Elon Musk makes me sad

[thewalrus]

http://www.theverge.com/transportation/ ... -dangerous

He's all for it, and figures it'll take 20 years.


20 years.


If he's right that means if you switch up cars once every 3 or 4 years a car enthusiast will only have about 5 more cars in their lifetime before they're taken away. After that our hobby is finished. ANd lets face it, 15 - 20 years from now, even if there are still some human-driven cars around, and they aren't outlawed - they'll be so loaded up with nanny features and tech that driving the way we imagine it will be pretty far removed from that experience.

[Honor]

They'll have to pry the shift knobs from our cold, dead hands.

[ConeDodger]

Gooood luck with that. It's taken 50 years to convince people that seatbelts are worth using...and even that isn't 100%. You aren't going to convince society letting autonomous vehicles drive for you is safer any easier or quicker.

[Talon]

Won't happen.

[thewalrus]

Gooood luck with that. It's taken 50 years to convince people that seatbelts are worth using...and even that isn't 100%. You aren't going to convince society letting autonomous vehicles drive for you is safer any easier or quicker.

It's not a matter of convincing people. It's a matter of changing the laws and making people adapt. Start slowly - dedicated lanes for driverless cars (but, obviously, no speed limits). Increasingly restrictive laws for drivered cars - fewer options on where you can go, what you can drive, how you can drive. You don't have an inherent right to a car - and at some juncture will come a tipping point - so many people will have them, or want them, that the laws will be completely changed to accommodate the majority. The minority who still have / need / want cars they drive will be left behind.

[JaysonAych]

http://www.theverge.com/transportation/2015/3/17/8232187/elon-musk-human-drivers-are-dangerous

He's all for it, and figures it'll take 20 years.


20 years.


If he's right that means if you switch up cars once every 3 or 4 years a car enthusiast will only have about 5 more cars in their lifetime before they're taken away. After that our hobby is finished. ANd lets face it, 15 - 20 years from now, even if there are still some human-driven cars around, and they aren't outlawed - they'll be so loaded up with nanny features and tech that driving the way we imagine it will be pretty far removed from that experience.

It'll take way longer than 20 years. Google is saying their autonomous car won't be ready for primetime for another 10 years, due to challenges by presented by weather, pedestrians, potholes, and temporary traffic control systems. I figure after some gimmicky introductions on pricey, premium cars like Mercs and BMWs after that, and the refinement of the technology through those models, it'd take at least 20 years before the self-driving feature is put out as an option on an affordable mainstream car.

We've still got a long ways to go. As I said in the other driverless car thread, I don't anticipate they'll be that mainstream until I get to the age where I won't be able to safely drive myself anyway.

[thewalrus]

http://www.theverge.com/transportation/2015/3/17/8232187/elon-musk-human-drivers-are-dangerous

He's all for it, and figures it'll take 20 years.


20 years.


If he's right that means if you switch up cars once every 3 or 4 years a car enthusiast will only have about 5 more cars in their lifetime before they're taken away. After that our hobby is finished. ANd lets face it, 15 - 20 years from now, even if there are still some human-driven cars around, and they aren't outlawed - they'll be so loaded up with nanny features and tech that driving the way we imagine it will be pretty far removed from that experience.

It'll take way longer than 20 years. Google is saying their autonomous car won't be ready for primetime for another 10 years, due to challenges by presented by weather, pedestrians, potholes, and temporary traffic control systems. I figure after some gimmicky introductions on pricey, premium cars like Mercs and BMWs after that, and the refinement of the technology through those models, it'd take at least 20 years before the self-driving feature is put out as an option on an affordable mainstream car.

We've still got a long ways to go. As I said in the other driverless car thread, I don't anticipate they'll be that mainstream until I get to the age where I won't be able to safely drive myself anyway.

I don't know man. I'm more pessimistic than you. There's a lot of profit to be made in self driving cars. Not just because they'll be inherently in demand. But how much is all that undivided attention worth to companies - people sitting in cars, doing nothing. ready to be captivated by media and advertising and social networking….

That kind of money spurs innovation and progress. And I have a sneaking suspicion that a company like Google isn't going to be entirely forthright about how close they are to a finished product.

[Les / Vipers Rule]

Elon Musk is an overrated PUTZ, so full of himself and his self-righteous drivel. People need to stop listening to him.

[tut]

I agree that "self driving car-lanes" might become a thing. and they might get a second lane, and the drivered cars might lose a lane. and another, and get banned from city centres...





most people just don't care about driving anymore. just think about all the "automatic parking" and "traffic jam assist" and "cruise control" shit.. people just use their cars to get from where they are to where they want to be. and the less they're involved, the better.



the one thing i'm sort of worried about with driverless cars, would be, well, every redneck (no offense) and eastern European tranny gypsy work on their cars. how will self driving cars respond to bodgy bush mechanic fixes and duct tape engineering?

[Turbojett]

he should just stick to making electric cars and stop pontificating.

[sombrio]

http://www.theverge.com/transportation/2015/3/17/8232187/elon-musk-human-drivers-are-dangerous

He's all for it, and figures it'll take 20 years.


20 years.


If he's right that means if you switch up cars once every 3 or 4 years a car enthusiast will only have about 5 more cars in their lifetime before they're taken away. After that our hobby is finished. ANd lets face it, 15 - 20 years from now, even if there are still some human-driven cars around, and they aren't outlawed - they'll be so loaded up with nanny features and tech that driving the way we imagine it will be pretty far removed from that experience.

If in 20 years our governments force us to buy massively expensive automated machines as our only way to get around, we will be living in a fascist society and we will have problems far, far worse than losing the joy of manual driving.

This whole thing is a scary, horrible thought. Still, I'm not too worried; I just can't see something like this being successful. Forcing every single driver to spend $30,000 on a driverless car is a massive undertaking. There would likely be political opposition and protracted, expensive constitutional litigation (regardless of the merits--see, e.g., the ACA). They would have to outlaw every single car on the road today, which would piss off a lot of people who love their classic cars and have enough money and visibility to make a difference. Not you and me, but Jay Leno. It's not as if the auto industry would go unopposed on this issue. Many classic car dealers, mechanics, insurance companies, lawyers, etc., would have very real incentives to fight such a law tooth and nail.

Imagine what would happen if, say, California passed a law requiring all cars on the road to be no older than 1994 (with no exemption for classic cars or anything like that) and to be equipped with automatic transmissions. Aside from being bad policy and likely quite unpopular, it would cause absolute chaos and be hugely expensive for what amounts to a subsidy to the auto industry. Further, any politician who proposed this would likely be signing his own political death warrant. People are shitty drivers, sure, but they like driving. And consider the media coverage, public opinion backlash, and legal costs the first time a government-mandated driverless car kills someone--and the next time--and the next...

Maybe current political trends will continue even further and make this possible (I'm thinking of the recent study that found that public opinion has almost no bearing on what the U.S. government actually does), but it seems to me that public opinion is already beginning to turn against large multinational corporations, excessive profits, and subsidies for successful businesses.

It's not that I believe the government has our best interests in mind. It's just that the only reason I can see for this actually happening would be as a way for the government to take our money and give it to automakers. And if the government wants to do that, it has far more efficient ways to do so.

Really, given the popularity of cars and generally increasing impoverishment of the people, I wouldn't be surprised if things go the opposite way and someone becomes very, very wealthy selling clones of 1995 Honda Civics for $8,000 brand new or something.

[Swerve]

Haven't we been over this already? Automated taxis and commercial vehicles will gain quick acceptance and the exposure (especially to the taxis) will quickly change perceptions.
Conversions will become dirt cheap over time and new cars will be far cheaper without the interactive bits.

[the_edge]

http://www.theverge.com/transportation/2015/3/17/8232187/elon-musk-human-drivers-are-dangerous

He's all for it, and figures it'll take 20 years.


20 years.


If he's right that means if you switch up cars once every 3 or 4 years a car enthusiast will only have about 5 more cars in their lifetime before they're taken away. After that our hobby is finished. ANd lets face it, 15 - 20 years from now, even if there are still some human-driven cars around, and they aren't outlawed - they'll be so loaded up with nanny features and tech that driving the way we imagine it will be pretty far removed from that experience.

This will have repercussions far beyond the car industry and car enthusiasts. This could be a disaster.

There are entire sectors of the economy that revolve around driving a vehicle. Think about truck drivers: They drive a trailer from point A (say, Florida) to Point B (say, Delaware). They make stops along the road, for pumping gas, for eating at restaurants on the side of the road (you know, the typical trucker stop), they stay at places such as motel 8 or Red Roof Inn, they spend money on vending machines in gas stations, etc.

Without that industry, many of these "restaurants" (truck stop style) would go out of business, since they're literally on the side of a road in the middle of nowhere. It's not only truckers who would lose their livelihood, cooks, servers, restaurant managers, they would all be out of a job. Say there are, 2000 of this kind of places in the US alone. Say each of these truck stop restaurants have 5 servers, 2 chefs, 2 dishwashers and 1 manager. That's 10 jobs per place. That means 20000 jobs would vanish, just like that. This is just the restaurants. Add to that the impact to the other places in which truck drivers or such an industry has an impact (some of those Red Roof Inn style places, some gas stations that would close, etc etc) and some indirect impacts, such as the fact that these people listen a lot to satellite radio while driving, things of that nature. Say this is a 30,000 job loss. And this is not counting the truckers themselves!

But, not only truckers drive cars. What about private car drivers ("James" who drives Jenny to school), taxicab drivers, limo drivers, etc etc? Now even "new jobs" like Uber drivers would be out of a job.

All of this in name of giving extra bucks to google & co.

[the_edge]

And here's another scary thought - people will literally give up their liberty.

Right now, if you have a car and feel like it, you will get on your car and drive anywhere. Who cares about a traffic jam? If you want to go into a traffic jam, you can. You'd be a dumbass, but you could. Accident? You'll drive by it, in the midst of traffic, but you will.

Imagine getting on your "google car" and entering "mcdonald's in 2705 cherry road" on its GPS and... your car refuses to take you. Why? Reasons such as "there is too much traffic on that highway, choose an alternate route" or "police reports a car crash/crime, route denied" or hell, even "Google reports you haven't paid your google fiber bill. Please pay your balance now before you can use google car" (even though google fiber has nothing to do with the car GPS!).

Also, if you're worried about internet companies spying your every email (which happens), imagine them having access to your every destination. "It looks like Jimmy drives too much to fast food places, but not much to the gym... let's forward this information to insurance companies, for a price". Say you go to the doctor, then the next week, your wife goes to the doctor, and the next week, your daughter went to the starbucks next to the doctor's office, so she simply used the stored destination for the doctor's office - Now you have 3 doctor visits in 3 weeks logged in your car - watch as you get denied insurance everywhere!

What if your car decides you go too much to the local pub or whatever? Do you really want your car to be little big brother?

[thewalrus]

All of this in name of giving extra bucks to google & co.

Except it's not just them. It's every media and advertising and sales directed company on the planet. How many millions of hours extra advertising time would be generated by this? Movie watching time? Video game playing time? Internet browsing time? And so on... And that's not even factoring in the extra productivity and work hours that'll be attached to this - now you can work while you commute in your car.

I think freeing up that much time from peoples days - and literally forcing them to sit stationary in an object and do very little but look at screens (or out the window, if they give a shit about what's happening outside).

Like any transformative technology, society will have to adapt - like they did when the assembly line cut required workers by an order of magnitude. The cab and bus and semi truck drivers will find new work doing something else. Maybe they can all become marketers or salespeople. Or analysis looking at your GPS coordinates.

[thewalrus]

And here's another scary thought - people will literally give up their liberty.

Right now, if you have a car and feel like it, you will get on your car and drive anywhere. Who cares about a traffic jam? If you want to go into a traffic jam, you can. You'd be a dumbass, but you could. Accident? You'll drive by it, in the midst of traffic, but you will.

Imagine getting on your "google car" and entering "mcdonald's in 2705 cherry road" on its GPS and... your car refuses to take you. Why? Reasons such as "there is too much traffic on that highway, choose an alternate route" or "police reports a car crash/crime, route denied" or hell, even "Google reports you haven't paid your google fiber bill. Please pay your balance now before you can use google car" (even though google fiber has nothing to do with the car GPS!).

Also, if you're worried about internet companies spying your every email (which happens), imagine them having access to your every destination. "It looks like Jimmy drives too much to fast food places, but not much to the gym... let's forward this information to insurance companies, for a price". Say you go to the doctor, then the next week, your wife goes to the doctor, and the next week, your daughter went to the starbucks next to the doctor's office, so she simply used the stored destination for the doctor's office - Now you have 3 doctor visits in 3 weeks logged in your car - watch as you get denied insurance everywhere!

What if your car decides you go too much to the local pub or whatever? Do you really want your car to be little big brother?

Haha yep. That'll be an issue alright. And people have already demonstrated that they'll give up reams of personal information to Facebook and Google for nothing more than trite entertainment. The luxury of a self driving car is going to have people more than willing to forego privacy in the name of absolute convenience.

And, of course, the reality is that you, eventually, won't have a choice. This is going to happen. 20 years is maybe a little quick. But maybe not. Like I said above - there is a ton of money associated with this. And frankly, I don't see anything about the inherent good of freedom from surveillance and / or the enjoyment of driving outweighing the money and the luxury associated with the self driving car.

[Turbojett]

So basically you guys are saying George Orwell was 50 years off the mark?

[thewalrus]

So basically you guys are saying George Orwell was 50 years off the mark?

I think it's just an inevitable by product of technology. The more connected you are to the world the more connected the world is to you. And the world consists of a whole lot of people and organizations and governments. You can probably fight it a little - but in the end I think this is just the way the world's going to be. I mean how hard would it be to get by without email or a cell phone right now?

Auto driving cars are just the next step. And, honestly, where you go in your car is probably a lot less invasive information than what people typically store in unsecured and easily accessible databases. Or willingly provide to companies like Google and Facebook and phpBB.