
Driverless cars promise to reduce accidents, revolutionise transport - tokenadult
http://www.economist.com/node/21560989
======
EliRivers
With driverless cars, the largest expense of taxis - the driver - disappears.

The driver of a taxi needs to make enough in a day to cover the periods when
there are no fares, or travel from a low fare-density area back to the high
fare-density areas (and in some regions with ridiculously constrained supply
of taxis via "badges" or other such anti-competitive pro-monopoly legislation,
to pay the ridiculous fee to just operate a cab).

With the drivers removed, you now have a fleet of taxis that can run 24 hours
a day (minus maintenance etc.), cost zero to just sit and wait for a fare, and
can be managed and coordinated easily to migrate across the changing fare-
density regions throughout the day.

If the price and convenience goes down enough, various groups of people stop
needing cars. They just use the "get me a cab" app on their smartphone (or
just use the regular telephone) to get a cab when they need it. If this
creates a positive feedback loop of cheaper & more convenient -> more people
using it -> more taxis deploted -> cheaper & more convenient etc., then in
some high-population areas, owning a car will become an unnecessary
extravagance.

Operated automatically gives scope for further savings; heading from point A
to point C via B, and someone in B is also going to C? You'll get offered a
"share this ride for this discount" option.

All this leads, hopefully, to fewer cars needed to provide the same number of
journeys, at lower cost. So, how do I go about shorting the car manufacturers?
:p

~~~
georgemcbay
I'm fully convinced self-driving cars will be sold commercially within the
next 10 years. However, it is going to be a _very_ long time until they are
allowed on the road sans human (even if they are self-driven 99% of the time,
I'm positive legislation will require a human behind the wheel at all times
and car makers will have to attempt to enforce this technically), which puts a
serious dent in your taxi plan.

You're right long term, but self-driving cars that are allowed to drive
without any human behind the wheel is more like a 50 years out thing, IMO.
Part of this is just cultural and political, and part of it is due to real
technical challenges (there are still going to be extraordinary driving
situations in which the obvious thing to do would be clear to any reasonable
human but not an autonomous car without serious general purpose AI).

~~~
EliRivers
"there are still going to be extraordinary driving situations in which the
obvious thing to do would be clear to any reasonable human but not an
autonomous car without serious general purpose AI"

I believe that any such situation that could not be dealt with by simply
coming to a safe halt is currently very badly handled by humans. I believe
that they could be better handled with the _current_ state of the art, let
alone advances we see over the next few decades.

I'm not arguing that they could be perfectly handled; just that the machines
can do better than the average meat-bag.

~~~
georgemcbay
Even simply coming to a safe halt is problematic. What if some troll traps a
self-driving car with a few empty cardboard boxes?

~~~
Retric
It stays still until someone removes them. If it's a cab it's more than likely
to simply call for help.

~~~
georgemcbay
And while it is still, it is now an obstacle for other empty self driving
cars. Soon the troll has blocked an entire intersection or freeway using a
combination of empty boxes and other trapped self-driving cars.

You underestimate the effort a good troll would be willing to put into this.

~~~
rictic
There are lots of simple things that one could do to a roadway to impede or
endanger traffic. Consider, for example, the danger of leaving something sharp
or slick on a tight turn where people often speed.

I've thought about this for a few years, and as near as I can tell it's either
much harder than it seems, or there are fewer vandals than I'd have expected.

------
kinofcain
I think the biggest problem with adoption is going to be integrating them into
traffic. A car that obeys the speed limits and follows at a safe distance is
going to have issues driving in someplace like Los Angeles. It will be
interesting to see how that plays out. For instance, what happens when other
more agressive drivers learn that they can just cut off driverless cars and
the software will just happily slow down to let them pass? It's a really
interesting problem set.

~~~
poblano
I guess, but the saving grace is that the passengers of such cars are less
likely to care, unless they're in some special rush.

I mean, if I had one, I would be reading or working or talking to someone, and
might not even notice a few extra minutes transit time. It'd be like riding
public transit minus the inconveniences (noise, strangers, waiting).

~~~
dandrews
I stopped caring much about extra minutes on the road when cruise control
became standard equipment - years ago. When I drive a car without cruise I
tend to be competitive and aggressive, but with cruise I set it and chill out.
People may pass but I no longer care.

Bring on the Google cars and I'll detach completely.

------
amit_m
This might become a great transition technology. But leaves many problems
unsolved: 1\. All the issues surrounding fuel-burning engines OR all the
issues surrounding huge and expensive batteries. 2\. An inherent lack of
energy efficiency. The payload/car-weight ratio is typically 1/10 or worse.
3\. Cars are very expensive, they take a lot of space and require roads that
take even more space. 4\. Cars are not safe.

Driverless cars really only solve (4) and have small advantages in terms of
fuel efficiency and congestion. A network of Driverless taxis should be much
cheaper than owning a car, since these cars will be utilized heavily
throughout the day. An even better approach would be an automatically
dispatched shared-taxi system that would group passengers that want to go to
close destinations.

I wonder why there isn't more effort directed towards Personal-Rapid-Transport
system. i.e.small electric carts on dedicated lanes (or lines, or rails), with
low weight and no battery. Like a packet-switched version of the train system.
Such systems can be highly automatic, very energy-efficient and provide
convenient rides relatively cheaply. It looks like we have had all the
technology required to do it for at least 30 years. It seems that the only
thing stopping this type of technology from being developed is that it
requires someone with a lot of capital and guts who's not afraid of dealing
with a regulatory nightmare. Unfortunately there aren't that many Elon Musks
out there.

Here are some specialized PRT systems in use:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rapid_transit#Existing...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rapid_transit#Existing_and_planned_networks)

------
lda
The article outlines some (current) limitations in the car's judgement when
evaluating the dangerosity of an object ahead. If/when this becomes
mainstream, how long until pranksters and terrorists find ways to leverage
limitations and cause accidents?

~~~
majormajor
Is causing accidents in self-driving cars going to be any more a target than
causing accidents in human-driven cars? Seems you could already wreak a lot of
havoc with rush-hour traffic if you really wanted to. Blinding/distracting
drivers, obstacles, maybe little bombs?

~~~
protomyth
Well, since self-driving cars are new and don't have the protection of an
earlier history of precedents, then yes, they will be much bigger legal
targets. The whole overblown spontaneous acceleration incidents would be a
good pointer.

------
jonlarson
I'd say no more than 50 years before driving by hand becomes illegal in most
places, especially large cities. The benefits will just become too obvious.

------
jalanco
The likelihood of the Teamster's union allowing (i.e., not obstructing)
driverless cargo hauling to succeed in the US would be close to zero.

~~~
Someone
I think they would be beaten by the tactic that killed Fleet Street (where
newsprinters got rid of all their personnel by moving their business, but
leaving outdated personnel such as typesetters behind. See
[http://www.mediauk.com/article/32718/the-fleet-street-
revolu...](http://www.mediauk.com/article/32718/the-fleet-street-revolution)):
secretly buy your driverless trucks, and replace all your drivers overnight.
That way, you won't have employees that can strike against the change.

~~~
maxerickson
I wouldn't be surprised if the trucking companies are able to offer them a
competitive wage for acting as freight minders.

They might even end up with similar pay for less total hours away from home.

~~~
Someone
What freight would there be to mind that isn't minded already today? The only
thing I can think of is the freight on the driverless cars, but I do not see
how that would lead to "less total hours away from home"

~~~
maxerickson
A trucker is only allowed to drive a certain number of hours a day, mostly
because they are supposed to rest. If they aren't driving, they can sleep
while the truck is moving.

~~~
Someone
=> trucks will make more hours a day driving

=> we need need fewer trucks

=> we need fewer drivers minding those fewer trucks

I fail to see what would make truck owners offer 'competitive salaries' given
that there will likely be X>1 truck drivers competing for each 'truck minder'
job, and that the job requires fewer qualifications (drivers do the minding
today, and future minders will not need a drover's license)

------
jonaphin
I love the idea of driverless cars; it is nevertheless important to note that
hacking might replace drunk driving as the #1 cause of deaths on the road.

------
olalonde
I wonder how those cars will perform in places like Hanoi or Nanchang.
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oetF3UTIwbc>
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aodbmS_43M>

~~~
rogerbinns
Hopefully there can be more public transport. The problem at the moment with
most public transport is that it requires a human driver. That makes it
relatively expensive for the transport of one or two people, or even 8 people.
Some places have a partial solution (with driver) -
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Share_taxi>

The main reason for owning transport is because it guarantees availability
when you need it, especially where you are and where you want to go. You pay
quite a bit extra for that, and it does get inconvenient (having to park away
from where you want to be, dealing with traffic, insurance, maintenance etc).

Mobile infrastructure is very good in places like you mention (good coverage,
low price) so this is solvable.

------
PedroBatista
They can also cut our balls once and for all and put us out of our misery.

So much is spent pursuing "safety" and squeezing that extra minute of
"productivity" that everyone is forgetting to live their lives as human
beings.

~~~
sanderjd
I don't see the connection between driving and "living my life as a human
being", or the connection between riding in an automated vehicle and "having
my balls cut".

Human identity has nothing to do with driving. I can't wait until I don't have
to do it anymore.

~~~
PedroBatista
By not knowing how to drive something, you are losing an important ability.
Your reach will be 3 or 4 miles at most, and over time this passive "I just
want to [_____], do it for me" mentality sets in.

And for what? just not to drive? to have more 20min available to check your
Twitter stream?

Remember, you are choosing to be ignorant in a very important aspect of modern
live, and i guess only those who at some point were deprived of it realize
their importance.

~~~
amit_m
Seriously? Most of the world's population doesn't drive a car. It's not good
for very long distances and not good for very dense urban areas where traffic
is slow and parking is lacking. It can't drive in rural areas (unless you have
a sturdy jeep) and it costs a lot of money. Also, it has a non-negligible
probability to kill you along the way.

The modern car is not some one-true solution to transportation, it's great
success in the US has a lot to do with the patterns of suburban sprawl and to
destruction of the rail system by the car manufacturers.

I suspect the car is going out of fashion as people move more and more into
dense cities.

~~~
PedroBatista
Most of the world's population doesn't drive a car because they can't afford
one.

"I suspect the car is going out of fashion as people move more and more into
dense cities."

Really? millions and millions of chinese people moved to massive urban areas
and the first thing they buy when they earn some money is a car or a
motorcycle, making China the biggest auto market in the world around 2010/11.
Pretty much the same pattern with the "BRIC"s

Look, everywhere outside the same old cosmopolitan places where the reality
distortion field is too strong, people will own a car and they will make roads
and bridges so they can happily drive them.

