Robot car race winners

[Jack May]

The HDTV 4th hour show of the "DARPA Grand Challenge" of testing robotic
cars with no drivers was last night on the Science Channel. Carnegie Melon
won 1st for $2M, Stanford second for $1M, and Virginia Tech in 3rd for half
a $M. True to California culture, the Stanford car was the fastest to cross
the finish line.

Six of the 11 finalist finished. The race was in Victorville Ca which is
an abandoned military base with a full community of buildings and roads. So
we had ghost cars with no drivers in a ghost town with no residents. Sort
of spooky :-)

I was surprised how well the cars worked in a complex environment. They
were all programmed to follow the rules in the California drivers manual
that we have to study to get our driver's license.

There were cars driven by people, the judges, The robot cars were able to
drive well even in a mixed robot and people traffic situation. The robots
even inherently caused traffic jams at times. There was even a dirt road
which caused problems for some cars.

There were also "police" that gave out tickets to the cars. Those tickets
counted in reducing scores used to determine the winner. Around 2012 there
will be production cars with digital car to car communication which will
drivers warnings to prevent hitting other cars.

If there is an accident, it will be interesting to see how the police handle
tickets. Could our cars get tickets instead of us at times? A cars
become automated over maybe the next couple of decades and do the driving,
could they accumulate tickets for bad driving?

The first accident between two robot cars occurred and was caught on video
for replaying many times in the future as part of stock clips. One robot
car stopped trying to figure out what to do next. The Stanford car came up
behind it and decided the car had quit running. The Stanford car then
decided to go around it. Just as the Stanford car got almost around and
turned to get back in the proper lane, the other car made up it mind what to
do and started moving. The car ran into the front wheel region of the
Stanford car.

This was unpredicted emergent behavior. DARPA did not disqualify the cars
because this challenge was not testing for this type problem. Maybe in a
future test.

[richard]

Post by Jack May
The HDTV 4th hour show of the "DARPA Grand Challenge" of testing robotic
cars with no drivers was last night on the Science Channel. Carnegie Melon
won 1st for $2M, Stanford second for $1M, and Virginia Tech in 3rd for half
a $M. True to California culture, the Stanford car was the fastest to cross
the finish line.
Six of the 11 finalist finished. The race was in Victorville Ca which is
an abandoned military base with a full community of buildings and roads. So
we had ghost cars with no drivers in a ghost town with no residents. Sort
of spooky :-)
I was surprised how well the cars worked in a complex environment. They
were all programmed to follow the rules in the California drivers manual
that we have to study to get our driver's license.
There were cars driven by people, the judges, The robot cars were able to
drive well even in a mixed robot and people traffic situation. The robots
even inherently caused traffic jams at times. There was even a dirt road
which caused problems for some cars.
There were also "police" that gave out tickets to the cars. Those tickets
counted in reducing scores used to determine the winner. Around 2012 there
will be production cars with digital car to car communication which will
drivers warnings to prevent hitting other cars.
If there is an accident, it will be interesting to see how the police handle
tickets. Could our cars get tickets instead of us at times? A cars
become automated over maybe the next couple of decades and do the driving,
could they accumulate tickets for bad driving?
The first accident between two robot cars occurred and was caught on video
for replaying many times in the future as part of stock clips. One robot
car stopped trying to figure out what to do next. The Stanford car came up
behind it and decided the car had quit running. The Stanford car then
decided to go around it. Just as the Stanford car got almost around and
turned to get back in the proper lane, the other car made up it mind what to
do and started moving. The car ran into the front wheel region of the
Stanford car.
This was unpredicted emergent behavior. DARPA did not disqualify the cars
because this challenge was not testing for this type problem. Maybe in a
future test.

uh yep. I can just see cops wondering how to dish out tickets to a car
with no official driver. Better question is, how are the insurance
companies gonna handle these things?

Another good question might be, how is the robotic car gonna pull over
for a cop?

"Oh yes sir officer. That is correct. I have had a few too many
tonight so I let the car do the driving for me. So go ahed and write
the car a ticket. Now how ya gonna get into court?"


Actually, I have been kind of working on a story about the ultimate
robotic truck. Just haven't worked out all the details about it yet.

[Jack May]

Post by richard
uh yep. I can just see cops wondering how to dish out tickets to a car
with no official driver. Better question is, how are the insurance
companies gonna handle these things?

A lot of high end cars now have knobs for the driver to change the driving
characteristics of the car from "little old lady" up through "professional
race driver". A robotic car will probably some options the owner can select
depending on their personality.

There will almost certainly be software available to change the programming
of the car just like there is now for the engine computer in cars. The
insurance companies will blame the owner if they make unsafe modifications.
Maybe they will go after the person selling the modifications.

Lots of possibilities in the future. The cops will certainly be able to
check to see if the code is standard or modified by seeing if a hash value
of the code to see if it has been modified.

Post by richard
Another good question might be, how is the robotic car gonna pull over
for a cop?

Just like they did in the DARPA tests. Each car was required to have a
remote stop switch for the DARPA judges and "police" to use.

Post by richard
"Oh yes sir officer. That is correct. I have had a few too many
tonight so I let the car do the driving for me. So go ahed and write
the car a ticket. Now how ya gonna get into court?"

The law will always find a way to blame some person. Some of the cars in
the DARPA test had rudimentary brain like code. We are beginning to
understand how the brain works by probing animal brains and follow the
neurons being fired by different stimuli.

Maybe the software in the future will be much more brain like. We already
build computers with more complexity than brains. We are now trying to
figure out the "algorithms". That opens the possibility that the vehicle
will need to go to trial.

The first algorithms being understood are for image recognition. Could
lead to some interesting legislation in the future.

The brain algorithms are different from most pattern recognition, but not
that different. The brain algorithms are actually fairly simple. The
difference is that computer pattern recognition algorithms tend to recognize
a few things. Brain pattern recognition tends to have a larger number of
hierarchical levels which naturally recognizes an almost unlimited number of
patterns.

Post by richard
Actually, I have been kind of working on a story about the ultimate
robotic truck. Just haven't worked out all the details about it yet.

How about a future history of how the robotic trucks came into being, maybe
starting with the DARPA work. A part of the story would be how society and
its laws change over time to adapt to major changes. That would allow young
science fiction readers imagine themselves being the ones that develop
robotic vehicles that change the world.

Some of them might actually be part of the development process to follow
their dream of inventing the future they read about as a kid.

Just an idea :-)

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by richard
Another good question might be, how is the robotic car gonna pull over
for a cop?
"Oh yes sir officer. That is correct. I have had a few too many
tonight so I let the car do the driving for me. So go ahed and write
the car a ticket. Now how ya gonna get into court?"
Actually, I have been kind of working on a story about the ultimate
robotic truck. Just haven't worked out all the details about it yet.

That's easy. The cops/government will be able to seize control of your
vehicle.

[Paul D. DeRocco]

Post by richard
uh yep. I can just see cops wondering how to dish out tickets to a car
with no official driver. Better question is, how are the insurance
companies gonna handle these things?

The problem is that robot cars will by design obey the speed limits
scrupulously. You'll have to decide whether it's worth taking somewhat
longer to get to your destination in order to be able to read the newspaper
along the way. Some people will go for the robot cars, people who like to
drive won't.

[Jack May]

Post by Paul D. DeRocco

Post by richard
uh yep. I can just see cops wondering how to dish out tickets to a car
with no official driver. Better question is, how are the insurance
companies gonna handle these things?

The problem is that robot cars will by design obey the speed limits
scrupulously. You'll have to decide whether it's worth taking somewhat
longer to get to your destination in order to be able to read the
newspaper along the way. Some people will go for the robot cars, people
who like to drive won't.

A real car sold on the market will have to have user selectable modes from
fully automatic to "damn the computers, I want to drive full speed ahead".

People will want different options for different situations.

[Scott in SoCal]

Post by Paul D. DeRocco
The problem is that robot cars will by design obey the speed limits
scrupulously. You'll have to decide whether it's worth taking somewhat
longer to get to your destination in order to be able to read the newspaper
along the way.

Considering that the biggest impediments to getting from Point A to
Point B efficiently are not speed limits but incompetent fuck drivers,
once every car is driven by a robot actual speeds should INCREASE.
Just think: no more slowdowns due to incompetent mergers,
queue-jumping MFFYs cutting in at the last possible second and forcing
an entire lane of vehicles to slam on their brakes, sloths, LLBs, etc.
etc. etc.

[My Land of Misery]

Post by Scott in SoCal

Post by Paul D. DeRocco
The problem is that robot cars will by design obey the speed limits
scrupulously. You'll have to decide whether it's worth taking somewhat
longer to get to your destination in order to be able to read the newspaper
along the way.

Considering that the biggest impediments to getting from Point A to
Point B efficiently are not speed limits but incompetent fuck drivers,
once every car is driven by a robot actual speeds should INCREASE.
Just think: no more slowdowns due to incompetent mergers,
queue-jumping MFFYs cutting in at the last possible second and forcing
an entire lane of vehicles to slam on their brakes, sloths, LLBs, etc.
etc. etc.

Wishful thinking: some MFFY or Sloth will manage to override the robotic
system.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[Scott in SoCal]

Post by My Land of Misery

Post by Scott in SoCal

Post by Paul D. DeRocco
The problem is that robot cars will by design obey the speed limits
scrupulously.

Considering that the biggest impediments to getting from Point A to
Point B efficiently are not speed limits but incompetent fuck drivers,
once every car is driven by a robot actual speeds should INCREASE.

Wishful thinking: some MFFY or Sloth will manage to override the robotic
system.

Similarly, some of us will hack ("tune") our cars to go faster. :)

[Jack May]

Post by Scott in SoCal
Similarly, some of us will hack ("tune") our cars to go faster. :)

Yep, there will be some good money to be made with such products :-)

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Jack May

Post by Scott in SoCal
Similarly, some of us will hack ("tune") our cars to go faster. :)

Yep, there will be some good money to be made with such products :-)

And in the black market for old cars that can't be controlled by the
government.

[Jack May]

Post by Amy Blankenship
And in the black market for old cars that can't be controlled by the
government.

But they may not be able to find gas for them as alternative fuels with flex
fuel capabilities hit the market.

People are also wanting more automation so that the will be able to use
their cell phone, laptop, and TV when they are commuting to and from work
much faster than they do now.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Jack May

Post by Amy Blankenship
And in the black market for old cars that can't be controlled by the
government.

But they may not be able to find gas for them as alternative fuels with
flex fuel capabilities hit the market.
People are also wanting more automation so that the will be able to use
their cell phone, laptop, and TV when they are commuting to and from work
much faster than they do now.

That's why God invented busses and trains. You can already do all of that
on those.

[Jack May]

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Jack May

Post by Amy Blankenship
And in the black market for old cars that can't be controlled by the
government.

But they may not be able to find gas for them as alternative fuels with
flex fuel capabilities hit the market.
People are also wanting more automation so that the will be able to use
their cell phone, laptop, and TV when they are commuting to and from work
much faster than they do now.

That's why God invented busses and trains. You can already do all of that
on those.

You can't get where you want to go on busses and trains. You can't get
there fast enough on busses and trains. I never see people doing these
things on trains (BART which I use a little bit). You can't do busses and
trains enough to be useful because it is far too expensive to build and run.
The cost per transit user in the SF Bay area is about 25 times higher than
it is for road users. That high cost makes transit a useless dead end.

Transit is 1D in a 2D area which means it is non-scalable network. Roads
are 2D in a 2D area and is scalable. So transit can not scale down to the
house and working place level and will not scale up very well for handling a
large area and lots of people. Roads scale very well in both directions.

Networks that don't scale are typically never implemented in sophisticated
systems like the Internet. Non scalable networks are seen only in
incompetent organizations like those for government transportation planning
which have little or no understanding of network design of any kind.

This is basic networking that is taught to network design students. The
concepts are true for all networks including transportation networks

The net result is that transit can not get you door to door and can't even
get you to more than a small fraction of an urban area. San Francisco has
transit on only 11 streets (I think 11 is the correct number but it is
certainly approximately correct). You can't get to most of SF without very
long hikes.

Transit is typically 2 to 4 times slower at its best. I have been on BART
when it over 4 times slower than a car even late at night because of traffic
jams between all of the trains. The traffic jams seem to be common queue
type problems like busses getting bunched up together.

Since people tend to select the fastest mode of transportation (Part of
Nobel Prize for economics result), people will never use transit much in a
high income area which makes it an economic dead end supported only by
illiterate Government transportation organizations. I go to their meetings
and I am still amazed at the high level of stupidity in their people.

Since transit is a problem, not a solution, cars are about the only option
that people will accept to meet their needs. I have never seen a TV, DVD,
or Satellite link for shows on transit. Transit seldom has a network which
makes not a good choice for laptops.

Cell phones? I have never tried one on a moving BART but it goes through so
many tunnels that using one would be almost impossible.. Same with radio
which people use a lot in cars to keep up with talk shows (very good in the
SF Bay area, very bad in other parts of the country) and news.

[William Black]

Post by Jack May

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Jack May
People are also wanting more automation so that the will be able to use
their cell phone, laptop, and TV when they are commuting to and from
work much faster than they do now.

That's why God invented busses and trains. You can already do all of
that on those.

You can't get where you want to go on busses and trains. You can't get
there fast enough on busses and trains.

And you can drive faster? Or even get on an airplane?

No you can't, not in these days of three hour check-ins and humiliating
security checks.

The fastes way to get from, say, London to Paris is on a train. Then you
get in a cab for the last bit.

All the clever stuff like mobile phones and laptops all work and you can
even do stuf rather than drive.

Post by Jack May
The cost per transit user in the SF Bay area is about 25 times higher than
it is for road users. That high cost makes transit a useless dead end.

Who cares what they do in California? It's not, despite the views of the
populstion, the whole world. It is the most wasteful part of the most
wasteful society on earth

Post by Jack May
Since transit is a problem, not a solution, cars are about the only option
that people will accept to meet their needs.

Try Bombay some time. The roads, despite massive investment, just don't
work. The only thing that works properly is the train system.

Post by Jack May
Cell phones? I have never tried one on a moving BART but it goes through
so many tunnels that using one would be almost impossible..

Works ok in London.

You're being far too US centric.

The USA has several problems compared to the rest of the world.

First of all it has large urban conurbations with shocking urban and
suburban sprawl, second, it has large open areas where 'line of sight'
radio systems don't work properly and thirdly your political system is owned
by people who want to sell fuel and cars to people.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Jack May

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Jack May

Post by Amy Blankenship
And in the black market for old cars that can't be controlled by the
government.

But they may not be able to find gas for them as alternative fuels with
flex fuel capabilities hit the market.
People are also wanting more automation so that the will be able to use
their cell phone, laptop, and TV when they are commuting to and from
work much faster than they do now.

That's why God invented busses and trains. You can already do all of
that on those.

You can't get where you want to go on busses and trains. You can't get
there fast enough on busses and trains. I never see people doing these
things on trains (BART which I use a little bit). You can't do busses and
trains enough to be useful because it is far too expensive to build and
run. The cost per transit user in the SF Bay area is about 25 times higher
than it is for road users. That high cost makes transit a useless dead
end.
Transit is 1D in a 2D area which means it is non-scalable network. Roads
are 2D in a 2D area and is scalable. So transit can not scale down to the
house and working place level and will not scale up very well for handling
a large area and lots of people. Roads scale very well in both
directions.
Networks that don't scale are typically never implemented in sophisticated
systems like the Internet. Non scalable networks are seen only in
incompetent organizations like those for government transportation
planning which have little or no understanding of network design of any
kind.
This is basic networking that is taught to network design students. The
concepts are true for all networks including transportation networks
The net result is that transit can not get you door to door and can't even
get you to more than a small fraction of an urban area. San Francisco has
transit on only 11 streets (I think 11 is the correct number but it is
certainly approximately correct). You can't get to most of SF without
very long hikes.
Transit is typically 2 to 4 times slower at its best. I have been on
BART when it over 4 times slower than a car even late at night because of
traffic jams between all of the trains. The traffic jams seem to be
common queue type problems like busses getting bunched up together.
Since people tend to select the fastest mode of transportation (Part of
Nobel Prize for economics result), people will never use transit much in a
high income area which makes it an economic dead end supported only by
illiterate Government transportation organizations. I go to their
meetings and I am still amazed at the high level of stupidity in their
people.
Since transit is a problem, not a solution, cars are about the only option
that people will accept to meet their needs. I have never seen a TV, DVD,
or Satellite link for shows on transit. Transit seldom has a network
which makes not a good choice for laptops.
Cell phones? I have never tried one on a moving BART but it goes through
so many tunnels that using one would be almost impossible.. Same with
radio which people use a lot in cars to keep up with talk shows (very good
in the SF Bay area, very bad in other parts of the country) and news.

You've said most of this before, and I think it just shows that you're
incapable of thinking outside of your Cowboy box. Clearly they work this
out in other places, so the problem is just that American engineers aren't
as smart as their Asian and European counterparts.

[Jack May]

Post by Scott in SoCal

Post by Paul D. DeRocco
The problem is that robot cars will by design obey the speed limits
scrupulously. You'll have to decide whether it's worth taking somewhat
longer to get to your destination in order to be able to read the newspaper
along the way.

Considering that the biggest impediments to getting from Point A to
Point B efficiently are not speed limits but incompetent fuck drivers,
once every car is driven by a robot actual speeds should INCREASE.
Just think: no more slowdowns due to incompetent mergers,
queue-jumping MFFYs cutting in at the last possible second and forcing
an entire lane of vehicles to slam on their brakes, sloths, LLBs, etc.
etc. etc.

All the robotic car designers said they had no idea of what would happen
when all the robotic cars started to interact with each other. Some were
timid with other cars where some were aggressive. Some just acted in crazy
ways. Some were stumped by simple problems where others just breezed
through those same problems. The crash was totally unexpected by everyone.
Traffic jams at stop signs as some cars had to think a long time seemed to
be obvious but not expected.

All robot cars were extensively tested and refined before all the cars came
together. They were surprise how well their designs worked interacting with
cars driven by the judges (people) especially when a lot of them had to find
a parking places at the same time in a large parking lot marked only with
old paint from when the military base was still active.

High speed driving will come before robotic cars starting in about 2012 when
cars with digital communications with all other cars in a vicinity start
reaching the market. As the technology improves over time, it will be
possible to driver closer together at higher speeds to greatly reduce or
eliminate traffic jams. Maybe at some point the speed limit will be raised
above 100 MPH because cars will be able to go that fast in heavy commuting
to and from work traffic with no accidents.

[Scott in SoCal]

Post by Jack May
All the robotic car designers said they had no idea of what would happen
when all the robotic cars started to interact with each other. Some were
timid with other cars where some were aggressive.

That's because the cars in this contest were not designed to interact.
The production versions of these cars will come equipped with a
standards-based inter-vehicle wireless communication link that will
allow the robot cars to communicate and coordinate. Every car within
communication range will know in exact detail what every other car
within that range plans to do, and will adjust their own plans as
needed.

[Larry G]

Post by Scott in SoCal

Post by Jack May
All the robotic car designers said they had no idea of what would happen
when all the robotic cars started to interact with each other.  Some were
timid with other cars where some were aggressive.  

That's because the cars in this contest were not designed to interact.
The production versions of these cars will come equipped with a
standards-based inter-vehicle wireless communication link that will
allow the robot cars to communicate and coordinate. Every car within
communication range will know in exact detail what every other car
within that range plans to do, and will adjust their own plans as
needed.
--
Q: What's the difference between a traffic snake and a real one?
A: The traffic snake's asshole at the *front* end.

how about them be programmed to NOT be LLBers?

car #1 wirelessly "requests" car #2 to move right and let it pass.

car #2 responds "sure, you betcha, let me speed up a bit to complete
my pass and it's all yours".

car #1 - thank you much - have a good one

but then of course the owner of the "reformed" LLB-mode car will hack
it to have it respond to car #1's pass request... instead "huh, what
are you saying?"

car #1, "Can you please pull over and let me pass?"

car #2 , "WTF, I'm already going to the speed limit + 5mph". "Please
repeat your request - forever - and don't expect a response". "over
and out".

car #1 "arming weapon system"

:-)

[Scott in SoCal]

In message

Post by Larry G
how about them be programmed to NOT be LLBers?
car #1 wirelessly "requests" car #2 to move right and let it pass.
car #2 responds "sure, you betcha, let me speed up a bit to complete
my pass and it's all yours".
car #1 - thank you much - have a good one
but then of course the owner of the "reformed" LLB-mode car will hack
it to have it respond to car #1's pass request... instead "huh, what
are you saying?"

What percentage of the dolts who currently block the passing lane have
the skills to reverse-engineer something as complex as an automatic
vehicle control system, patch the code successfully, and then update
the ROM of the control computers (yes, there WILL be more than one)?
And that's not even counting the encryption, blown EEPROM fuses, and
other protective measures that will most certainly be employed.

Look at DirecTV. There's a HUGE market out there worth MILLIONS of
dollars to the guy who can reverse-engineer the DirecTV system and
sell hacked cards that will provide free TV. The best minds in the
black hat industry have been workng on it ever since this latest
access card came out, still with no success.

Same thing with satellite radio - no successful hacks which let people
get Howard Stern for free. As with DirecTV, despite a strong profit
motive, the system remains secure.

Something as safety-critical as an automobile guidance system is going
to be every bit as tamper-proof, if not more so, than these
subscription satellite receivers. Bottom line, I'm not at all worried
about some moron hacking his car to make it drive as badly as he does.

[William Black]

Post by Scott in SoCal
Considering that the biggest impediments to getting from Point A to
Point B efficiently are not speed limits but incompetent fuck drivers,
once every car is driven by a robot actual speeds should INCREASE.

Except they want you not to use a car at all.

So the robot cars will be set up so the buses are faster.

Possibly so that bicycles are faster.

If you're really unlucky and the place is run by eco-Nazis it'll be set up
so it's faster to walk...

Because once your car is being driven by a robot the people who employ the
man who programmes the robot will be in charge.

[Scott in SoCal]

Post by William Black

Post by Scott in SoCal
Considering that the biggest impediments to getting from Point A to
Point B efficiently are not speed limits but incompetent fuck drivers,
once every car is driven by a robot actual speeds should INCREASE.

Except they want you not to use a car at all.
So the robot cars will be set up so the buses are faster.
Possibly so that bicycles are faster.

Um, your tinfoil hat is on too tightly again...

[William Black]

Post by Scott in SoCal

Post by William Black

Post by Scott in SoCal
Considering that the biggest impediments to getting from Point A to
Point B efficiently are not speed limits but incompetent fuck drivers,
once every car is driven by a robot actual speeds should INCREASE.

Except they want you not to use a car at all.
So the robot cars will be set up so the buses are faster.
Possibly so that bicycles are faster.

Um, your tinfoil hat is on too tightly again...

You obviously know very little about traffic management policy and its
application within the UK.

As a matter of policy town centres are made difficult and awkward for
private motor vehicles to enter. Where I live the traffic lights are tuned
to allow only five vehicles per cycle into the town centre, but twenty out,
buses are given priority lanes with their own traffic control cycles that
are NOT co-incident with the car lanes

In London the congestion charge is designed not to raise revenue but to
drive private cars out of the centre.

This is all admitted government policy and designed to get us all on buses.

What on earth makes you think the robot cars will ever be allowed to improve
vehicle journey times when it is government policy to get us out of cars and
onto public transport?

[Jack May]

Post by William Black
As a matter of policy town centres are made difficult and awkward for
private motor vehicles to enter. Where I live the traffic lights are
tuned to allow only five vehicles per cycle into the town centre, but
twenty out, buses are given priority lanes with their own traffic control
cycles that are NOT co-incident with the car lanes
In London the congestion charge is designed not to raise revenue but to
drive private cars out of the centre.
This is all admitted government policy and designed to get us all on buses.
What on earth makes you think the robot cars will ever be allowed to
improve vehicle journey times when it is government policy to get us out
of cars and onto public transport?

In California there is 2/3 majority of votes required to increase taxes to
implement public transportation. In general the first time there is a
vote, there are enough gullible people to pass it. Then they see how empty
and useless the transit system is and they tend to reject it in following
votes.

We also have thriving businesses that produce electronic chips that over
that "correct" the problems in car systems. Silicon Valley is very good
about making laws unworkable. We don't have much respect for rules.

[William Black]

Post by Jack May
We also have thriving businesses that produce electronic chips that over
that "correct" the problems in car systems. Silicon Valley is very good
about making laws unworkable. We don't have much respect for rules.

In the UK was can buy cars that do what we want them to do.

You know, go fast, go around corners, that sort of thing...

[Scott in SoCal]

Post by William Black

Post by Scott in SoCal

Post by William Black

Post by Scott in SoCal
Considering that the biggest impediments to getting from Point A to
Point B efficiently are not speed limits but incompetent fuck drivers,
once every car is driven by a robot actual speeds should INCREASE.

Except they want you not to use a car at all.
So the robot cars will be set up so the buses are faster.
Possibly so that bicycles are faster.

Um, your tinfoil hat is on too tightly again...

You obviously know very little about traffic management policy and its
application within the UK.

And I care even less, since I don't live in the UK.

Post by William Black
What on earth makes you think the robot cars will ever be allowed to improve
vehicle journey times when it is government policy to get us out of cars and
onto public transport?

Your apples-to-oranges comparison is meaningless.

We're talking about the United States of America, not the UK. The
policies of your government have no effect here.
We're talking about cars driving on wide, multilane freeways between
suburban sprawl developments, not some old world city that was laid
out in the Middle Ages.

Trying to extrapolate the future of American driving based on what's
happening in London is a waste of time.

[William Black]

Post by Scott in SoCal
We're talking about the United States of America, not the UK. The
policies of your government have no effect here.
We're talking about cars driving on wide, multilane freeways between
suburban sprawl developments, not some old world city that was laid
out in the Middle Ages.
Trying to extrapolate the future of American driving based on what's
happening in London is a waste of time.

Cowboy mentality.

You're not going to have robot cars unless some fuel can be found that's
cheap enough to power them.

No-one's going to drive fifty miles to the mall if it costs more than the
price of the goods they'll buy.

Your current culture is doomed.

Medieval towns have their uses.

The major one these days being the ability to go from a shoe shop to a
pharmacist to a book shop without the use of a motor car...

I live in a place where all the major shops are within a mile of each other
and you can walk from one to another. The bus stop is within a hundred
yards of my house and stops again right in the middle of the pedestrianised
shopping centre. There's a bus every fifteen minutes.

There's a decent passenger rail service all over the country, and a station
within three miles of my home and a train to a big city every half hour or
so.

I live in a reasonably remote spot with the nearest motorway (Interstate)
being about fifty miles away.

I don't care that much if I can't afford, or even get, fuel to run my car
anymore...

Your lifestyle is going to change because the $10 gallon of gas is coming,
mine is going to change as well, but not as much as yours is.