullet train!(surely it will be completed on time)

Joey McGee said:

QUANTUM COMPUTING

Click to expand...

Run that by me again?

Joey McGee said:

QUANTUM COMPUTING

Click to expand...

I thought that's what you said. Quantum computers as car ECUs. Jesus. It's more likely that cars in the future will be powered by magic pixie dust.

As to driverless cars, as long as they cannot make any mistake or be taken over by stealth computer/equivalent or hacking in other forms. If there is the slightest chance it can, NO!!!

Joey McGee said:

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove moderated content.

Click to expand...

You make a very common mistake in your perception of the issue. You fixate on a single issue that you feel is primary when there are several considerations that will be taken into account by the individuals and agencies that will be making policy in the future

As far as the people who will be making decisions about the future of transportation are concerned, driver/passenger safety isn't paramount.

Reduction of pollution, reduction in costs associated with road repair, construction and associated infrastructure and increasing population density in "affordable" housing w/o increasing the requirements for the above noted items is all ahead of driver/passenger safety. A driverless car still needs a place to park and a road to drive on. Funneling people into and out of areas on mass transit is more cost effective and efficient than having individuals or groups of individuals in private vehicles commute into and out of urban areas.

I'm not citing this as some part of an alex jones ******** story. I know people in urban planning that have been talking about and planning for this for over twenty years. There is very little future in the long term for privately operated vehicles in urban or many suburban areas.

There's a secondary issue here that you are not addressing. Nothing humans can devise is 100% foolproof, and again, I do not cite that fact to attempt to throw out your premise in total - I cite that because your evaluation of the benefits as you perceive them in no way takes into account that humans will often choose to engage in behavior involving motor vehicles (or life in general for that matter) that our fellow humans do not comprehend - I rode liter class and larger sportbikes for many years and have the scars to prove it. The fact that it was/is dangerous weighed heavier on observers than it did on me, even spending time with my friends after becoming para or quadriplegics, or hugging widows at funerals. It wasn't until my health got the the point I couldn't physically do the job right that I quit riding. I've also watched folks get to the point where they could no longer drive due to their health or age issues, and not everybody accepts the inevitable. More than one son has had to disable their father or mother's car to keep them from driving.

In America and I'm sure in other places, there will be demographics that will not adopt driverless technology at anything short of gunpoint, and the driverless vehicle benefit you fixate on doesn't take into account any of the facts that I cite.

I stand by my opinion - we'll see mandatory mass transit before mandatory driverless vehicles, and you'll have to sort out whatever the hell happens in 2050 because I'll be long dead by then.

Better question... How many smart or powerful or politically relevant or RICH people believe that driverless will takeover? We all know what that pie looks like. Then why am I making this poll when such an obvious answer exists? Guess I feel sorry for you

Denver said:

I am serious. I just answered a poll with what I thought, and explained why.
I don't understand why you think that is posturing

Click to expand...

The posturing is right there inside of your claim, you are willing to take a bet on what you cannot possibly know, because you would rather not get caught being seen believing any other thing, you just said it, you think that people are too set in their ways. Holy **** read history man. People have no *********** clue what they like or want, Christianity ruled for thousands of *********** years!

what surprises you about my opinion

Click to expand...

No surprise here

BStrong said:

You make a very common mistake in your perception of the issue. You fixate on a single issue that you feel is primary when there are several considerations that will be taken into account by the individuals and agencies that will be making policy in the future

As far as the people who will be making decisions about the future of transportation are concerned, driver/passenger safety isn't paramount.

Reduction of pollution, reduction in costs associated with road repair, construction and associated infrastructure and increasing population density in "affordable" housing w/o increasing the requirements for the above noted items is all ahead of driver/passenger safety.

Click to expand...

What the **** does afforable housing have to do with mandatory driverless cars in 35 *********** years?

A driverless car still needs a place to park and a road to drive on. Funneling people into and out of areas on mass transit is more cost effective and efficient than having individuals or groups of individuals in private vehicles commute into and out of urban areas.

Click to expand...

Sure, says you, what I say is that

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...rless-taxis-may-kick-mass-transit-to-the-curb


Super-Cheap Driverless Cabs to Kick Mass Transit to the Curb

Mass transit, the lifeblood of cities worldwide, is under threat from the biggest innovation in automotive technology since Henry Ford’s assembly line first flooded streets with cars.

Click to expand...

I would have said both but you brought the knife to the gun fight.

There's a secondary issue here that you are not addressing. Nothing humans can devise is 100% foolproof

Click to expand...

non-sequitor, hack debate technique, plato would have puked etc etc... did I claim it was perfect? Or did you nitpick my verbs?

In America and I'm sure in other places, there will be demographics that will not adopt driverless technology at anything short of gunpoint

Click to expand...

So what, lots of places wont let their slavery practices go unless you kill them either, whats the *********** point?,

fixate on

Click to expand...

Yeah I'm totally fixated on promoting the agenda of the secretary of transportation... oh wait, could have said that two weeks ago oops.

I stand by my opinion

Click to expand...

No one cares about my opinion, or yours.

Joey McGee said:

No man, I'm a Darwinist, we are just trying our best here, this is clearly better. Not quite sure why you projected this angle onto me...

Click to expand...

I voted yes though I'm less than positive it will happen by 2050. There'll be a lot of political opposition. Maybe enough to stall it, who knows? There are people who will want to continue to control their car and the safety arguments will be lost on them because they'll be convinced, "It won't happen to me." I quoted the above because that is how opponents usually fight new technology. By holding it to an impossibly high standard: There will NEVER be an accident? No one will EVER be killed?

I would love it. My commute is five miles and fifteen minutes and a good commute is one where I only have one close call. It doesn't have to be that way. I could be curled up in the back seat listening to music and having a second cup of coffee.

Joey McGee said:

The posturing is right there inside of your claim, you are willing to take a bet on what you cannot possibly know, because you would rather not get caught being seen believing any other thing, you just said it, you think that people are too set in their ways. Holy **** read history man. People have no *********** clue what they like or want, Christianity ruled for thousands of *********** years!No surprise here

Click to expand...

Okay I thought your poll was serious. But railing at me for giving my opinion about the future, when your poll asked for opinions about the future, is just silly.