The idea of driverless cars is beginning to catch on. An intermediate step, road trains, is being planned in various parts of Europe. Under this concept, one vehicle (identified in the news stories as being driven by a “professional driver”) leads the way, and others get in line. The drivers of the following vehicles can read, watch a movie, or go to sleep until they decide to leave the train.
Meanwhile, Volkswagen’s Audi division plans to test its completely driverless technology with a high-speed drive up Pikes Peak. Volkswagen also speculates on what cars will be like in 2028.
It purifies your blood and generic price viagra reduces the excess weight. Benchmarking sales force management first noticed the geographical market and the history of life and companies in Italy, Spain, Germany, UK, Japan, France buy levitra in canada and US. Take two minutes to describe sildenafil purchase in a journal the most meaningful experience of the past 24 hours. Further studies of individual agents and synergistic buying here purchase cialis activity of available substances are underway.
The BBC observes that driverless cars will help reduce congestion. And Slate correspondent William Saletan endorses driverless cars for highway safety.
In related news, former GMC Research Vice President Larry Burns has co-authored a new book, Reinventing the Automobile. Burns led GMC’s winning contribution to the DARPA Urban Challenge and says, “Government regulation, liability laws and other issues pose a bigger impediment to driverless cars than any technical hurdles.” However, his book–scheduled for publication in 2010–appears to focus more on improving the energy efficiency of autos, not driverless cars.
That drive up Pike’s Peak is like one long extended heart attack. If VW succeeds and manages to bring their cars safely up and back, count me impressed.
Here’s a solution for the drunk driving problem.
As is my standard, waaaay off topic: Wendell Cox is making a Canadian highway proposal which is as ludicrous as the HSR maps. Think the Antiplanner will comment on his faithful ally? No, probably not. I guess spending $61.5 Billion of federal money is okay when it’s not OUR federal money.
Hey, O’toole, very nice Edit/Delete option. First I’ve seen on a Blog. Kudos.
t g,
As a purely commercial subsidy, the Canadian highway plan is one I would oppose. Interstate highways have a legitimate military use, though, so they are justified on that ground — and perhaps with user fees, the cost could be mitigated to some extent.
Pikes Peak won’t be easy but a better test would be something like Mosquito Pass.
BTW – The Karlock Canada thing was a bit bewildering. I don’t see why Canada should be going forward with pieces of it unless it’s going to 100% pay for itself. I have a reply started that I saved in an email to post at some other time when I’m up for it. Off hand a few of the things mentioned in there made sense, a few others didn’t.
The implications of these automation advances include:
Parents won’t have to drive their cars to take their children to school, soccer practice, etc.; the cars will drive themselves.
Robotaxis will be more economical than buses and streetcars to take people without driver licenses where and when they want to go and it will be door to door.
Paratransit with drivers for the handicapped will diminish to those who need attendants to help them travel; the rest will travel in specially -equipped robotaxis.
Car sharing will be more popular when you don’t need a driver license and you don’t have to go to the car or take it back to a designated space – you call it on your cellphone; it comes to you and when you don’t need it goes away and parks itself.
Assuming the automated cars drive more carefully and avoid accidents better, car insurance rates should go down.
Overall, another instance of automation improving productivity and our standard of living, just as automating elevators and telephone switchboards did fifty years ago.
Mike said: As a purely commercial subsidy, the Canadian highway plan is one I would oppose. Interstate highways have a legitimate military use, though, so they are justified on that ground.
THWM: That’s hypocritical, there wasn’t any thing wrong with Route 66.
Highwayman,
The only thing wrong with Route 66 was that individual rights were violated when individual property was expropriated for the benefit of others in order to construct it. A mere technicality by the barometer of a pragmatist, but all the difference in the world to someone with principles.
The reason why a thing is done is as important as, and often more important than, whether or how it is done.
Again Mike, that’s very hypocritical.