The Nevada legislature has passed a law allowing driverless cars in the Silver State. The law directs the state’s Department of Transportation to “adopt regulations authorizing the operation of autonomous vehicles.”
Meanwhile, Volkswagen has announced that it has developed a car that incorporates a “temporary auto pilot” (TAP) that can drive at up to 80 mph. The car will steer within lanes, avoid and pass other cars, and obey speed limits. Unlike a fully driverless car, the temporary auto pilot is for highways only and can’t navigate streets. It also requires a human observer to watch for emergency situations. But it should greatly reduce accidents due to distracted driving.
buy sildenafil tablets Testosterone release can increase a person’s sex drive and their ability to last longer in bed. During this medication any type of heavy or cholesterol viagra no prescription cheap food should not be taken. They have all the latest equipments as well as infrastructures with free viagra 100mg them. In the Acai checklist the nutritional content of Acai truly is one of online sildenafil a kind. TAP is “nearly” production ready, so it will probably appear on some high-end Audis in the next year or two. The actual cost of the hardware and software required for TAP is probably low–less than $1,000 per vehicle for any auto that already has electronic steering, braking, and an automatic transmission–but automakers will no doubt follow their profit-maximizing habit of introducing this kind of option on their more expensive cars first.
Naturally, these announcements have generated some humor. “The robocalypse will begin in Nevada,” says one car magazine. More seriously, Fast Company magazine warns–or promises, depending on your point of view–that driverless cars will “revive sprawl.”
In any case, it appears increasingly likely that any new rail transit systems now being planned or under construction will be functionally obsolete long before they are structurally worn out. Driverless vehicles, including shared taxis and fixed-route buses, will significantly increase personal mobility at little additional cost.
In any case, it appears increasingly likely that any new rail transit systems now being planned or under construction will be functionally obsolete long before they are structurally worn out. Driverless vehicles, including shared taxis and fixed-route buses, will significantly increase personal mobility at little additional cost.
Poor babies, I know it hurts like a boo boo, don’t cry.
Kiss it and make it better.
I think NASCAR would enjoy this technology. I don’t understand why they pay these drivers so much to drive in circles. Now Formula 1, that’s real racing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hM249sR6xBM
In today’s reactionary political world, what do we think the ramifications are going to be the first time a TAP vehicle is involved in a accident? Visions of committees, investigations and moratoriums…
And, while I actually like the idea of auto pilot for my car, the statements “It also requires a human observer to watch for emergency situations. But it should greatly reduce accidents due to distracted driving,” seem contradictory to me.
Randall:
it appears increasingly likely that any new rail transit systems now being planned or under construction will be functionally obsolete long before they are structurally worn out. Driverless vehicles, including shared taxis and fixed-route buses, will significantly increase personal mobility at little additional cost.
Except, of course, for anyone who doesn’t want to buy a car or be forced to use it every day, and everyone who does not wish to send their hard won earnings to the Arab oil sheiks.
And since highways do not pay for themselves, its tough to see how some massive increase in driving you are proposing could be made possible without new massive subsidization of metropolitan area highways.
bennett:
In today’s reactionary political world, what do we think the ramifications are going to be the first time a TAP vehicle is involved in a accident?
One likely bad scenario is running over kids darting out between cars to get their ball in the street. How will the driverless car know to look to the side of the road for fast developing situations like this?
Humans have experience interpreting other humans likely actions from life experience. Computers don’t.
The one accident in 140,000 miles mentioned in the article is nothing great. I have about 500,000 lifetime miles with one accident (a skid on black ice on a bridge @ 45 mph), and I am hardly some overly cautious driver.
Drastically reducing car ownership seems like a pipedream for anyone with kids. Not surprising a SWPL type magazine wouldn’t think about them – the commenters are hilarious too, proposing a Prius as a “family” car – ummm no, especially not for any family with 3 or more kids. Also no mom is going to tote carseats, booster seats, and toddlers around in between vehicle uses to be able “share” cars. I carry tools, a blanket (works for spontaneous picnics and staying warm in winter), maps, store coupons, folding chairs and other things in my car so I don’t need to lug them about. My kids like leaving books and toys in the car to have things to do. I know people who leave their golf clubs, bowling ball, or bike rack in their car for recreational reasons. When you look at how real people actually use personal vehicles you see why car sharing only works for a very small subset of the population.
Oil shieks. We buy oil from 90 different countries, some of whom don’t even have oil. America is one of the largest oil importers and one of the largest oil exporters.
————-
The luxury cars always get this technology first, to test it. Everything………….Direct injection, dash mounted navigation systems, cylinder shut off, cruise control, exotic materials like carbon fibers or magnesium, anti-lock brakes, ceramic brakes, key fobs or buttons on the steering wheel.
Let us not forget push button start and automatic windows.
Hey LazyReader, just to clarify, my first post was poking fun at the transit maniacs, not at this technology, which I think is cool.
Oil shieks. We buy oil from 90 different countries, some of whom don’t even have oil. America is one of the largest oil importers
What little marginal oil production capability that really exists in the world at current market prices is in Saudi Arabia. 45% of existing imports are from OPEC, and imports cover 2/3 of consumption, and oil costs are about 75% of the retail cost of gas. So roughly 1/4 of every gallon of gas you buy is a direct payment to various hostile foreign regimes.
Buying more oil on the world market means putting more money into the hands of the funders of terrorism. There are not millions of barrels per day of excess capacity elsewhere in the world. If there were, the high prices of the last 5 years surely would have called them out of the ground. Instead, world oil production has been stalled since 2005, and US oil consumption is lower than at any time since the end of 1999.
This means that Americans won’t be radically increasing miles driven in driverless cars unless there is a transformational revolution in the MPG our cars get or the fuel source being used. The only obvious transformation out there is diesel powered cars, and changing over the existing diesel powered rail/truck/bus fleet to natural gas to free up diesel fuel for cars.
People can continue to fantasize about pipedream oil cornucopianism, but production statistics are not promising for permitting it. We would be better off changing our travel habits to be closer to Europe and Japan, which use half the oil per capita we do, while maintaining comparable lifestyles. That means using more energy efficient transportation modes, like mass transit.
Andrew, I think you have a personal problem with oil. Needless to say, mass transit uses energy too. I find it amusing that transit advocates slam personal vehicles for consuming oil, then turn around and act as if trains somehow run on air.
If I remember right, current cars are actually more efficient than buses or rail. Especially when rail is underutilized, as most of it is.
You don’t remember right.
Then I’m sure you can point me to the study that supports your assertion, because Randal has pointed to the studies that support mine.
Metrosucks:
I find it amusing that transit advocates slam personal vehicles for consuming oil, then turn around and act as if trains somehow run on air.
Well, not air but … I live in Philly. My electric trains I ride run mostly operate on Susquehanna River hydropower and nuke power from PECO/Exelon.
I don’t have a personal problem with oil. I just don’t happen to care to pay for more of it than I need. So I live where I can walk to most places I need to get, ride the train, and generally limit my driving. This lets me limit gas purchases to about 2% of my annual earnings.
Cars are not more energy efficient than trains and buses. My minivan fully loaded will move 7 people 22 miles on one gallon – 154 PM/gallon.
It takes about 2.25 gallons to move a train one mile, so the train only needs 350 passengers (5 carloads) to beat the fully loaded minivan in efficiency (and electrics do even better than that).
My minivan is of course not always fully loaded, nor is your car, and neither is the train, but most passenger trains in the US are in the 4-12 car length, and generally have a load factor above 50%. Load factors at rush hour are closer to 80%. The train is by far more energy efficient.
http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=5016
p.s. I can’t believe that YOU, of all people, would have the gall to call someone out for data. You’ve never ever, ever linked to any data in a comment thread. Spewing hyperbole and insults does not equate to science. Why don’t you show me the money for a change?
One thing all parties should agree on, the Vegas Autobot convention will be a huge yearly gain for Nevada.
But, it is not Google or VW or the Italian driverless car that Vegas wants, they want the Superbus, the 140 MPH BRT system. The idea of a 140 MPH bus system from downtown LA to the Vegas strip is like an orgasm to casino owners.
Oh wow, I don’t see transit being more efficient there. In fact, it’s about the same as driving. And the best hybrid cars like the Prius are significantly more efficient than transit.
On June 27th, 2011, bennett said:
http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=5016
Thanks, Bennett. We are used to such examples as what you linked to: someone states a claim that is not supported by the evidence, the usual suspects repeat the received wisdom, the claim is refuted (and more often than not the usual suspects spam the thread to distract away from the refutation) – but here it is popping up again.
Lather, rinse, spam, repeat.
Randal has already showed that LR and HR and much bus is more efficient than autos (fig 13 pg 22). Randal already shared that info. The claim has been pre-bunked. Commence spam to distract from pre-bunking.
DS
I may be a spamming simpleton in the eyes of Dan, but I thought there were some interesting nuggets in this study:
http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2011/02/new_report_how_efficiency_can.shtml
“…energy and climate analysts and policymakers can no longer afford to assume that a simple, direct relationship exists between energy efficiency gains and declines in total energy consumption or greenhouse gas emissions.
“‘For every two steps forward we take with below cost efficiency, rebound effects mean we take one or more steps backwards, sometimes enough to completely erode the initial gains made,’ said Jesse Jenkins, the report’s lead author.”
I await Dan’s reaction stating that the study comes from a think tank funded by fill-in-the-blank; the study is an exercise in unintentional hilarity; the study would only be cited by spamming simpletons, etc.
Lather, rinse, spam, repeat.
“…energy and climate analysts and policymakers can no longer afford to assume that a simple, direct relationship exists between energy efficiency gains and declines in total energy consumption or greenhouse gas emissions.”
Actually in most contexts I can agree with this. Green building is one facet that has seen a dearth of results. It’s not that “green” buildings aren’t good, it’s that the technological advances of buildings, or cars, or whatever, can’t compete with the fact that so many people just don’t give a fuck. Until people care about the impact they are having on others, I’m not convinced that there is any amount of technological advances that will get us over the hump.
But alas, that cold blooded Randian ideology persist. You know “I got mine, fuck em!”
The Breakthrough discovery seems rather obvious. The intent, if I understand the human, is to consume much more energy via the path of efficiency, not an artifact but the intended result.
Consider for a moment, if we can do twice as much on a gallon of liquid fuel, then that fuel is more valuable and we will want more for it. So energy efficiency, all the autobots, will cause the demand for liquid fuels to rise more than they would otherwise. But higher prices make algae fuels viable.
metrosucks says: “Oh wow, I don’t see transit being more efficient there…”
Try Reading.
Page 18, DOT data…
Cars = 3,525 BTUs ppm
Transit Bus = 3,262 BTUs ppm
Amtrak = 2,100 BTUs ppm
BTW, I love how you went from “current cars are actually more efficient than buses or rail,” to “it’s about the same as driving.” Also, do you have any data??? Or are you just two-faced? Why are we responsible for backing up our claims, but somehow responsibility escapes you? Must be nice.
Vegas wants, they want the Superbus, the 140 MPH BRT system.
How fuel efficient could it possibly be to push a brick through the air? Or do they want special relief from over the road vehicle length limits?
And this would be a success because there is soooo much support in LA for riding Superbus to Las Vegas?
if we can do twice as much on a gallon of liquid fuel
And what break through invention is going to double mpg in autobot cars that could not be done today in human controlled cars?
Andrew said:
“And what break through invention is going to double mpg in autobot cars that could not be done today in human controlled cars?”
Yes, there are a lot of figures tossed about here. 90% is one of my favorite Internet statistics. Doubling is a good laugh, too.
However, certainly computer controlled cars would see increased efficiency. No more waiting the light after it switches green for all the drivers to wake up, put their cell phones/makeup down, and take their foot off the break and put it on the gas. No more need for queues to get on the freeway. Fewer accidents means fewer logjams, less idling, more efficiency. Would fuel efficiency be increased through reduced drag that results from chaining cars feet apart? While these might not result in a doubling of gas mileage (especially in my Jeep), “autobot” cars should reduce total fuel used by all cars during rush hour and should decrease the amount of time spent waiting in traffic.
What can autobots do that cars can’t?
An autobot can deliver 15 packages of goods to ten households in a neighborhood. By doing so, each house saves $300/month in car and insurance costs. They pay about 1/10 the fuel costs per delivery because the deliveries are spread over multiple houses.
Why would las Vegas want the Superbus (or equivalent)?
Las Vegas gets about 40 million airline passengers per year.
http://cber.unlv.edu/tour.html
Likely a quarter comes from the LA region.
If we speed up the BRT speeds to 140 MPH then I have a 3 hour ride from downtown LA directly to the front lobby of the major Vegas hotels. BRT today is lane guided, so this is not a problem.
I not trying to speak as an advocate, just trying to see things from the Vegas casino owner’s viewpoint.
I may be a spamming simpleton in the eyes of Dan, but I thought there were some interesting nuggets in this study:
What’s the %age of the population who still needs to believe in the rebound effect/Jeveons Paradox? 5%? 6%? Less, with the spam volume factored in? Does it sound better when Breakthrough peddles it?
DS
Every day, I drive around and see the effects & consequences of the policies evil people like Dan implement. So his attempts to wrap it in the rhetoric of science have no effect on me.
To bennett: I will admit that I jumped the gun and misinterpreted/mis-remembered the numbers here.
But that still doesn’t make light rail preferable, cheaper, or faster than the passenger car!
Metrosucks:
Science is beautiful, it’s just that Dan’s a terrible ambassador of it.
He’s Walter Peck:
http://alturl.com/5c7gs
Matt Young:
An autobot can deliver 15 packages of goods to ten households in a neighborhood.
If you want a robot to do your shopping for you. And that is the only thing you use your car for, which it isn’t for most people. And you never want to leave your house and do things on your own.
If we speed up the BRT speeds to 140 MPH … BRT today is lane guided, so this is not a problem.
Where are these 140 mph lanes? They don’t exist except on the Autobahn. And what is the fuel efficiency of a 140 mph bus, which does not exist?
Frank:
Would fuel efficiency be increased through reduced drag that results from chaining cars feet apart? While these might not result in a doubling of gas mileage (especially in my Jeep), “autobot†cars should reduce total fuel used by all cars during rush hour and should decrease the amount of time spent waiting in traffic.
We can’t even get everyone to use simple EZPass/IPass/SunPass type devices on toll roads. Why in the world do you think every driver would want a driverless car? Lots of people drive because they enjoy the control.
Andres:
Regarding the existence of dedicated BRT lanes.
In particular, where can we get lane space on I-15 between downtown LA and Vegas. In the desert, I-15 already has plenty of unused right away in the meridian. Between say Ontario and LA, things get dicey because the free way is elevated. But Riverside county already is planning dedicated lane space to cover that. (I am following I-15 on streetview in google maps)
The project really depends on the popularity of BRT in the California desert.
Science is beautiful, it’s just that Dan’s a terrible ambassador of it.
Awwwwww… you’re sad. Let me try a nicer way to tell you: ooooohhhh!!! good job at being incorrect! Good job! Very good job at believing things that have been refuted! Impressive!
DS
For all of you who suffer from robocarphilia, before you think robocars are a “slam-dunk,” read the article at this link:
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/06/active-safety-systems/#more-36184.
Andrew said:
“We can’t even get everyone to use simple EZPass/IPass/SunPass type devices on toll roads. Why in the world do you think every driver would want a driverless car?”
I suppose it would be mandated through force, like the use of seat belts, the mandate to keep your vehicle in good operating condition (lights all working, tires in good condition, etc.), the mandate to get a license, plates, and so on. I can see that happening in city centers with freeway bottlenecks. Those who do not adopt the technology will have to use a different route. It’s for the greater good. In the country, who cares?
“Lots of people drive because they enjoy the control.”
Really? How many exactly? Do you have a percentage? Do you have a sociological, peer-reviewed study to support this assertion?
Sorry. Forgot this is a blog and not a grad school seminar.
I’d also counter that many people drive cars because they value privacy, and, more importantly, it saves them time. Time is precious. Which is why I haven’t been participating as much in the poo-tossing around here. Time to get back to vacation. Enjoy your poo.
Hey look, a moron planner showed up to try off his big words. His name is Dan. Anyone know him?
Awwwwww… you’re sad.
I am? Because the esteemed Dan was gruff?
Frank:
I suppose it would be mandated through force … Those who do not adopt the technology will have to use a different route. It’s for the greater good. In the country, who cares?
But if many of the folks on this blog had their way, there wouldn’t be another choice, especially a trip by rail!
Personally, I have no interest in riding in a robot car or driving around other robot cars. Who cares? I care!
I’d also counter that many people drive cars because they value privacy, and, more importantly, it saves them time.
You aren’t countering. Those points are great but they have nothing to do with robocars. The issue with robocars is a loss of human control. Who is liable in robocar accidents? The manufacturer, or the rider/driver? There is no fail-safe system. Without a fixed guideway, guideway intrusion signalling, and automatic stop capable of being imposed from outside, a system like this will not work. There are too many variables.
Matt Young:
In particular, where can we get lane space on I-15 between downtown LA and Vegas. In the desert, I-15 already has plenty of unused right away in the meridian.
The cost would be enormous to pave new lanes through the desert. And the right of way is hardly made for 140 mph, is it? And again, where is a 140 mph bus and what is its fuel efficiency? How about its stability at that speed? What happens when a tire blows out?
Such a beast would lose on all counts for the advantages a bus normally has – use of existing infrastructure without paying for it and good fuel efficiency per seat mile.
Andrew:
I price paving the meridian at $3 million/mile. I would ude the Utah method of pre-cast 40 foot section3 and haul them down the meridian on trucks and lay them. The concrete barriers are already in place. At the overpasses I have a prblem, I have to move the supports or steal a little space from one side or the other.
But I only need one lane because sidings allow passage. And most of the overpasses will have optional bus stops, so I expect local riders to pick up some of the overpass work around.
That gets me to Ontario, $1 billion. From Ontario down I need political support for BRT, but I think I have it.
I could raise money from Casino owners, easily raise $150 million of it, get another $150 million from venture. That would get me about 50 miles, and get fixed investment set up.
I will submit a business pla, seriously, I can whip up a three pager an pass it around to the Casino owners via e mail.
But, to tell you the truth, I fully expect they already have a busy staff planning this, they have given up on the desert express.
Matt Young:
Don’t forget the costs of preparing subgrade and providing undergrade bridges and drainage (it still rains in the desert). Not cheap. And then providing exclusive maintenance for these lanes.
Andrew:
Yes, drainage has to be handled. But remember, the meridian on I-15 is large and the lanes we need are actually narrower than standard lanes (lane guidance). So, there is still room for culverts.
Most of the subgrade is done on the meridian and little aggregate hauling should be needed.
Matt Young:
Most of the subgrade is done on the meridian and little aggregate hauling should be needed.
Unless there is a graded, prepared subgrade of crushed aggregate and possibly sand and of the proper depth, you are nowhere close to needing no grading/heavy civil work. Just because some dirt/clay/sand has been piled up between the active roadways doesn’t mean you have a subgrade. You can’t just lay down pavement on regular ground and expect to have a 140 mph superhighway.
the lanes we need are actually narrower than standard lanes (lane guidance)
What provides for safety recovery if lane guidance were to fail so that the bus doesn’t veer into the dirt at 140 mph due to a compute glitch?
That is the whole purpose of shoulders on regular roads.