Welcome Guest!
Create an Account
login email:
password:
site searchwhere to watchcontact usabout usadvertise with ushelp
Message Board

BobcatAttack.com Message Board
General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events
Topic:  RE: Vedder shifts his fire onto parking services

Topic:  RE: Vedder shifts his fire onto parking services
Author
Message
Monroe Slavin
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder shifts his fire onto parking services
   Posted: 9/12/2016 8:43:29 PM 
Andrew--Are there any potential detriments, any arguments on the other side?





Where's the band?!
WHERE"S THE BAND?!


DesignspiritUSA.com
The Pets On The Go Collection of pet gear travel bags
The Holiday Tote Bigg Bagg Collection--over-sized, reversible, extra pockets; now love carrying packages as much as you love shopping!

Back to Top
  
Andrew Ruck
General User



Member Since: 12/22/2004
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 2,998

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder shifts his fire onto parking services
   Posted: 9/12/2016 10:41:28 PM 
Yes, they are all centered around micro-sized anecdotal fear mongering and a clinging to a world that doesn't exist anymore. At least, that's my take.


Andrew Ruck
B.B.A. 2003

Back to Top
  
rpbobcat
General User

Member Since: 4/28/2006
Location: Rochelle Park, NJ
Post Count: 2,174

Status: Online

  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder shifts his fire onto parking services
   Posted: 9/13/2016 7:42:31 AM 
Andrew Ruck wrote:
I can't understand people who 1. Don't believe driverless technology is coming soon. 2. Aren't excited as hell about it.

I've long been fascinated by this topic. My eldest kid is 9, my hope is driverless technology is fairly prevalent by the time he is 16. I personally think we are right on track.

I don't think people realize the endless benefits of this. Car manufacturers recognize the positives are so deep and rich that they are pouring billions into it. We lose hundreds of thousands of people to auto accidents every year.

The challenge will be clearing the hurdle of flat earthers...the same people who resist Nuclear power over Coal because it is scary, even though it is infinitely better and safer...or resist GMO crop technology even though it has been proven 1,000 times over to be safer and healthier while saving millions of lives from starvation....or worst of all, the anti-vax crowd. You can say you don't trust computers to our driving, but think about what you're saying.

Computers don't text, they don't fall asleep, they don't drink alcohol or do drugs or have seizures or heart attacks. They are trained and tested extensively before being put into action, while people sit thru some classes and are observed driving for 10 minutes before being thrown onto the road. The technology will save endless lives and heartache. They have backup plans and contingencies galore. Computers are also infinitely more efficient than humans. The same traffic jam with a road full of humans could be doubled and not have a single slow down with a road full of computers. They'll also be significantly better for the environment.

It will eliminate one of the most prevalent sources of stress in the world. Car ownership and operation is a drag in every sense. Imagine your 2 car garage becomes a nice big storage shed. Imagine you have a monthly payment for car service instead of the stress and ups and downs of insurance, service, gas & car payments.

The development opportunities in the city will be endless. Imagine if all the parking garages in downtown Chicago go away, the possibilities for that real estate are endless.

The handicap, elderly, young, etc would benefit greatly. The regulation and licensing would fall on the car companies and freed from the individuals.

I could go own. It runs much deeper than just being able to catch a nap or knock out some work during your commute, which yes would be awesome. Just because we can't fully understand how it will all work doesn't make it impossible. I know it is hard to let go of all the great memories operating a vehicle and thinking we could live in a world without it, but I whole heartedly believe nearly everyone on this board will experience this world (insert joke about various old poster here), and I think it will make the world a much happier place.


Let me start off by saying that I'm not a "Flat Earther".
I'm pro nuclear power and GMO.

Driverless technology may someday be viable in cities,but I don't think its coming to more rural areas anytime soon.
Its just not cost effective to construct the infrastructure needed for driverless vehicles.

From what I've read, driverless systems rely on sensors along the road.

"Over the Air" signals,like those used for a cell phone aren't reliable.
Drop a call,no big deal.Lose the signal driving the vehicle,Bang.

There are also issues with sensors in ice/snow conditions.

All of this may be worked out eventually,but I haven't seen any technical data from transportation organizations that show these systems close to being commercially ready,including handling large numbers of individual vehicles.

Then,once they are ready,they have to be built.

Bad question,whose going to pay to build them when they are ready ?

Driverless vehicles will also not eliminate the need for commuters to own vehicles,they just may someday be able to drive on their own.

Driverless vehicles also place all control (speed,route etc.) in the hands of someone/thing other then the driver.

I don't know if that loss of freedom will go over well,unless the vehicles have a manual override.

It would also be like GPS,the government can shut down the system anytime.
Lest anyone think I'm just being paranoid,surveyors like me use specialized GPS all the time.There are times the system has been turned off for civilian use.

Also if GPS is an example of how driverless vehicles will work here's a perfect example of what can happen.

I'm working on a project to redo an intersection with a R.R. crossing.I had a meeting with the R.R. representatives.

They were saying that every month they have to tow a bunch of vehicles off their tracks.

Why,that little GPS voice says "turn left" so they do,right up the tracks.

I asked the rep,"don't they stop when they feel the rumble from running over the ties ?"

He said you'd think so,but most people just rely on that voice and keep going till they snap an axle.




Last Edited: 9/13/2016 8:35:24 AM by rpbobcat

Back to Top
  
Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 1,756

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder shifts his fire onto parking services
   Posted: 9/13/2016 8:23:23 AM 
Don't agree with Andrew? You're a flat-earther. Got it?
Back to Top
  
OhioCatFan
General User



Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 9,987

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder shifts his fire onto parking services
   Posted: 9/13/2016 10:09:46 AM 
Robert Fox wrote:
Don't agree with Andrew? You're a flat-earther. Got it?


For the record, I'm pro GMO, pro Nuclear power, also. The Tufts Health and Nutrition Letter just had cover story on the safety of GMOs. I'll quote a few sentences, from the summary in the newsletter of a 398-page report of research done at Tufts: "a sweeping new report concludes that genetically engineered crops are as safe as conventionally grown foods. . . The [report] looked at all types of GMO crops, but focused primarily on corn, soybeans and cotton, which account for almost all commercially produced GMO crops. Its conclusions about safety echoed the findings of a lengthy roster of scientific, health and regulatory agencies, including the World Health Organization."

Anti GMO folks are the flat-earth Luddites.

In terms of driverless cars, I'm agnostic. I have yet to see any labeled artificial intelligence where the emphasis shouldn't be on the word "artificial." I'm usually the first of my friends to adopt bleeding-edge technology, but I'm not convinced that today's level of technology is up to the challenge of a driverless car, except, perhaps, in very controlled environments with limited and routine routes. To prove my creds as a technology buff, I was an early adopter of the PCjr, and my daughter's friends had a vote among themselves as to whose dad was the nerdiest, and I won. My daughter said that my ham radio antennas on the roof is what put me over the top! ;-)


"It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right."

Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection.

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,015

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder shifts his fire onto parking services
   Posted: 9/13/2016 10:52:55 AM 
rpbobcat wrote:
Andrew Ruck wrote:
I can't understand people who 1. Don't believe driverless technology is coming soon. 2. Aren't excited as hell about it.

I've long been fascinated by this topic. My eldest kid is 9, my hope is driverless technology is fairly prevalent by the time he is 16. I personally think we are right on track.

I don't think people realize the endless benefits of this. Car manufacturers recognize the positives are so deep and rich that they are pouring billions into it. We lose hundreds of thousands of people to auto accidents every year.

The challenge will be clearing the hurdle of flat earthers...the same people who resist Nuclear power over Coal because it is scary, even though it is infinitely better and safer...or resist GMO crop technology even though it has been proven 1,000 times over to be safer and healthier while saving millions of lives from starvation....or worst of all, the anti-vax crowd. You can say you don't trust computers to our driving, but think about what you're saying.

Computers don't text, they don't fall asleep, they don't drink alcohol or do drugs or have seizures or heart attacks. They are trained and tested extensively before being put into action, while people sit thru some classes and are observed driving for 10 minutes before being thrown onto the road. The technology will save endless lives and heartache. They have backup plans and contingencies galore. Computers are also infinitely more efficient than humans. The same traffic jam with a road full of humans could be doubled and not have a single slow down with a road full of computers. They'll also be significantly better for the environment.

It will eliminate one of the most prevalent sources of stress in the world. Car ownership and operation is a drag in every sense. Imagine your 2 car garage becomes a nice big storage shed. Imagine you have a monthly payment for car service instead of the stress and ups and downs of insurance, service, gas & car payments.

The development opportunities in the city will be endless. Imagine if all the parking garages in downtown Chicago go away, the possibilities for that real estate are endless.

The handicap, elderly, young, etc would benefit greatly. The regulation and licensing would fall on the car companies and freed from the individuals.

I could go own. It runs much deeper than just being able to catch a nap or knock out some work during your commute, which yes would be awesome. Just because we can't fully understand how it will all work doesn't make it impossible. I know it is hard to let go of all the great memories operating a vehicle and thinking we could live in a world without it, but I whole heartedly believe nearly everyone on this board will experience this world (insert joke about various old poster here), and I think it will make the world a much happier place.


Let me start off by saying that I'm not a "Flat Earther".
I'm pro nuclear power and GMO.

Driverless technology may someday be viable in cities,but I don't think its coming to more rural areas anytime soon.
Its just not cost effective to construct the infrastructure needed for driverless vehicles.

From what I've read, driverless systems rely on sensors along the road.

"Over the Air" signals,like those used for a cell phone aren't reliable.
Drop a call,no big deal.Lose the signal driving the vehicle,Bang.

There are also issues with sensors in ice/snow conditions.

All of this may be worked out eventually,but I haven't seen any technical data from transportation organizations that show these systems close to being commercially ready,including handling large numbers of individual vehicles.

Then,once they are ready,they have to be built.

Bad question,whose going to pay to build them when they are ready ?

Driverless vehicles will also not eliminate the need for commuters to own vehicles,they just may someday be able to drive on their own.

Driverless vehicles also place all control (speed,route etc.) in the hands of someone/thing other then the driver.

I don't know if that loss of freedom will go over well,unless the vehicles have a manual override.

It would also be like GPS,the government can shut down the system anytime.
Lest anyone think I'm just being paranoid,surveyors like me use specialized GPS all the time.There are times the system has been turned off for civilian use.

Also if GPS is an example of how driverless vehicles will work here's a perfect example of what can happen.

I'm working on a project to redo an intersection with a R.R. crossing.I had a meeting with the R.R. representatives.

They were saying that every month they have to tow a bunch of vehicles off their tracks.

Why,that little GPS voice says "turn left" so they do,right up the tracks.

I asked the rep,"don't they stop when they feel the rumble from running over the ties ?"

He said you'd think so,but most people just rely on that voice and keep going till they snap an axle.


My company actually works pretty closely with Google X (or, formerly Google X, the Alphabet name change has caused naming confusion) who runs the Driverless Car team. We do a lot of hiring for their Driverless Car Operators.

Because of that, I've learned a lot about the technology, and your take on how it operates is not correct. The cars rely on 8 different sensors to operate -- GPS is one of the 8 -- and there's actually very little infrastructure needed to operate them. Uber's already operating driverless cars in Pittsburgh, and the Google cars are in the Bay Area, Phoenix, and Seattle. Tesla cars have an autopilot. Their safety record far eclipses that of human drivers. It's not even particularly close.

That said, the roll out plan will look something like this:

First, driverless cars will be rolled out in closed systems. Airport shuttles and the like, that drive the same route repeatedly, are a good example. In fact, there are places where these are already active.

Second, driverless cars will be rolled out in Urban environments. Grid systems, reliable trffic speeds, etc. all make the transition easier. There's also less need for car ownership.

From there, they'll be made widely available nationwide.

I think the one aspect of driverless cars that people misunderstand most is the notion of ownership. It's hard to break the association that we all must own a car. Most people assume they'll eventually own a driverless car. What people fail to see is that driverless cars actually eliminate the need to own cars. They eliminate the need for parking.

Think of it this way: your car is a huge investment, one of the most expensive things you'll own, and it loses value almost immediately. And most importantly, it spends 98% of the time sitting still, doing nothing. What purpose does that serve? If other people could be using it during that time, you could eliminate the need for parking, the construction costs around home garages, etc. It literally changes everything. Think of all of the additional land in creates in cities. All of the space that goes to parking which can now be used to extend pedestrian spaces, create green space, build new and essential buildings to provide services.

I had a meeting with BMW recently. They are, as a company, preparing for a world in which nobody owns cars anymore. They are doing so aggressively, and are preparing for it 15 years out. Their timeline's likely accelerated, but it's a very real thing, and the transition will happen in our lifetimes and will happen quickly.

The way we get around, our mobility, will fundamentally change. Trying to picture how driverless cars fit our current transportation needs is the wrong way to look at it; instead, you should think about how driverless cars will change what mobility means.
Back to Top
  
rpbobcat
General User

Member Since: 4/28/2006
Location: Rochelle Park, NJ
Post Count: 2,174

Status: Online

  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder shifts his fire onto parking services
   Posted: 9/13/2016 12:02:56 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
rpbobcat wrote:
Andrew Ruck wrote:
I can't understand people who 1. Don't believe driverless technology is coming soon. 2. Aren't excited as hell about it.

I've long been fascinated by this topic. My eldest kid is 9, my hope is driverless technology is fairly prevalent by the time he is 16. I personally think we are right on track.

I don't think people realize the endless benefits of this. Car manufacturers recognize the positives are so deep and rich that they are pouring billions into it. We lose hundreds of thousands of people to auto accidents every year.

The challenge will be clearing the hurdle of flat earthers...the same people who resist Nuclear power over Coal because it is scary, even though it is infinitely better and safer...or resist GMO crop technology even though it has been proven 1,000 times over to be safer and healthier while saving millions of lives from starvation....or worst of all, the anti-vax crowd. You can say you don't trust computers to our driving, but think about what you're saying.

Computers don't text, they don't fall asleep, they don't drink alcohol or do drugs or have seizures or heart attacks. They are trained and tested extensively before being put into action, while people sit thru some classes and are observed driving for 10 minutes before being thrown onto the road. The technology will save endless lives and heartache. They have backup plans and contingencies galore. Computers are also infinitely more efficient than humans. The same traffic jam with a road full of humans could be doubled and not have a single slow down with a road full of computers. They'll also be significantly better for the environment.

It will eliminate one of the most prevalent sources of stress in the world. Car ownership and operation is a drag in every sense. Imagine your 2 car garage becomes a nice big storage shed. Imagine you have a monthly payment for car service instead of the stress and ups and downs of insurance, service, gas & car payments.

The development opportunities in the city will be endless. Imagine if all the parking garages in downtown Chicago go away, the possibilities for that real estate are endless.

The handicap, elderly, young, etc would benefit greatly. The regulation and licensing would fall on the car companies and freed from the individuals.

I could go own. It runs much deeper than just being able to catch a nap or knock out some work during your commute, which yes would be awesome. Just because we can't fully understand how it will all work doesn't make it impossible. I know it is hard to let go of all the great memories operating a vehicle and thinking we could live in a world without it, but I whole heartedly believe nearly everyone on this board will experience this world (insert joke about various old poster here), and I think it will make the world a much happier place.


Let me start off by saying that I'm not a "Flat Earther".
I'm pro nuclear power and GMO.

Driverless technology may someday be viable in cities,but I don't think its coming to more rural areas anytime soon.
Its just not cost effective to construct the infrastructure needed for driverless vehicles.

From what I've read, driverless systems rely on sensors along the road.

"Over the Air" signals,like those used for a cell phone aren't reliable.
Drop a call,no big deal.Lose the signal driving the vehicle,Bang.

There are also issues with sensors in ice/snow conditions.

All of this may be worked out eventually,but I haven't seen any technical data from transportation organizations that show these systems close to being commercially ready,including handling large numbers of individual vehicles.

Then,once they are ready,they have to be built.

Bad question,whose going to pay to build them when they are ready ?

Driverless vehicles will also not eliminate the need for commuters to own vehicles,they just may someday be able to drive on their own.

Driverless vehicles also place all control (speed,route etc.) in the hands of someone/thing other then the driver.

I don't know if that loss of freedom will go over well,unless the vehicles have a manual override.

It would also be like GPS,the government can shut down the system anytime.
Lest anyone think I'm just being paranoid,surveyors like me use specialized GPS all the time.There are times the system has been turned off for civilian use.

Also if GPS is an example of how driverless vehicles will work here's a perfect example of what can happen.

I'm working on a project to redo an intersection with a R.R. crossing.I had a meeting with the R.R. representatives.

They were saying that every month they have to tow a bunch of vehicles off their tracks.

Why,that little GPS voice says "turn left" so they do,right up the tracks.

I asked the rep,"don't they stop when they feel the rumble from running over the ties ?"

He said you'd think so,but most people just rely on that voice and keep going till they snap an axle.


My company actually works pretty closely with Google X (or, formerly Google X, the Alphabet name change has caused naming confusion) who runs the Driverless Car team. We do a lot of hiring for their Driverless Car Operators.

Because of that, I've learned a lot about the technology, and your take on how it operates is not correct. The cars rely on 8 different sensors to operate -- GPS is one of the 8 -- and there's actually very little infrastructure needed to operate them. Uber's already operating driverless cars in Pittsburgh, and the Google cars are in the Bay Area, Phoenix, and Seattle. Tesla cars have an autopilot. Their safety record far eclipses that of human drivers. It's not even particularly close.

That said, the roll out plan will look something like this:

First, driverless cars will be rolled out in closed systems. Airport shuttles and the like, that drive the same route repeatedly, are a good example. In fact, there are places where these are already active.

Second, driverless cars will be rolled out in Urban environments. Grid systems, reliable trffic speeds, etc. all make the transition easier. There's also less need for car ownership.

From there, they'll be made widely available nationwide.

I think the one aspect of driverless cars that people misunderstand most is the notion of ownership. It's hard to break the association that we all must own a car. Most people assume they'll eventually own a driverless car. What people fail to see is that driverless cars actually eliminate the need to own cars. They eliminate the need for parking.

Think of it this way: your car is a huge investment, one of the most expensive things you'll own, and it loses value almost immediately. And most importantly, it spends 98% of the time sitting still, doing nothing. What purpose does that serve? If other people could be using it during that time, you could eliminate the need for parking, the construction costs around home garages, etc. It literally changes everything. Think of all of the additional land in creates in cities. All of the space that goes to parking which can now be used to extend pedestrian spaces, create green space, build new and essential buildings to provide services.

I had a meeting with BMW recently. They are, as a company, preparing for a world in which nobody owns cars anymore. They are doing so aggressively, and are preparing for it 15 years out. Their timeline's likely accelerated, but it's a very real thing, and the transition will happen in our lifetimes and will happen quickly.

The way we get around, our mobility, will fundamentally change. Trying to picture how driverless cars fit our current transportation needs is the wrong way to look at it; instead, you should think about how driverless cars will change what mobility means.


I just don't see how people who live in the suburbs and have to commute to work everyday can do that without owning a vehicle,driverless or not.

If your premise,that people won't own a vehicle is correct,how do you commute to work.
Would you have to schedule a pick up/drop off everyday ?

So rather then own a vehicle, a drvierless vehicle has to be dispatched from a central "hub",pick me up,take me to work,go back to that hub then do the same thing in reverse to get me home ?

Where are all these driverless vehicles kept when not in use ?

Again,for certain situations,like cities,I can see that people may not need to own vehicles.
In the suburbs,unless you think that commuting to work will be eliminated,I don't see how it will work.

Right now,its not even something that's even considered in residential and/or commercial developments.

The examples you give of driverless vehicles safety are a very limited sample.Even with that small sample,driverless vehicles have had problems,including accidents.

Not a lot of infrastructure may be needed for test vehicles,but translating that to millions of vehicles and infrastructure needs change.
Similar to when cell phones and high speed internet took off.
Then again,there are still a lot of areas where this is still an issue.

Again,who pays for it ?

As far as BMW,they may be planning on driverless vehicles in the future,but right now they are expanding all of their dealerships in this area big time.
In fact I'm working on a project where they'll be roughly doubling the size of one of the largest dealerships in this area.

As I also said previously,the lack of "freedom" your scenario presents may be a hard sell.

As I also said,a driverless system could be shut down anytime by an over reaching Government.Then what happens ?

I'm not saying it won't ever happen,I just don't think it will be that soon.

Last Edited: 9/13/2016 12:05:12 PM by rpbobcat

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,015

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder shifts his fire onto parking services
   Posted: 9/13/2016 12:39:29 PM 
rpbobcat wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
rpbobcat wrote:
Andrew Ruck wrote:
I can't understand people who 1. Don't believe driverless technology is coming soon. 2. Aren't excited as hell about it.

I've long been fascinated by this topic. My eldest kid is 9, my hope is driverless technology is fairly prevalent by the time he is 16. I personally think we are right on track.

I don't think people realize the endless benefits of this. Car manufacturers recognize the positives are so deep and rich that they are pouring billions into it. We lose hundreds of thousands of people to auto accidents every year.

The challenge will be clearing the hurdle of flat earthers...the same people who resist Nuclear power over Coal because it is scary, even though it is infinitely better and safer...or resist GMO crop technology even though it has been proven 1,000 times over to be safer and healthier while saving millions of lives from starvation....or worst of all, the anti-vax crowd. You can say you don't trust computers to our driving, but think about what you're saying.

Computers don't text, they don't fall asleep, they don't drink alcohol or do drugs or have seizures or heart attacks. They are trained and tested extensively before being put into action, while people sit thru some classes and are observed driving for 10 minutes before being thrown onto the road. The technology will save endless lives and heartache. They have backup plans and contingencies galore. Computers are also infinitely more efficient than humans. The same traffic jam with a road full of humans could be doubled and not have a single slow down with a road full of computers. They'll also be significantly better for the environment.

It will eliminate one of the most prevalent sources of stress in the world. Car ownership and operation is a drag in every sense. Imagine your 2 car garage becomes a nice big storage shed. Imagine you have a monthly payment for car service instead of the stress and ups and downs of insurance, service, gas & car payments.

The development opportunities in the city will be endless. Imagine if all the parking garages in downtown Chicago go away, the possibilities for that real estate are endless.

The handicap, elderly, young, etc would benefit greatly. The regulation and licensing would fall on the car companies and freed from the individuals.

I could go own. It runs much deeper than just being able to catch a nap or knock out some work during your commute, which yes would be awesome. Just because we can't fully understand how it will all work doesn't make it impossible. I know it is hard to let go of all the great memories operating a vehicle and thinking we could live in a world without it, but I whole heartedly believe nearly everyone on this board will experience this world (insert joke about various old poster here), and I think it will make the world a much happier place.


Let me start off by saying that I'm not a "Flat Earther".
I'm pro nuclear power and GMO.

Driverless technology may someday be viable in cities,but I don't think its coming to more rural areas anytime soon.
Its just not cost effective to construct the infrastructure needed for driverless vehicles.

From what I've read, driverless systems rely on sensors along the road.

"Over the Air" signals,like those used for a cell phone aren't reliable.
Drop a call,no big deal.Lose the signal driving the vehicle,Bang.

There are also issues with sensors in ice/snow conditions.

All of this may be worked out eventually,but I haven't seen any technical data from transportation organizations that show these systems close to being commercially ready,including handling large numbers of individual vehicles.

Then,once they are ready,they have to be built.

Bad question,whose going to pay to build them when they are ready ?

Driverless vehicles will also not eliminate the need for commuters to own vehicles,they just may someday be able to drive on their own.

Driverless vehicles also place all control (speed,route etc.) in the hands of someone/thing other then the driver.

I don't know if that loss of freedom will go over well,unless the vehicles have a manual override.

It would also be like GPS,the government can shut down the system anytime.
Lest anyone think I'm just being paranoid,surveyors like me use specialized GPS all the time.There are times the system has been turned off for civilian use.

Also if GPS is an example of how driverless vehicles will work here's a perfect example of what can happen.

I'm working on a project to redo an intersection with a R.R. crossing.I had a meeting with the R.R. representatives.

They were saying that every month they have to tow a bunch of vehicles off their tracks.

Why,that little GPS voice says "turn left" so they do,right up the tracks.

I asked the rep,"don't they stop when they feel the rumble from running over the ties ?"

He said you'd think so,but most people just rely on that voice and keep going till they snap an axle.


My company actually works pretty closely with Google X (or, formerly Google X, the Alphabet name change has caused naming confusion) who runs the Driverless Car team. We do a lot of hiring for their Driverless Car Operators.

Because of that, I've learned a lot about the technology, and your take on how it operates is not correct. The cars rely on 8 different sensors to operate -- GPS is one of the 8 -- and there's actually very little infrastructure needed to operate them. Uber's already operating driverless cars in Pittsburgh, and the Google cars are in the Bay Area, Phoenix, and Seattle. Tesla cars have an autopilot. Their safety record far eclipses that of human drivers. It's not even particularly close.

That said, the roll out plan will look something like this:

First, driverless cars will be rolled out in closed systems. Airport shuttles and the like, that drive the same route repeatedly, are a good example. In fact, there are places where these are already active.

Second, driverless cars will be rolled out in Urban environments. Grid systems, reliable trffic speeds, etc. all make the transition easier. There's also less need for car ownership.

From there, they'll be made widely available nationwide.

I think the one aspect of driverless cars that people misunderstand most is the notion of ownership. It's hard to break the association that we all must own a car. Most people assume they'll eventually own a driverless car. What people fail to see is that driverless cars actually eliminate the need to own cars. They eliminate the need for parking.

Think of it this way: your car is a huge investment, one of the most expensive things you'll own, and it loses value almost immediately. And most importantly, it spends 98% of the time sitting still, doing nothing. What purpose does that serve? If other people could be using it during that time, you could eliminate the need for parking, the construction costs around home garages, etc. It literally changes everything. Think of all of the additional land in creates in cities. All of the space that goes to parking which can now be used to extend pedestrian spaces, create green space, build new and essential buildings to provide services.

I had a meeting with BMW recently. They are, as a company, preparing for a world in which nobody owns cars anymore. They are doing so aggressively, and are preparing for it 15 years out. Their timeline's likely accelerated, but it's a very real thing, and the transition will happen in our lifetimes and will happen quickly.

The way we get around, our mobility, will fundamentally change. Trying to picture how driverless cars fit our current transportation needs is the wrong way to look at it; instead, you should think about how driverless cars will change what mobility means.


I just don't see how people who live in the suburbs and have to commute to work everyday can do that without owning a vehicle,driverless or not.

If your premise,that people won't own a vehicle is correct,how do you commute to work.
Would you have to schedule a pick up/drop off everyday ?

So rather then own a vehicle, a drvierless vehicle has to be dispatched from a central "hub",pick me up,take me to work,go back to that hub then do the same thing in reverse to get me home ?

Where are all these driverless vehicles kept when not in use ?

Again,for certain situations,like cities,I can see that people may not need to own vehicles.
In the suburbs,unless you think that commuting to work will be eliminated,I don't see how it will work.

Right now,its not even something that's even considered in residential and/or commercial developments.

The examples you give of driverless vehicles safety are a very limited sample.Even with that small sample,driverless vehicles have had problems,including accidents.

Not a lot of infrastructure may be needed for test vehicles,but translating that to millions of vehicles and infrastructure needs change.
Similar to when cell phones and high speed internet took off.
Then again,there are still a lot of areas where this is still an issue.

Again,who pays for it ?

As far as BMW,they may be planning on driverless vehicles in the future,but right now they are expanding all of their dealerships in this area big time.
In fact I'm working on a project where they'll be roughly doubling the size of one of the largest dealerships in this area.

As I also said previously,the lack of "freedom" your scenario presents may be a hard sell.

As I also said,a driverless system could be shut down anytime by an over reaching Government.Then what happens ?

I'm not saying it won't ever happen,I just don't think it will be that soon.


Commuting to work will absolutely be "eliminated." Which is to say, commutes will be made in driverless vehicles. To commute, yes, you'd schedule a pick up/drop off. But I'm not sure I understand what's difficult about that.

There's actually no need for a hub, and the same car that brought you to work doesn't have to bring you home from work. The driverless car would arrive to pick you up, take you to your destination and drop you off. It would then pick up the next requested rider. Rinse and repeat. There's no need for cars to ever be off the road outside of scheduled (unscheduled) maintenance.

As far as where they're kept when they're not in use, it's not really an issue. Why? Because the need exists for a fraction of the space to store cars. Right now the majority of Americans own cars because there's no mechanism in place for sharing them. Removing ownership from the equation reduces the need to "park" cars; that's the entire point. When not in use, the cars will still be on the road, waiting for a request. And there needs to be far fewer of them. Think of it this way: at any given moment, what percentage of American cars are actually in use? That's basically how many cars you'll actually need.

As for who pays for it, the model looks no different than other privately owned utility companies. Who pays for Fios expansion in New York City? Who pays to expand internet and phone services to rural areas? It's not a problem without a solution, by any stretch.

As for the over-reaching government question, it doesn't strike me as a serious one. For one -- what are they shutting down? As I said, GPS is but one of 8 elements Google cars rely on. They can still function just as well with the other 7.

But more to the point -- isn't the "over-reaching government" fear just as relevant to the state and federal highway systems? An overreaching government can effectively stop you from driving your car tomorrow, if you know, said overreaching government was completely oblivious to the role commerce plays in a functioning society.

Edit: As for the safety concern, and limited sample size, I'd ask you to consider the comparison. Do you care to make the argument that people are better drivers? The data doesn't come even remotely close to supporting that.

Last Edited: 9/13/2016 12:43:36 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

Back to Top
  
Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 1,756

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder shifts his fire onto parking services
   Posted: 9/13/2016 1:11:51 PM 
You'd have enormous numbers of cars on the road during rush hours, then a fraction of that number during alternate hours. That's where the need for parking becomes a legitimate question. Other questions that spring to mind:
What about need for occasional transport of material, stuff that would either over-stuff a sedan, or require a pickup truck? Need to buy an 8-foot 2x4 from Home Depot? Call Uber!
What about unscheduled needs to make an additional stop? How would that impact the tight scheduling to make this system function? Need a gallon of milk? Better have that scheduled early!
What about an unscheduled change of course that is dictated by the passenger? Will the system allow for that kind of deviation? How would that impact the scheduling system? Want to drive by the high school to see if the sprinklers are working on the football field? That will require a one-day notice with your Uber service.
What happens when a car breaks down? How is it cleared from the roadway? How quickly does that happen? How is the passenger re-scheduled? Is there a long delay? Uber tire loses 4 psi of pressure? Safety system shuts down vehicle. Passenger waits additional 90 minutes to get to work so that a back-up vehicle can finish the route, thereby avoiding the extreme danger of traveling on under-inflated tires.
As for paying for this, I assume it would ultimately become a function of the state and/or federal government. Passengers would be assessed a per mile fee. We would be promised it would be a net cost savings, but it wouldn't. It would cost more, and there would be no ownership of anything--no opportunity to recoup costs.

#georgeorwell
Back to Top
  
rpbobcat
General User

Member Since: 4/28/2006
Location: Rochelle Park, NJ
Post Count: 2,174

Status: Online

  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder shifts his fire onto parking services
   Posted: 9/13/2016 1:30:55 PM 
Sorry,I don't see how a driverless system works outside of densely populated areas.

We estimate traffic based on "peak" hours,when most people are traveling to or from work.
The rest of the day traffic volumes drop significantly.
So you'd need many more vehicles in the peak "rush" hour then the rest of the day.

If you consider mass transit as an example,they run a lot more buses and longer trains in the morning and evening then the rest of the day.

The only way this idea seems plausible is mandatory staggering of working hours.

Even with that,I can't see an overwhelming need for driverless vehicles during weekday,overnight hours in suburban areas.

So it does seem that there are times they will have to be parked somewhere.

Also,in bad weather you have to put these vehicles somewhere till roads are passable.

As far as safety,if this driveless technology is so safe and reliable,how come there's no talk of using it for mass transit,a train seems a lot easier to make driverless then a car.

Again the only driverless vehicles I've seen are similar to the monorail at Newark airport,which never lived up to its advertising.

To your point about the Government being able to shut the transportation systems down now.
That is possible,but requires massive amounts of men and equipment, as well as the cooperation of all involved.

Shutting down a driverless transportation system requires pushing a button.



Back to Top
  
Deciduous Forest Cat
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Ohio
Post Count: 3,528

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder shifts his fire onto parking services
   Posted: 9/13/2016 1:31:54 PM 
So, where will all these cars go when rush hour is over and they are not needed? doesn't sound like this solves any parking issues.
Back to Top
  
The Optimist
General User



Member Since: 3/16/2007
Location: Akron (sleeper agent)
Post Count: 4,621

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder shifts his fire onto parking services
   Posted: 9/13/2016 1:43:01 PM 
Great responses from Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame & Andrew Ruck.

This topic is so vastly reaching in scope, it is hard to even began a discussion on it. Too many interesting implications of technology like this and with this kind of massive change there are obvious objections.

I view this as absolutely inevitable. The timeline for how quickly this all is implemented is certainly a moving target, but I do believe the technology is a lot closer to being "there" than the vast majority of people realize.

I'd again point to the "Uber model" to fully explain why this is going to be so appealing to people. The MAIN reason most people OWN a car is convenience. That is the "practical" reason at least. Sure, you've got people who might like driving a fast car or who like toying around with the mechanics of a car they own, but for the most part your average person owns a car so they can go to work and the store when they want. Where they want when they want... Uber has changed that. Uber isn't "mass transit" where you must follow a set route and go to "hubs." Uber will come pick you up on any road and drop you off on any road. That basically allows the freedom of owning a car without the expense of owning a car. Taxis always did this, but technology has gotten to the point with phones that a couple clicks of your finger is all you need to "schedule" a ride. Complain all you waant about "scheduling" but that is pretty hassle-free to setup your transportation. You could argue it is more difficult to park your car in the garage. Now, enter the driverless car. It compliments this model perfectly. Currently, Uber is like a taxi service that is just easy to order. The driverless car allows Uber (or any similar company) to scale the hell out of their service and really allow almost instant pickup/dropoff. You could have a boatload of algorithms that tell these computers where to go to predict pickup and dropoffs even if they aren't scheduled in advance.

It's funny that so many older folks have the strongest feelings against this, because they stand to have the greatest gain IMO. What is one of the hardest parts about your health going downhill as you reach older ages? Losing your car. If you lose your car because you don't have the health to safely drive, that is often the point where people are forced into a retirement home. If we've got a fleet of driverless cars so shuttle the elderly, all of a sudden that seems like a massive improvement in their freedom IMO.


I've seen crazier things happen.

Black 41 Flash Reverse

Back to Top
  
Andrew Ruck
General User



Member Since: 12/22/2004
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 2,998

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder shifts his fire onto parking services
   Posted: 9/13/2016 2:09:11 PM 
Fox - Come on, don't get all huffy, just exaggerating about the flat earthers label. But I do think you guys need to understand that we can't wrap our minds around the details of the future. You guys should print out these comments you're making and pass them down to their grandkids. They would really get a kick out of them.

BLSoS - Thank you for your highly qualified and helpful knowledge on the subject. Too many great tidbits to quote, but I was going to point to the Google cars as having an array of sensors with no new infrastructure on the roads needed. On this very day they can send a car out on it's own and have never had one single problem. And in a couple decades, the technology of today will look like the computers from the 70s do to us...laughable.

I fully believe that eventually it will indeed replace the need to own a car. As BLSoS said, the total number of cars needed would plummet and so too would the need to park them. Trucking will be able to operate overnight and other transportation can shift to make the higher trafficked hours clogged by regular commuters not be nearly as congested. The total number of cars needed at their busiest hour, less the total number needed at their slowest hour, would equal the total parking spaces needed...and they could be put anywhere, certainly not needed to be right downtown. There will be so many defunct parking garages that they will easily be housed. In an advanced state, you could envision some areas treated as roadways certain hours of the day and parking areas other parts of the day which would further eliminate the need for parking.

Hard to say how it would work, but I'd envision companies buying the cars and running the services, owning parking lots and maintenance areas. It would create healthy competition similar to Verizon vs Sprint but for your transportation needs.

The routing and responding to demands of users will be easy (to the geniuses, not me) over time. Usage statistics will drive routing and availability, the cars will be everywhere and ready in minutes if not seconds with a click. As fast as Uber is with a human, this will be quicker, much quicker. The levels of service will differ too. For those not wanting to summon a car on demand, they could pay to have it come at 7 am every single day, further making the routing easy. If they don't deliver excellent service at a fair rate, people will leave them for a competitor, not unlike someone telling AT&T to stick it after dropping calls and hiking rates.


Andrew Ruck
B.B.A. 2003

Back to Top
  
rpbobcat
General User

Member Since: 4/28/2006
Location: Rochelle Park, NJ
Post Count: 2,174

Status: Online

  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder shifts his fire onto parking services
   Posted: 9/13/2016 2:20:49 PM 
I'm one of the "old guys" who enjoys driving and the freedom it provides.

Also nothing beats the rush a 400hp Acura gives going down the road.Without exceeding the speed limit of course.

One thing driverless vehicles will affect are "spur of the moment" trips,quick trips to a grocery store, etc.

All I can say, they can stop me from driving when they pry the steering wheel from my cold dead hand !
Back to Top
  
Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 1,756

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder shifts his fire onto parking services
   Posted: 9/13/2016 2:45:04 PM 
Andrew Ruck wrote:
Fox - Come on, don't get all huffy, just exaggerating about the flat earthers label. But I do think you guys need to understand that we can't wrap our minds around the details of the future. You guys should print out these comments you're making and pass them down to their grandkids. They would really get a kick out of them.



What, me huffy?

For all the moments of folks with their heads in the sand, there are probably equal numbers of fantastical predictions for the future. The trouble is sorting all that out. On this topic, I mostly argue with the timeline. I don't see it as "just around the corner," whatever that means.

Here's one: http://mentalfloss.com/article/57157/arthur-c-clarke-pred...

And, unlike many other predictions, I simply don't like this one. Sure there are some benefits, but on balance, it doesn't sound all that good to me.
Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,015

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder shifts his fire onto parking services
   Posted: 9/13/2016 3:02:04 PM 
rpbobcat wrote:
I'm one of the "old guys" who enjoys driving and the freedom it provides.

Also nothing beats the rush a 400hp Acura gives going down the road.Without exceeding the speed limit of course.

One thing driverless vehicles will affect are "spur of the moment" trips,quick trips to a grocery store, etc.

All I can say, they can stop me from driving when they pry the steering wheel from my cold dead hand !


I can name something that beats the rush a 400hp Acura gives you going down the road:

30,000 fewer traffic deaths per anum.

Last Edited: 9/13/2016 3:13:02 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,015

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder shifts his fire onto parking services
   Posted: 9/13/2016 3:10:46 PM 
Robert Fox wrote:
You'd have enormous numbers of cars on the road during rush hours, then a fraction of that number during alternate hours. That's where the need for parking becomes a legitimate question. Other questions that spring to mind:
What about need for occasional transport of material, stuff that would either over-stuff a sedan, or require a pickup truck? Need to buy an 8-foot 2x4 from Home Depot? Call Uber!
What about unscheduled needs to make an additional stop? How would that impact the tight scheduling to make this system function? Need a gallon of milk? Better have that scheduled early!
What about an unscheduled change of course that is dictated by the passenger? Will the system allow for that kind of deviation? How would that impact the scheduling system? Want to drive by the high school to see if the sprinklers are working on the football field? That will require a one-day notice with your Uber service.
What happens when a car breaks down? How is it cleared from the roadway? How quickly does that happen? How is the passenger re-scheduled? Is there a long delay? Uber tire loses 4 psi of pressure? Safety system shuts down vehicle. Passenger waits additional 90 minutes to get to work so that a back-up vehicle can finish the route, thereby avoiding the extreme danger of traveling on under-inflated tires.
As for paying for this, I assume it would ultimately become a function of the state and/or federal government. Passengers would be assessed a per mile fee. We would be promised it would be a net cost savings, but it wouldn't. It would cost more, and there would be no ownership of anything--no opportunity to recoup costs.

#georgeorwell


Are these really the issues you're raising as insurmountable?

In order:

1. Again, you don't need to park cars that aren't in use. Why can't they just stay on the roads? And again, the cars that do need to be stored create no issue. Because there are exponentially fewer of them to store than there are currently. I mean, we have garages now. And parking lots. You realize that, right? That's where you put them. The better question is what do you do with all of the unneeded parking lots and garages?

2. To solve the need for occasional transport of materials you. . .order a vehicle large enough to transport said materials. I, ummm, do that already. I'm honestly sort of stumped by the question. Do you really think that Google, Uber, Apple, Tesla, Ford, BMW, Audi and everybody else dumping billions of dollars into this haven't thought about transporting goods? Or to put it another way, do you not think that revenue from the shipping industry is something they're eying with this technology?

3. To solve the need for an additional stop you. . .tell the car you need to make an additional stop. Hit the "additional stop" button, input the address. Now all you need to worry about is whether or not your car can hold all of that milk. (see #2 for answer)

4. How much scheduling notice do you give Uber now? 1 day? Or none at all? What's different about the driverless arrangement. Do you think that Uber/Google/Lyft/Tesla aren't going to be able to adequately predict the demand in the market? Why?

5. Nothing you're raising about cars breaking down is any different than the current system we have in place when a car breaks down. All of the questions you're asking are just as relevant to manually operated vehicles as they are to autonomous ones. Your car breaking down sucks and causes issues for you, regardless of who is driving it.

6. Good point about the cost. Anytime you can proactively blame the government for price gouging a system being fully developed by private companies, and you clearly lack even a rudimentary knowledge of said system, you gotta do it, right?

Last Edited: 9/13/2016 3:36:42 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

Back to Top
  
mid70sbobcat
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 370

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder shifts his fire onto parking services
   Posted: 9/13/2016 3:19:51 PM 
The Optimist wrote:
Great responses from Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame & Andrew Ruck.

I view this as absolutely inevitable. The timeline for how quickly this all is implemented is certainly a moving target, but I do believe the technology is a lot closer to being "there" than the vast majority of people realize.

I'd again point to the "Uber model" to fully explain why this is going to be so appealing to people. The MAIN reason most people OWN a car is convenience. That is the "practical" reason at least. Sure, you've got people who might like driving a fast car or who like toying around with the mechanics of a car they own, but for the most part your average person owns a car so they can go to work and the store when they want. Where they want when they want... Uber has changed that. Uber isn't "mass transit" where you must follow a set route and go to "hubs." Uber will come pick you up on any road and drop you off on any road. That basically allows the freedom of owning a car without the expense of owning a car. Taxis always did this, but technology has gotten to the point with phones that a couple clicks of your finger is all you need to "schedule" a ride. Complain all you waant about "scheduling" but that is pretty hassle-free to setup your transportation. You could argue it is more difficult to park your car in the garage. Now, enter the driverless car. It compliments this model perfectly. Currently, Uber is like a taxi service that is just easy to order. The driverless car allows Uber (or any similar company) to scale the hell out of their service and really allow almost instant pickup/dropoff. You could have a boatload of algorithms that tell these computers where to go to predict pickup and dropoffs even if they aren't scheduled in advance.

It's funny that so many older folks have the strongest feelings against this, because they stand to have the greatest gain IMO. What is one of the hardest parts about your health going downhill as you reach older ages? Losing your car. If you lose your car because you don't have the health to safely drive, that is often the point where people are forced into a retirement home. If we've got a fleet of driverless cars so shuttle the elderly, all of a sudden that seems like a massive improvement in their freedom IMO.



What about the spur of the moment issues? Let's go out to dinner. I have to run to the store for whatever. Making a request for a vehicle to me is more cumbersome than just jumping in the car. And then there's the whole question of cost tradeoffs. Is owning a vehicle better economically that using a driverless car? It may depend on the frequency with which one is out of the road.

And with work commuting ... how to you factor in bad weather? Ice? Snow? Who determines how much time to pad the normal commute with to compensate for the unknown extra time?

Last is scheduling. What happens when demand exceeds supply (of vehicles). No one can guarantee prompt pick up of a person without an unlimited number of vehicles. So one may have to wait extended periods of time until the backlog is reduced. It's a queueing theory related problem unless supply of cars is unconstrained.

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,015

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder shifts his fire onto parking services
   Posted: 9/13/2016 3:23:39 PM 
rpbobcat wrote:
Sorry,I don't see how a driverless system works outside of densely populated areas.

We estimate traffic based on "peak" hours,when most people are traveling to or from work.
The rest of the day traffic volumes drop significantly.
So you'd need many more vehicles in the peak "rush" hour then the rest of the day.

If you consider mass transit as an example,they run a lot more buses and longer trains in the morning and evening then the rest of the day.

The only way this idea seems plausible is mandatory staggering of working hours.

Even with that,I can't see an overwhelming need for driverless vehicles during weekday,overnight hours in suburban areas.

So it does seem that there are times they will have to be parked somewhere.

Also,in bad weather you have to put these vehicles somewhere till roads are passable.

As far as safety,if this driveless technology is so safe and reliable,how come there's no talk of using it for mass transit,a train seems a lot easier to make driverless then a car.

Again the only driverless vehicles I've seen are similar to the monorail at Newark airport,which never lived up to its advertising.

To your point about the Government being able to shut the transportation systems down now.
That is possible,but requires massive amounts of men and equipment, as well as the cooperation of all involved.

Shutting down a driverless transportation system requires pushing a button.



Sorry, but what?

So you cite pubic transportation -- buses and trains -- because they have sufficiently, and quite easily, developed systems that can cover high demand travel periods with increased train/bus volume, and then throw up your hands and say this would only work if there were "mandatory staggering of work hours?"

The volume problem by rush hours will be solved in the exact same manner that public transportation solves it. The volume will increase in highly trafficked areas to meet demand, and then during non-rush hours driverless vehicle volume will decrease, as demand dictates.

And storage of any inactive cars becomes a very minor issue because, in the aggregate, there are far fewer cars inactive at any given time. You're basically going "where are we going to park 100** cars?!" when, right now, we have the parking facilities available for 10x that number?

As for the ability to shut down driverless cars with the push of a button, where's this button? Somebody should keep you and Robert Fox away from it, apparently.

** Completely arbitrary number used to illustrate a point.

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,015

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder shifts his fire onto parking services
   Posted: 9/13/2016 3:29:38 PM 
mid70sbobcat wrote:
The Optimist wrote:
Great responses from Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame & Andrew Ruck.

I view this as absolutely inevitable. The timeline for how quickly this all is implemented is certainly a moving target, but I do believe the technology is a lot closer to being "there" than the vast majority of people realize.

I'd again point to the "Uber model" to fully explain why this is going to be so appealing to people. The MAIN reason most people OWN a car is convenience. That is the "practical" reason at least. Sure, you've got people who might like driving a fast car or who like toying around with the mechanics of a car they own, but for the most part your average person owns a car so they can go to work and the store when they want. Where they want when they want... Uber has changed that. Uber isn't "mass transit" where you must follow a set route and go to "hubs." Uber will come pick you up on any road and drop you off on any road. That basically allows the freedom of owning a car without the expense of owning a car. Taxis always did this, but technology has gotten to the point with phones that a couple clicks of your finger is all you need to "schedule" a ride. Complain all you waant about "scheduling" but that is pretty hassle-free to setup your transportation. You could argue it is more difficult to park your car in the garage. Now, enter the driverless car. It compliments this model perfectly. Currently, Uber is like a taxi service that is just easy to order. The driverless car allows Uber (or any similar company) to scale the hell out of their service and really allow almost instant pickup/dropoff. You could have a boatload of algorithms that tell these computers where to go to predict pickup and dropoffs even if they aren't scheduled in advance.

It's funny that so many older folks have the strongest feelings against this, because they stand to have the greatest gain IMO. What is one of the hardest parts about your health going downhill as you reach older ages? Losing your car. If you lose your car because you don't have the health to safely drive, that is often the point where people are forced into a retirement home. If we've got a fleet of driverless cars so shuttle the elderly, all of a sudden that seems like a massive improvement in their freedom IMO.



What about the spur of the moment issues? Let's go out to dinner. I have to run to the store for whatever. Making a request for a vehicle to me is more cumbersome than just jumping in the car. And then there's the whole question of cost tradeoffs. Is owning a vehicle better economically that using a driverless car? It may depend on the frequency with which one is out of the road.

And with work commuting ... how to you factor in bad weather? Ice? Snow? Who determines how much time to pad the normal commute with to compensate for the unknown extra time?

Last is scheduling. What happens when demand exceeds supply (of vehicles). No one can guarantee prompt pick up of a person without an unlimited number of vehicles. So one may have to wait extended periods of time until the backlog is reduced. It's a queueing theory related problem unless supply of cars is unconstrained.



Honest question for you. If you were asked to choose one of these two things, which would you choose:

1. The ability to make a spur of the moment decision to go out to dinner without waiting 6 minutes for a perfectly safe car to arrive, but 30,000+ Americans die in car accidents each year.

or

2. Having to wait 6 minutes for a car when you want to go to Shoney's, and 30,000 American lives are saved and countless millions are saved in healthcare costs.

As for the inclement weather and who makes decisions regarding how much time a commute should take, there's a couple important points. First, how do you do that now? I'm willing to bet it starts with G and ends with oogle. Second, what do you think causes traffic? Cars? Or the people operating cars? Much of the uncertainty in travel time is removed from the equation with autonomous vehicles.

3. Supply of cars doesn't have to be unconstrained. It has to be proportionate to the supply of people who have to get places. Thankfully, I think we keep numbers on this somewhere.

Last Edited: 9/13/2016 3:34:30 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

Back to Top
  
mid70sbobcat
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 370

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder shifts his fire onto parking services
   Posted: 9/13/2016 3:45:09 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:


Honest question for you. If you were asked to choose one of these two things, which would you choose:

1. The ability to make a spur of the moment decision to go out to dinner without waiting 6 minutes for a perfectly safe car to arrive, but 30,000+ Americans die in car accidents each year.

or

2. Having to wait 6 minutes for a car when you want to go to Shoney's, and 30,000 American lives are saved and countless millions are saved in healthcare costs.

As for the inclement weather and who makes decisions regarding how much time a commute should take, there's a couple important points. First, how do you do that now? I'm willing to bet it starts with G and ends with oogle. Second, What do you think causes traffic? Cars? Or the people operating cars? Much of the uncertainty in travel time is removed from the equation with autonomous vehicles.

3. Supply of cars doesn't have to be unconstrained. It has to be proportionate to the supply of people who have to get places. Thankfully, I think we keep numbers on this somewhere.



Honestly, I'd choose #1. I am a dinosaur but did graduate school research w/ Helmut Zwahlen in Athens in the late 70's in driver/pedestrian safety. Yeah, that was in the dark ages. But some issues are still out there, such a 'safety'. Those 30,000 deaths could be greatly reduced if people put their phones down while driving. What about the recent Tesla autopilot death?

On the travel aspect ... Google can't always accurately estimate. Black ice is tough. Other inclement weather is equally troublesome. If one has a hard and fast constraint that they need to be at a place at a certain time padding the estimate (as a driver) may result in a better outcome than using a Google estimate.

Like someone else said .. I'll give up driving when someone takes the keys away.

Back to Top
  
Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 1,756

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder shifts his fire onto parking services
   Posted: 9/13/2016 4:02:20 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Robert Fox wrote:
You'd have enormous numbers of cars on the road during rush hours, then a fraction of that number during alternate hours. That's where the need for parking becomes a legitimate question. Other questions that spring to mind:
What about need for occasional transport of material, stuff that would either over-stuff a sedan, or require a pickup truck? Need to buy an 8-foot 2x4 from Home Depot? Call Uber!
What about unscheduled needs to make an additional stop? How would that impact the tight scheduling to make this system function? Need a gallon of milk? Better have that scheduled early!
What about an unscheduled change of course that is dictated by the passenger? Will the system allow for that kind of deviation? How would that impact the scheduling system? Want to drive by the high school to see if the sprinklers are working on the football field? That will require a one-day notice with your Uber service.
What happens when a car breaks down? How is it cleared from the roadway? How quickly does that happen? How is the passenger re-scheduled? Is there a long delay? Uber tire loses 4 psi of pressure? Safety system shuts down vehicle. Passenger waits additional 90 minutes to get to work so that a back-up vehicle can finish the route, thereby avoiding the extreme danger of traveling on under-inflated tires.
As for paying for this, I assume it would ultimately become a function of the state and/or federal government. Passengers would be assessed a per mile fee. We would be promised it would be a net cost savings, but it wouldn't. It would cost more, and there would be no ownership of anything--no opportunity to recoup costs.

#georgeorwell


Are these really the issues you're raising as insurmountable?

In order:

1. Again, you don't need to park cars that aren't in use. Why can't they just stay on the roads? And again, the cars that do need to be stored create no issue. Because there are exponentially fewer of them to store than there are currently. I mean, we have garages now. And parking lots. You realize that, right? That's where you put them. The better question is what do you do with all of the unneeded parking lots and garages?

2. To solve the need for occasional transport of materials you. . .order a vehicle large enough to transport said materials. I, ummm, do that already. I'm honestly sort of stumped by the question. Do you really think that Google, Uber, Apple, Tesla, Ford, BMW, Audi and everybody else dumping billions of dollars into this haven't thought about transporting goods? Or to put it another way, do you not think that revenue from the shipping industry is something they're eying with this technology?

3. To solve the need for an additional stop you. . .tell the car you need to make an additional stop. Hit the "additional stop" button, input the address. Now all you need to worry about is whether or not your car can hold all of that milk. (see #2 for answer)

4. How much scheduling notice do you give Uber now? 1 day? Or none at all? What's different about the driverless arrangement. Do you think that Uber/Google/Lyft/Tesla aren't going to be able to adequately predict the demand in the market? Why?

5. Nothing you're raising about cars breaking down is any different than the current system we have in place when a car breaks down. All of the questions you're asking are just as relevant to manually operated vehicles as they are to autonomous ones. Your car breaking down sucks and causes issues for you, regardless of who is driving it.

6. Good point about the cost. Anytime you can proactively blame the government for price gouging a system being fully developed by private companies, and you clearly lack even a rudimentary knowledge of said system, you gotta do it, right?



Oh, sorry. I didn't agree with you. I bet that really chaps your tender ass.

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,015

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder shifts his fire onto parking services
   Posted: 9/13/2016 4:13:54 PM 
Robert Fox wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Robert Fox wrote:
You'd have enormous numbers of cars on the road during rush hours, then a fraction of that number during alternate hours. That's where the need for parking becomes a legitimate question. Other questions that spring to mind:
What about need for occasional transport of material, stuff that would either over-stuff a sedan, or require a pickup truck? Need to buy an 8-foot 2x4 from Home Depot? Call Uber!
What about unscheduled needs to make an additional stop? How would that impact the tight scheduling to make this system function? Need a gallon of milk? Better have that scheduled early!
What about an unscheduled change of course that is dictated by the passenger? Will the system allow for that kind of deviation? How would that impact the scheduling system? Want to drive by the high school to see if the sprinklers are working on the football field? That will require a one-day notice with your Uber service.
What happens when a car breaks down? How is it cleared from the roadway? How quickly does that happen? How is the passenger re-scheduled? Is there a long delay? Uber tire loses 4 psi of pressure? Safety system shuts down vehicle. Passenger waits additional 90 minutes to get to work so that a back-up vehicle can finish the route, thereby avoiding the extreme danger of traveling on under-inflated tires.
As for paying for this, I assume it would ultimately become a function of the state and/or federal government. Passengers would be assessed a per mile fee. We would be promised it would be a net cost savings, but it wouldn't. It would cost more, and there would be no ownership of anything--no opportunity to recoup costs.

#georgeorwell


Are these really the issues you're raising as insurmountable?

In order:

1. Again, you don't need to park cars that aren't in use. Why can't they just stay on the roads? And again, the cars that do need to be stored create no issue. Because there are exponentially fewer of them to store than there are currently. I mean, we have garages now. And parking lots. You realize that, right? That's where you put them. The better question is what do you do with all of the unneeded parking lots and garages?

2. To solve the need for occasional transport of materials you. . .order a vehicle large enough to transport said materials. I, ummm, do that already. I'm honestly sort of stumped by the question. Do you really think that Google, Uber, Apple, Tesla, Ford, BMW, Audi and everybody else dumping billions of dollars into this haven't thought about transporting goods? Or to put it another way, do you not think that revenue from the shipping industry is something they're eying with this technology?

3. To solve the need for an additional stop you. . .tell the car you need to make an additional stop. Hit the "additional stop" button, input the address. Now all you need to worry about is whether or not your car can hold all of that milk. (see #2 for answer)

4. How much scheduling notice do you give Uber now? 1 day? Or none at all? What's different about the driverless arrangement. Do you think that Uber/Google/Lyft/Tesla aren't going to be able to adequately predict the demand in the market? Why?

5. Nothing you're raising about cars breaking down is any different than the current system we have in place when a car breaks down. All of the questions you're asking are just as relevant to manually operated vehicles as they are to autonomous ones. Your car breaking down sucks and causes issues for you, regardless of who is driving it.

6. Good point about the cost. Anytime you can proactively blame the government for price gouging a system being fully developed by private companies, and you clearly lack even a rudimentary knowledge of said system, you gotta do it, right?



Oh, sorry. I didn't agree with you. I bet that really chaps your tender ass.



What chaps my tender ass is when people argue against the mere idea of progress because they're terrified of change.

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,015

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder shifts his fire onto parking services
   Posted: 9/13/2016 4:22:30 PM 
mid70sbobcat wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:


Honest question for you. If you were asked to choose one of these two things, which would you choose:

1. The ability to make a spur of the moment decision to go out to dinner without waiting 6 minutes for a perfectly safe car to arrive, but 30,000+ Americans die in car accidents each year.

or

2. Having to wait 6 minutes for a car when you want to go to Shoney's, and 30,000 American lives are saved and countless millions are saved in healthcare costs.

As for the inclement weather and who makes decisions regarding how much time a commute should take, there's a couple important points. First, how do you do that now? I'm willing to bet it starts with G and ends with oogle. Second, What do you think causes traffic? Cars? Or the people operating cars? Much of the uncertainty in travel time is removed from the equation with autonomous vehicles.

3. Supply of cars doesn't have to be unconstrained. It has to be proportionate to the supply of people who have to get places. Thankfully, I think we keep numbers on this somewhere.



Honestly, I'd choose #1. I am a dinosaur but did graduate school research w/ Helmut Zwahlen in Athens in the late 70's in driver/pedestrian safety. Yeah, that was in the dark ages. But some issues are still out there, such a 'safety'. Those 30,000 deaths could be greatly reduced if people put their phones down while driving. What about the recent Tesla autopilot death?

On the travel aspect ... Google can't always accurately estimate. Black ice is tough. Other inclement weather is equally troublesome. If one has a hard and fast constraint that they need to be at a place at a certain time padding the estimate (as a driver) may result in a better outcome than using a Google estimate.

Like someone else said .. I'll give up driving when someone takes the keys away.



Sorry, you're citing the the fact that people are imperfect operators that make stupid decisions that lead to deaths -- a whole lot of deaths, no less -- as a reason to continue letting people operate cars en masse?

Because theoretically we can probably get better at it if we do things we, as a species, have shown no inclination towards doing? You're willing to risk, and put other people at risk, of elderly drivers, texting drivers, drunk drivers, high drivers, straight up bad drivers, etc. when a much better alternative exists because "people should put their phones down while driving" and you don't want to wait 6 minutes for a car.

Cool.
Back to Top
  
Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 1,756

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder shifts his fire onto parking services
   Posted: 9/13/2016 4:29:07 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Robert Fox wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Robert Fox wrote:
You'd have enormous numbers of cars on the road during rush hours, then a fraction of that number during alternate hours. That's where the need for parking becomes a legitimate question. Other questions that spring to mind:
What about need for occasional transport of material, stuff that would either over-stuff a sedan, or require a pickup truck? Need to buy an 8-foot 2x4 from Home Depot? Call Uber!
What about unscheduled needs to make an additional stop? How would that impact the tight scheduling to make this system function? Need a gallon of milk? Better have that scheduled early!
What about an unscheduled change of course that is dictated by the passenger? Will the system allow for that kind of deviation? How would that impact the scheduling system? Want to drive by the high school to see if the sprinklers are working on the football field? That will require a one-day notice with your Uber service.
What happens when a car breaks down? How is it cleared from the roadway? How quickly does that happen? How is the passenger re-scheduled? Is there a long delay? Uber tire loses 4 psi of pressure? Safety system shuts down vehicle. Passenger waits additional 90 minutes to get to work so that a back-up vehicle can finish the route, thereby avoiding the extreme danger of traveling on under-inflated tires.
As for paying for this, I assume it would ultimately become a function of the state and/or federal government. Passengers would be assessed a per mile fee. We would be promised it would be a net cost savings, but it wouldn't. It would cost more, and there would be no ownership of anything--no opportunity to recoup costs.

#georgeorwell


Are these really the issues you're raising as insurmountable?

In order:

1. Again, you don't need to park cars that aren't in use. Why can't they just stay on the roads? And again, the cars that do need to be stored create no issue. Because there are exponentially fewer of them to store than there are currently. I mean, we have garages now. And parking lots. You realize that, right? That's where you put them. The better question is what do you do with all of the unneeded parking lots and garages?

2. To solve the need for occasional transport of materials you. . .order a vehicle large enough to transport said materials. I, ummm, do that already. I'm honestly sort of stumped by the question. Do you really think that Google, Uber, Apple, Tesla, Ford, BMW, Audi and everybody else dumping billions of dollars into this haven't thought about transporting goods? Or to put it another way, do you not think that revenue from the shipping industry is something they're eying with this technology?

3. To solve the need for an additional stop you. . .tell the car you need to make an additional stop. Hit the "additional stop" button, input the address. Now all you need to worry about is whether or not your car can hold all of that milk. (see #2 for answer)

4. How much scheduling notice do you give Uber now? 1 day? Or none at all? What's different about the driverless arrangement. Do you think that Uber/Google/Lyft/Tesla aren't going to be able to adequately predict the demand in the market? Why?

5. Nothing you're raising about cars breaking down is any different than the current system we have in place when a car breaks down. All of the questions you're asking are just as relevant to manually operated vehicles as they are to autonomous ones. Your car breaking down sucks and causes issues for you, regardless of who is driving it.

6. Good point about the cost. Anytime you can proactively blame the government for price gouging a system being fully developed by private companies, and you clearly lack even a rudimentary knowledge of said system, you gotta do it, right?



Oh, sorry. I didn't agree with you. I bet that really chaps your tender ass.



What chaps my tender ass is when people argue against the mere idea of progress because they're terrified of change.



No. You're offended by people raising valid questions. No one is saying this is impossible or that it will "never happen." NO ONE IS SAYING THAT. HELLOOOO? Are you in there?

The question is, in what manner will something like this happen. Where? To what scale? How will it impact society? How will society bend to accept it?

Some of us believe the transition will be slower than others. That, apparently, gets your panties all bunched up and chaffing.
Back to Top
  
Showing Replies:  26 - 50  of 296 Posts
Jump to Page:  < Previous    1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12    Next >
View Other 'General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events' Topics
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             



Copyright ©2019 BobcatAttack.com. All rights reserved.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use
Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties