Do we really want driver-less cars?

I have no idea why people think there'll be less traffic. Everyone will want one, or they'll be getting cab rides everywhere. The only thing that makes a dent in traffic is mass transit.
When people will stop going to work at the same time together the rush hour traffic will be gone. In the era of robots. Secondly, when people don't drive cars anymore, all cars can "stream" together moving traffic twice more efficiently, and eliminating most car accidents blocking traffic.
Otherwise people will be getting places all the time more than ever. We are very mobile creatures after all. However, number of cars per capita will fall (not in traffic) as same cars will be in use all the time, and not sitting in garages or parked by the curb like now. People will not own cars like today, they will be using automated taxis supplied by taxi companies or car manufacturers. Efficiency of use of every car will rise 10 fold at least.
I bet average care is in use not more than one or two hours a day. In new economy it will be in use almost 24/7.
 
I have no idea why people think there'll be less traffic. Everyone will want one, or they'll be getting cab rides everywhere. The only thing that makes a dent in traffic is mass transit.

I guess it depends on the system that gets set up (at the city level) and the acceptance of users.

One possibility is there will come a time when 95% of cars on the road are not only driver-less, but part of a centralised ordering system, i.e. we don't necessarily own them, we merely order them as required.

With an intelligent system, you get the ability to combine orders en route, so two people might be picked up from your street to go into the city at the same time, and if that sort of thing is happening often enough, you are reducing the number of cars.

Also, you no longer need cabs cruising the streets, because the driverless system dispenses with both cabs and even the need to own cars.

On top of all of that, the more intelligent the city-wide system, the more likely the driverless cars will pick out the most efficient route at that exact point in time, so ultimately, all traffic flows should be improved.

Lastly, because there is no need for parking spaces anymore, all thoroughfares that currently have parking spots on the street will no longer be needed, opening up an additional lane for the driverless cars to use.
 
They do not work in places wheres the weather is not PERFECT.

My Dad works for NOAA, hes telling me that the tracker systems would not work if the roads are not perfect.

Also, for all the people who say that Americans are dangerous drivers, and computers are safer, if the computer system ever fails you will have a worse accident that a person who bumps into the car in front of them.

We all saw the terror attack that just happened in Germany? That does not happen by accident due to normal human error. But with these crazy computers, who knows,. Also, HACKERS!
 
Last edited:
^ That's right, roads would have to all be uniform in terms of road markings, quality of construction, shoulders, etc., which is one reason why it will take a while to implement.

Having said that, modern cars already have have the capability to operate quasi independently on at least 90% of the roads in the city I live in (a fairly modern city it has to be said, built mostly since the 1970s).
 
^ That's right, roads would have to all be uniform in terms of road markings, quality of construction, shoulders, etc., which is one reason why it will take a while to implement.

Having said that, modern cars already have have the capability to operate quasi independently on at least 90% of the roads in the city I live in (a fairly modern city it has to be said, built mostly since the 1970s).

And who do you think will be charged for accidents caused by glitches in these vehicles ..............the software company, the owner of the vehicle , or ........???
 
I would say it will be easier for a terrorist organization to hack into enough vehicles to do damage the amount of idiots willing to do it themselves would be capable to.
 
I would say it will be easier for a terrorist organization to hack into enough vehicles to do damage the amount of idiots willing to do it themselves would be capable to.
It is not impossible to hack into US power grid, big internet providers, or US military drones to make substantial economical damage and human casualties. Did it ever happen that terrorists did that? And yet possibility exists for more than 10 years now. It means that it is very difficult to pull it off, or maybe even impossible with terrorists mentality and resources. Or maybe nerds don't want to be terrorists.
 
I would say it will be easier for a terrorist organization to hack into enough vehicles to do damage the amount of idiots willing to do it themselves would be capable to.

There have been reports of attempts by Russian agents to hack into our electrical and water grids. A report just came out about it strenuously urging that our out of date security systems be updated. This would just be another area of vulnerability, with this one having the ability to create mass casualties on a national scale.

What really surprises me though is that there seems to be no concern for the social and personal disruption this would cause for working class people; this is one of the few high paying jobs left. In the past year, four out of five jobs added to the national economy have been part time ones, mostly low paying service jobs. This is what is causing so much unrest, and this technology would only make it worse. Karl Marx thought that the working class would destroy capitalism. It didn't, mainly because wages increased and safety concerns were met. I don't think people understand that we're at another cross roads here. And no, I don't think massive welfare payments are the answer. People want their self-respect, and that includes good paying jobs where they can support their own families.

When new technologies are introduced that are going to put hundreds of thousands of people out of work, potentially introducing a great deal of social and perhaps ultimately political instability, some thought should be given to how to ameliorate those deleterious effects.
 
What really surprises me though is that there seems to be no concern for the social and personal disruption this would cause for working class people; this is one of the few high paying jobs left. In the past year, four out of five jobs added to the national economy have been part time ones, mostly low paying service jobs. This is what is causing so much unrest, and this technology would only make it worse. Karl Marx thought that the working class would destroy capitalism. It didn't, mainly because wages increased and safety concerns were met. I don't think people understand that we're at another cross roads here. And no, I don't think massive welfare payments are the answer. People want their self-respect, and that includes good paying jobs where they can support their own families.

You singlehandedly made every housewife your enemy. ;)

When new technologies are introduced that are going to put hundreds of thousands of people out of work, potentially introducing a great deal of social and perhaps ultimately political instability, some thought should be given to how to ameliorate those deleterious effects.
I also think it is urgent issue, if not the most urgent of all. At the moment I don't see any other cure for this than guaranteed income payments. Otherwise we can see hungry mob attacking these few, which have jobs and rich factory owners and their factories, to get money and destroy robots.

Do you remember the story from 17th century France, when textile workers who lost their jobs, and were scared about their future, burned a factory with first automated textile weaving machines?
 
[/B]
You singlehandedly made every housewife your enemy. ;)

I also think it is urgent issue, if not the most urgent of all. At the moment I don't see any other cure for this than guaranteed income payments. Otherwise we can see hungry mob attacking these few, which have jobs and rich factory owners and their factories, to get money and destroy robots.

Do you remember the story from 17th century France, when textile workers who lost their jobs, and were scared about their future, burned a factory with first automated textile weaving machines?

A society determines what activity gives status. If modern industrialized societies truly valued the work a "housewife and mother" does, they would make that clear, and women would get self respect from doing it. The reality is that only lip service is given to it.

Do you know what the head of my firm said to me when I passed on a promotion because I wanted to be home at a decent time to be with my children? "You're going to waste a fine mind to play with your kids?"

Luckily, I'm made of pretty stern stuff. I decide what is valuable; I decide how I should live my life so that I have respect for myself. Most people are more easily led. They believe what their society tells them: you are valuable only if you have a high paying or other high status job.
 
it will have a huge benefit which is number of crashes and taken lives on road will be minimum if not zero
 
Last edited:
I am of the opinion that the driver less car tech will only benefit the humanity. With the help of self efficient(sufficient) computers at the wheel, the accidents will plummet.

Driver-less cars with sensors can eliminate the accidents that happens at night dues to driver falling asleep.

Autonomous cars can an addition in improving efficiency and living standard.
 

This thread has been viewed 15738 times.

Back
Top