Driverless Cars are Insane.
- Thread starter Loyal
- Start date
-
To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
- Status
Billions, probably significantly more billions than will be poured into this in the next 5 years, had been poured into hardware and software as a service, but everyone still owns their own computer. Could we all get by cheaper with a thin client, decent internet, and an Amazon instance? Sure, but it's not happening. Obviously this isn't a perfect analogy, but the point stands that billions and ability didn't always output to reality.
I'm assuming this will be unaffordable for most, including me. It basically mirrors what we have now, so it's not really doing way with ownership so much and changing the nature of it. And making it prohibitively expensive.
This is probably the middle class American solution and it simply won't work for a lot of people. Like me for instance. Also I feel like it's going to increase traffic. I'm not sure why, that's just the sense I'm getting. They thought Uber would reduce traffic in mayor cities, but it made it worse because now there's piles and piles of Uber drivers milling around waiting to get hailed for a ride. Anyway, I cannot, and neither can a lot of other Americans, designate a time to get of work. I shoot for a certain time, but it happens when it happens. This isn't feasible for likely several thousand people in the Austin area. Which means I'm either going to be such with option 1 which I can't afford, or option 3...
Which also doesn't work because I have weird starting hours and can't "car pool" unless you think that my company, and likely a few hundred others, is going to change it operational hours based on the sharing times. Not bloody likely.
So let me get this straight. It costs $150 per month to insure that I own now. It would cost say $10 per month to insure a driverless car. Therefore my insurance goes up to $1000 per month even though the cost of fixing my car off I got into an accident stays the same? I'm not in insurance, but I'm pretty sure cost goes up when risk (and therefore the likelihood of cost to the company) goes up, not when other likelihoods of cost go down. Also, the other guy made a good point. The insurance company is just going to forfeit all that money? Also not bloody likely. Insurance rates for driverless will get discounts, but they'll stay similarly high so they can increase the profit margin by a shit load.
Also, driverless zones sounds reasonable, but due to option 1 being to expensive, option 2 just plain not working for most, and option 3 being a nightmare, it won't pan out super well.
Logistics has killed more plans than it deserves to. That's the major hold up here and it will be for a long ass time. I wouldn't call the logistics intractable, but it's not going to be easy.
I commute 60+ miles each way every day. So do crap tons of other people all over the country. None of these solutions really work for us. That's not too mention the people in rural areas that won't be able to afford to buy these cars or memberships for these cars. And we need I'll to live in total areas because those are the people that make our food. If everyone moves to the city, who farms? It's not simply a choice, it's a requirement. If you like to eat, stop shitting on small towns.
Dude! You need to chill.
Fucking kidding me? Is this your idea of "getting back on point" or not trying to incite? You are just begging for a political fight here and don't even try to deny it. So back off NOW.
Yeah, and as usual, i'm the only one.
Twice I tried to get back to the OP and twice this material was put back in my face.
Farr Be It
Hall of Fame
This is where I was called a "conspiracy nut" for seeing a liberty issue with this whole Brave New World. A convenience becomes a mandate. This whole idea may not be as inevitable, or desirable as many think.
Are you familiar with the rural life? Traveling farm acreage and into town are not that daunting. Oh will they be granted waivers by the anointed? How nice of them. Surely this won't kill off the already struggling family farms. You cannot drive entire populations into population centers, as the elite dream of.
Noooo. California government is FRIEND to the farmer. They wouldn't do anything to kill off that breadbasket.
https://reason.com/2016/11/30/californias-new-cow-fart-regulations-tot
...by the way, I just finished a project with the head lobbyist genius responsible for getting this legislation passed. He was so proud, as he told me about it. In the mean-time, the heroes down in the central valley face hundreds of thousands of dollars in mandates from the state to "get into compliance" with methane -capturing technologies. It's criminal in my opinion.
Do we want large population centers dictating our elections? That was the genius of the Founders so that all parts of the country would have a say. Even so, States like California, New York, Florida, Illinois, etc. have a huge say in the process. It is not as though Idaho cancels out the vote of California.
...which fuels crony capitalism, closer to Marxism than actual Capitalism. Citizens should be able to lobby the interest of their government, it is only when the foxes (Congress) guard the henhouse that corruption takes hold. The founders did not fear big business, they feared government. Today played out by the faustian bargain between government and large corporations. The very definition of Marxism, and Communism ultimately.
Where liberty dwells, there is my country.
-Ben Franklin
Just good natured civic discussion @1maGoh
The victim argument falls on deaf ears. We are only uneven handed to those who are looking to be victims of prejudice. Here's a hint. The way to get back to the OP is to get back to the OP - NOT to make a political statement or refer to a member as "ilk" and then without taking a breath, plead to get back to the OP. It's pretty hollow.
This is where I was called a "conspiracy nut" for seeing a liberty issue with this whole Brave New World. A convenience becomes a mandate. This whole idea may not be as inevitable, or desirable as many think.
Are you familiar with the rural life? Traveling farm acreage and into town are not that daunting. Oh will they be granted waivers by the anointed? How nice of them. Surely this won't kill off the already struggling family farms. You cannot drive entire populations into population centers, as the elite dream of.
Noooo. California government is FRIEND to the farmer. They wouldn't do anything to kill off that breadbasket.
https://reason.com/2016/11/30/californias-new-cow-fart-regulations-tot
...by the way, I just finished a project with the head lobbyist genius responsible for getting this legislation passed. He was so proud, as he told me about it. In the mean-time, the heroes down in the central valley face hundreds of thousands of dollars in mandates from the state to "get into compliance" with methane -capturing technologies. It's criminal in my opinion.
Do we want large population centers dictating our elections? That was the genius of the Founders so that all parts of the country would have a say. Even so, States like California, New York, Florida, Illinois, etc. have a huge say in the process. It is not as though Idaho cancels out the vote of California.
...which fuels crony capitalism, closer to Marxism than actual Capitalism. Citizens should be able to lobby the interest of their government, it is only when the foxes (Congress) guard the henhouse that corruption takes hold. The founders did not fear big business, they feared government. Today played out by the faustian bargain between government and large corporations. The very definition of Marxism, and Communism ultimately.
Where liberty dwells, there is my country.
-Ben Franklin
Just good natured civic discussion @1maGoh
Yeah, sure it is. If I answered half of this 503 would ban me. Political discussions create a heated atmosphere around here and I have already been warned once on this thread and again on another. Football fans are conservative, I get it, it's OK by me if you want to keep this a one way conversation, have at it. Lets not forget though that the home of the L.A. Rams are located in a fairly liberal city in a pretty liberal state.
And yes, I have lived in a rural atmosphere, spending 27 years between the age of 22 and 50 living in a community of approximately 100 homes surrounded by National Forest.
Farr Be It
Hall of Fame
Love ya River. There's room for all us whack jobs in this forum.
illowfight:
bluecoconuts
Legend
Farr Be It
Hall of Fame
All reasonable concerns.
And ten years from know you will shake your head at how it’s turned out...not all positive. No question. But the pace will be at least what I’ve described.
It’s hard to state how committed with so many BILLIONS of dollars that this future is. It’s more certain than taxes and nearly as certain as death.
$70? That’s nuthin! We had a 44 gallon tank and gas was just over $5/gal when we left. You KNOW how much that hurt...
I’m not saying this because I’m selling something. I see patterns even when they are unpopular.
I saw Buster Douglas beating Mike Tyson three weeks before the fight.
I saw our super crappy 2016 season coming even as folks thought Goff could make up for Fisher’s historically bad offense.
I built something original and saved companies millions because I saw things few others see. The patterns are very clear to me.
It is entirely possible for everything I say to be true AND for @1maGoh ’s concerns to be perfectly founded.
As for 300 million cars. Has America ever had a problem throwing things away in order to embrace something new?
Have we never embraced a change that both grew too fast and caused problems because it couldn’t meet every need?
Will legislation that is intended to address the real issues of climate catastrophe, traffic congestion and urban pollution by creating further incentives to go electric and autonomous also end up penalizing the poor and working class to a disproportionate degree?
I’m pretty certain all that will happen, too.
It’s still GONNA happen.
And just like most things don’t serve rural America, this will be no different.
I’m sorry if this is distressing. Still, seems better to know than to be caught unaware or in denial...
I saw Buster Douglas beating Mike Tyson three weeks before the fight.
I saw our super crappy 2016 season coming even as folks thought Goff could make up for Fisher’s historically bad offense.
I built something original and saved companies millions because I saw things few others see. The patterns are very clear to me.
It is entirely possible for everything I say to be true AND for @1maGoh ’s concerns to be perfectly founded.
As for 300 million cars. Has America ever had a problem throwing things away in order to embrace something new?
Have we never embraced a change that both grew too fast and caused problems because it couldn’t meet every need?
Will legislation that is intended to address the real issues of climate catastrophe, traffic congestion and urban pollution by creating further incentives to go electric and autonomous also end up penalizing the poor and working class to a disproportionate degree?
I’m pretty certain all that will happen, too.
It’s still GONNA happen.
And just like most things don’t serve rural America, this will be no different.
I’m sorry if this is distressing. Still, seems better to know than to be caught unaware or in denial...
Shrinking population in more than a third of rural U.S. counties
Date:
February 6, 2019
Source:
University of New Hampshire
"Nearly 35 percent of rural counties in the United States are experiencing protracted and significant population loss, according to new research released by the Carsey School of Public Policy at the University of New Hampshire. Those counties are now home to 6.2 million residents, a third fewer than lived there in 1950.
In all, the researchers found that 746 counties representing 24 percent of all U.S. counties are depopulating and 91 percent of them are rural. In contrast, just nine percent of urban counties are depopulating.
"Population loss from outmigration is the most important factor in the initial stages of depopulation," the researchers said. "These depopulating rural counties had an average migration loss of 43 percent of their 20-to-24-year-olds in each decade from 1950 to 2010, and that chronic young adult outmigration means there were far fewer women of child-bearing age and, as a result, many fewer births. In addition, 60 percent of these counties had more deaths than births. This combination of young adult outmigration, fewer births and more deaths produced a downward spiral of population loss that will be difficult to break."
Not all rural counties are depopulating. More than 35 percent of rural counties have experienced sustained growth for decades. Most growing counties are near metropolitan areas or centers for retirement and recreation. Yet, the researchers also found that even among the rural counties that were at their population peak in 2010, just 56 percent gained population between 2010 and 2016. "That nearly half of the counties with long histories of population gain are now losing population underscores the demographic and economic headwinds that non-metropolitan America faces."
"This study provides a demographic window to the future and a sober forecast of continuing rural population decline in many economically depressed regions," the researchers said. "Future rural population growth and decline clearly are deeply rooted in evolving patterns of migration, fertility and mortality. It is past time to refocus our attention on the rural people and places left behind."
The full report can be found here: https://carsey.unh.edu/publication/rural-depopulation. The research was conducted by Kenneth Johnson, senior demographer at Carsey and professor of sociology, and Daniel Lichter, a policy fellow at Carsey. It was funded by the Carnegie Corporation and NH Agriculture Experiment Station in support of Hatch Multi-State Regional Project W-4001.
The Carsey School of Public Policy conducts research, leadership development, and engaged scholarship relevant to public policy. They address pressing challenges, striving for innovative, responsive, and equitable solutions at all levels of government and in the for-profit and nonprofit sectors.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190206115611.htm
Story Source:
Materials provided by University of New Hampshire. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.
Date:
February 6, 2019
Source:
University of New Hampshire
"Nearly 35 percent of rural counties in the United States are experiencing protracted and significant population loss, according to new research released by the Carsey School of Public Policy at the University of New Hampshire. Those counties are now home to 6.2 million residents, a third fewer than lived there in 1950.
In all, the researchers found that 746 counties representing 24 percent of all U.S. counties are depopulating and 91 percent of them are rural. In contrast, just nine percent of urban counties are depopulating.
"Population loss from outmigration is the most important factor in the initial stages of depopulation," the researchers said. "These depopulating rural counties had an average migration loss of 43 percent of their 20-to-24-year-olds in each decade from 1950 to 2010, and that chronic young adult outmigration means there were far fewer women of child-bearing age and, as a result, many fewer births. In addition, 60 percent of these counties had more deaths than births. This combination of young adult outmigration, fewer births and more deaths produced a downward spiral of population loss that will be difficult to break."
Not all rural counties are depopulating. More than 35 percent of rural counties have experienced sustained growth for decades. Most growing counties are near metropolitan areas or centers for retirement and recreation. Yet, the researchers also found that even among the rural counties that were at their population peak in 2010, just 56 percent gained population between 2010 and 2016. "That nearly half of the counties with long histories of population gain are now losing population underscores the demographic and economic headwinds that non-metropolitan America faces."
"This study provides a demographic window to the future and a sober forecast of continuing rural population decline in many economically depressed regions," the researchers said. "Future rural population growth and decline clearly are deeply rooted in evolving patterns of migration, fertility and mortality. It is past time to refocus our attention on the rural people and places left behind."
The full report can be found here: https://carsey.unh.edu/publication/rural-depopulation. The research was conducted by Kenneth Johnson, senior demographer at Carsey and professor of sociology, and Daniel Lichter, a policy fellow at Carsey. It was funded by the Carnegie Corporation and NH Agriculture Experiment Station in support of Hatch Multi-State Regional Project W-4001.
The Carsey School of Public Policy conducts research, leadership development, and engaged scholarship relevant to public policy. They address pressing challenges, striving for innovative, responsive, and equitable solutions at all levels of government and in the for-profit and nonprofit sectors.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190206115611.htm
Story Source:
Materials provided by University of New Hampshire. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.
Last edited:
Right? I remember having the pump at the local gas station shutting off at $100 because it was set that way to prevent a huge gas overflow if the nozzle malfunctioned. I had to use another card to finish filling because the system would think it was a trying to charge my card twice. Ah... Good times .
nighttrain
Legend
The issue with driver-less cars, they are inevitable, as tech advances it will be the simplest and cheapest solution, read some Isaac Asimov
People keep bringing up things like smart phones as if that kind of technology is an example. Phones don't kill you if they fuck up .
Remember those Samsung phone fires?
Anyway - yes, glitches in self driving cars will lead to fatalities. However, the number of fatalities will likely be far lower than human drivers cause. And unlike humans, the algorithms will be continuously improved.
bluecoconuts
Legend
All the different things that driverless cars will impact is really interesting if you think about it. This is a good example of how we're developing super advanced AI capable of using morality and logic to determine how it operates, regardless of what the owner says. Which is a weird thing, to be in a car that's designed to kill you if it determines that's best for the collective.
Of course the odds that any of us are in a situation like that where the car would need to make that "decision" are punishingly low, but that type of technology ripples out to other things, more advanced robotics and artificial intelligence.
I'm also really interested in seeing how driverless cars are going to impact other industries. Obviously car insurance will have to be completely overhauled once enough driverless cars are on the road as traffic collisions will plummet, but that's also going to do things like essentially kill the auto body shop industry, as there would be less need for body repairs, and more need for regular maintenance.
Then getting into the health and life insurance aspects of it, less crashes on the road mean less injuries and deaths, which impact those industries heavily. Emergency services would get to commit far fewer resources to road side crashes and injuries, which would free them up for other emergencies. However, it would also reduce the amount of things such as running read lights and speeding, which basically eliminates the need for traffic enforcement by police departments, which save tons of resources as well, but also reduces local government revenue (although, I'd say that's a good thing given that the money, should, remain with the people then).
I'm excited for driverless cars, personally. They're a real big rock though, so the ripples it make will be far reaching, it'll totally change how the economy operates.
And frankly I'm not sure those who are in charge have any idea how to deal with it, which means it's going to be far bumpier than it needs to be. At some point we need to give a technology proficiency exam to our government officials and remove them if they fail, because these idiots are still struggling with Google and private businesses and (more worryingly) other countries are running circles around us laughing. Gotta start prepping the economy for the inevitable changes that are coming while it's still a good ways down the road, because it's coming regardless of if we prepare for it or not.
- Status