What happens when the computer that drives the car crashes?
I wrote, "Automobiles pass through intersections at 90 degree angles at 70 mph"Doug responds, "This seems unlikely. How many G's would a body have to pull?"
No, what I was saying was car #1 passes through the intersection from north to south at 70 mph, and car #2 passes through the intersection from east to west at 70 mph, and they pass within a few feet of one another.
What happens when the computer that drives the car crashes?The backup computer takes over. Seriously...this year, approximately 40,000 people will be killed in automobile accidents. When computers are driven all cars, trucks, and buses, that number will probably be cut by something like 90 to 99+ percent. But to expect or demand that absolutely zero people be killed in accidents by computer-driven vehicles is just silly. We accept that 40,000 people are killed every year in vehicles driven by humans.
[quote=Dogs_In_A_Pile]What happens when the computer that drives the car crashes?
[/quote]
You receive unsolicited comments by some smug twit saying that you should be driving a Mac?
- Nickbert
The idea is interesting. Here are a few issues that would have to be addressed:
- Yes, the cars may be safer, but perception of safety (and control) might be more important than actual safety. Will people willingly relinquish control of their vehicle?
- How will the transition happen? Many of the advantages of computer driven cars (especially high speed, large traffic volumes in a single lane) will not be possible until all cars are computer driven.
- What if "big brother" doesn't like you? The government simply sends a signal to lock your doors and has you driven to the interrogation center. This might not sit so well with some and could slow the acceptance of the technology.
- Fuel efficiency drops off sharply with increased speed since the energy required to overcome aerodynamic drag per mile driven increases linearly with speed. This could perhaps be overcome by making a car with very low drag or greatly reducing it's frontal area, but I'm not convinced this is easily done. So fuel efficiency at 100 mph for cars or buses might not be so high.
- What about the investment required to turn over the fleet (especially if fuel shortages require electric or natural gas cars)? Perhaps this is doable in 30 years, but what happens until then?
Yes, the cars may be safer, but perception of safety (and control) might be more important than actual safety. Will people willingly relinquish control of their vehicle?The first adopters will probably be the disabled (e.g., the blind). Well-to-do parents who have the sense to know that their children shouldn't be driving under the age of 20 will probably buy first cars for their children that are computer-driven. After computer-driven cars are shown to be much safer, I can see laws being passed that would require those who have one or more DUI citations to only be in computer-driven cars. Keep in mind that it's like people won't own computer-driven cars, but will instead rent them by the mile, like a taxi (but much less expensive, because there's no pay for the taxi driver).
How will the transition happen? Many of the advantages of computer driven cars (especially high speed, large traffic volumes in a single lane) will not be possible until all cars are computer driven.Maybe the full advantages wouldn't exist. But consider a lightly-traveled 4-lane divided highway. The computer-driven cars (and buses/trucks) should realistically not have any speed limit, when they're not near anyone. So they might go 80-90 mph until they came up on a human-driven car. They'd pass at a speed maybe just over the speed limit, then accelerate back up to 80-90 mph. Another possibility would be lanes dedicated to computer-driven vehicles.
What if "big brother" doesn't like you? The government simply sends a signal to lock your doors and has you driven to the interrogation center. This might not sit so well with some and could slow the acceptance of the technologyIt's tough to tell whether people are kidding on the internet, so I'll assume you aren't. The first time a person is driven to "the interrogation center" a whole lot of police, mayors, governors, Congresspersons, and potentially even Presidents are going to lose their jobs. Unless you're talking about Ayman Al-Zawahiri.
Fuel efficiency drops off sharply with increased speed since the energy required to overcome aerodynamic drag per mile driven increases linearly with speed. This could perhaps be overcome by making a car with very low drag or greatly reducing it's frontal area, but I'm not convinced this is easily done. So fuel efficiency at 100 mph for cars or buses might not be so high.Actually, aerodynamic drag increases as the square of the velocity, assuming a given drag coefficient. But the drag coefficient can be dramatically changed if there is no danger of an accident. For example, a bus or a 18-wheeler could be modified to have a huge sloping front end, so that it's almost shaped like a rocket. Also, when vehicles "draft" on one another, the drag goes way down. Finally, if computer-driven cars are called to pick up customers, they can arrange things so that very few trips are taken with a single customer, unless those customers are willing to shell out the big bucks. For example, suppose I want to go from Durham NC to Charlotte NC. That's 141 miles. The computer-driven car system might see there are 6 other people who want to go from Durham to Charlotte at about the same time. So the car system might ask me if I want to go by myself, in which case it would be 25 cents per mile, or do I want to go with the other five people, in which case it might only be 10 cents a mile. Then individual cars might bring the 6 of us together to one point in Durham, and we'd go the 141 miles to Charlotte in a mini-van or small bus.
Also, you need to keep in mind that not all driving is highway driving. For example, my drive to and from work each day doesn't use the highway. For me, it's only 5 miles. But it takes me about 20 minutes, door-to-door because I have…7 stopping places. The beauty of a computer-driven automobile system would be that it would never have to stop. It might slow down to time things, but it wouldn't have to stop. Another thing is that the car I'd be riding in would almost certainly be electric, and almost certainly be much smaller than my four-door car (which I only got because I wanted a fold-down rear seat to be able to haul stuff from the home improvement store).
What about the investment required to turn over the fleet (especially if fuel shortages require electric or natural gas cars)? Perhaps this is doable in 30 years, but what happens until then?Well, hopefully, California won't build a high-speed rail system--especially not if the 49 other states have to pay for them to do it--because the rail system will be obsolete almost as soon as it got built.
We have huge budgets (billions) for wars, bank bailouts (trillions), oil company subsidies, transportation, etc. 128 billion dollars will be spent by the department of transportation, mostly on roads and bridges. No one ever asks if that turns a profit, but spend a penny on rail and everybody is up in arms. Where's the profit!
We are broke because we can't afford the empire and a parasitical financial system. And on top of that all of our jobs have been outsourced so there is no "consumer" (how I hate that word) income to drive the economy. Take even a nibble at those three huge issues and there will be funds a plenty to upgrade our third world infrastructure to something we need not be embarrassed about. Lets do that before we start to fantasize about computer driven cars.
I read something a long time ago by David Halberstram that has stuck with me for a long time. Paraphrasing, "America is not as much about freedom as it is about privacy". Gated communities, private estates, accumulation and preservation of personal wealth. Don't abandoned one another, our country, our collective civil projects and communities in fear of the coming hardships. Lets prove Halberstram wrong. A house divided against itself will not stand.
This is particularly difficult because there is such endemic corruption both in our political and "free market" systems, but we must try. It is a cause worth fighting for. As they tell you every time you fly in an airplane, when the cabin looses put your own mask on first before helping others. Certainly, lets get our own houses in order, but lets reach out to one another as well. I would much rather die standing up with my boots on fighting for something I believe in, then "survive" hunkered down somewhere. Lets get this thing done! Lets get on the train!
It's so simple really, and it is this: We must get off the internal combustion engine and 20 years ago.
Build trains and they will come, their not going to walk if given a choice.
Is horse shit a good fertilizer still?
Manual labor for the brainless will be in vogue again. Thank goodness. Will work for food.
Imagine, using food for food again and not fuel. Crazy concept I know.
Regards
BOB
treebeard wrote:
"We are broke because we can't afford the empire and a parasitical financial system. And on top of that all of our jobs have been outsourced so there is no "consumer".
Just wait until the robotics really take over, and they fix themselves now!
If China ever re-balances that would be a good thing for Demand (as per Pettis and I agree). Then again, OIL! Yikes!
The middle class has been asked to bail out banks, spread across everyone, take lower wages, on top of a full debt load, and a home that is worth 40% less, and lose 3 to 6% in inflation, and are working less with more out of pocket costs for so many things, like medical for instance. Plus, can expect that every 3 years or so will enter into yet another Recession because Oil has gone over the $100 dollar a barrel threshold, and Oil depletion will just make Recession a permanent part of our every day reality.
The next generation of labor is thousands in debt from school loans that educated them where that education will not transfer into the real economy and will need further training/education costing them even more. They live in Mom's and Pops basement, have no work ethic because they have never been required to work as their parents each worked and coddled the kids because of guilt for not being there when the child needed their guidance.
Considering all of this it isn't a stretch to think things will not be the same for the next 20 years as the last 20 years.
Corruption in our government has always been, and that is just the truth. Hard times too but someone always appeared to change our direction, and hopefully that person jumps out here, and sooner rather than later.
We really need to have a grown up conversation Folks, pronto.
Chris, why haven't the intellectuals such as yourself been more convincing to a very small group of Men and Woman in Congress? Surely these 435 or so people understands the issues and what it means. So really, do they truly not understand what this will mean? Are they honestly willing to see the destruction of our society as this is truly well underway? Unless of course we have no energy issues, and that natural gas is so plentiful, and a commercialized, scalable battery storage system is just around the block.
BOB
Was driving through Northern Arizona yesterday, east of Flagstaff along I-40…the train tracks ran along the highway. Was amazed at the amount of freight being carried on the tracks, in both directions. BNSF is the operator. I think Buffett bought a stake in them - will have to research when I get home. But he's got the right idea.
128 billion dollars will be spent by the department of transportation, mostly on roads and bridges. No one ever asks if that turns a profit, but spend a penny on rail and everybody is up in arms.The solution isn't also to waste federal money on rail. The solution is to eliminate that wasted 128 billion dollars on roads and bridges. The federal government should not be spending money on roads and bridges...or rail. The states should spend money on transportation within their states.
Take even a nibble at those three huge issues and there will be funds a plenty...Yeah, right. How about this...when the federal government gets within $100 billion a year of balancing the budget, then they can waste money on rail.
Lets do that before we start to fantasize about computer driven cars.Computer-driven cars aren't a fantasy. The majority of cars will be computer-driven. It's a question of when, not if. And computer-driven cars don't require a dime of federal government spending.
Lets get this thing done! Lets get on the train!If you want to ride on trains, go ahead. Pay the ridiculous amounts for the poor service. But you have no right to command others, including those not yet born, to spend money on something that will be a white elephant in several decades.
The solution isn't also to waste federal money on rail. The solution is to eliminate that wasted 128 billion dollars on roads and bridges. The federal government should not be spending money on roads and bridges...or rail. The states should spend money on transportation within their states.By all means let the states pay for the roads, but wait the stares are all broke. Better yet, lets privatize the roads and put tolls up, so those using the roads can pay for them. But wait America is broke, maybe we can find some Chinese buyers with cash to put up the funds. Big city, corruption, little city little corruption. Either way the roads cost the same. The car is still from an energy point of view the most inefficient way to move people regardless of how you fund the project.
Yeah, right. How about this...when the federal government gets within $100 billion a year of balancing the budget, thenthey can waste money on rail.I agree, lets get a balanced budget first, even if it is as much a fanatasy as computer driven cars.
Computer-driven cars aren't a fantasy. The majority of cars will be computer-driven. It's a question of when, not if. And computer-driven cars don't require a dime of federal government spending.I guess I just don't get it, why would I want a computer driving the car I'm sitting in. I am all for the shared use of automobiles, computers for scheduling and organizing the their availability, that makes a lot of sense. We can activate the vast number of unused hours that the typical automobile sits around. It would make a great compliment to a rail system for short local trips. Computer directed operation seems to add a level of complexity to a system that would make it radically less resilient. In a lower energy future, in my mind, resiliency is key.
If you want to ride on trains, go ahead. Pay the ridiculous amounts for the poor service. But you have no right to command others, including those not yet born, to spend money on something that will be a white elephant in several decades.In first world civilized societies efficient, clean, timely trains are the norm. In a very wealth third world country like our own USA, the ability to acheive this seems to escaped us. I actually do believe in the basic principals of Democracy, the Greeks were pretty smart in coming up with this system, seems to be something we spend a lot of time bragging about. It not about me forcing my opinion on you. Its about debates in public forms like this where ideas are discussed and challenged. Ultimately its is about the wishes of the majority, not any individual.
treebeard said:
"By all means let the states pay for the roads, but wait the states are all broke. Better yet, lets privatize the roads and put tolls up, so those using the roads can pay for them. But wait America is broke, maybe we can find some Chinese buyers with cash to put up the funds. Big city, corruption, little city little corruption. Either way the roads cost the same. The car is still from an energy point of view the most inefficient way to move people regardless of how you fund the project."
A voice of reason, thank you.
250 milliom internal combustion engines need to be taken off the road. That will take over 20 years and the world oil depletion rate per field is 6% every year. If you haven't done the math then depletion alone will make Oil a 1 to 1 ratio in the not to distant future. This means that energy in will equal energy out. That my Dear Folks is catostrophic and WILL happen in our lifetime. Gauranteed. 100 is 94 is 89.4 is 84 is 79 so forth and so on.
Note: These numbers were top of the head but you should get the picture. They also don't factor for the times we put into storage the excess oil in the market when things are slow. Meaning, when Demand is less than depletion.
So, if this is the case, and it is, then you can have all the cash you want but you will have a pre-Oil industrialized society. It is better to own stuff than paper that's for damn sure. So simple really.
Now, might makes right so whether you get to keep your stuff is dependent on "What are you willing to do". Anyways, this is NOT a great situation for anyone frankly.
Respectfully Given
BOB
Better yet, lets privatize the roads and put tolls up, so those using the roads can pay for them. But wait America is broke,I'm not broke. Are you broke? (I'm sorry if you are.) Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Mark Zuckerberg and all the U.S. citizens on the Forbes 400 Richest People aren't broke. You dismiss the idea of privatizing roads with the incorrect statement that "America is broke." There are some people in America who are broke, but not everyone is. We should privatize the roads, so those using the roads can pay for them.
The car is still from an energy point of view the most inefficient way to move people regardless of how you fund the project.Even if I accepted your debatable statement that "the car is still from an energy point of view the most inefficient way to move people," so what? Suppose bikes or horses are more energy efficient than cars. Should we go back to bikes and horses? And suppose it would be more energy efficient to have every mile traveled in the U.S. on rails (light rail or interstate rails)...are you saying that all the roads should be removed and replace with rails? Or rails put into the roads? If so, who are you expecting to pay for that? We already have roads. We don't already have rails everywhere.
I agree, lets get a balanced budget first, even if it is as much a fanatasy as computer driven cars.Would you like to bet on which is more of a fantasy? I say that 10% of the new cars produced in the U.S. will be computer driven before a federal budget is balanced.
I guess I just don't get it, why would I want a computer driving the car I'm sitting in. I am all for the shared use of automobiles, computers for scheduling and organizing the their availability, that makes a lot of sense. We can activate the vast number of unused hours that the typical automobile sits around. It would make a great compliment to a rail system for short local trips.You answered your own question, mostly. Let me add some personal stuff so maybe you can see how it would work for you. I drive a Toyota Camry. I got it in part because it has a fold-down rear seat, so I can haul stuff, like stuff from home improvement stores. I drive very little (about 5000 miles per year). Mostly, I drive to and from work, which is ~10 miles round-trip. I get about 22 mpg (mainly because I've got about 7-8 stops on the way to work...at stop signs or lights). So...I use about 225 gallons per year of gasoline...about $870 at $3.80 per gallon. My insurance is about $700 a year, I think. So that's $1570 per year for gasoline plus insurance. At 5000 miles per year, that's 31 cents a mile just for gasoline and insurance. If all cars were computer-driven, let's say the annual damage due to accidents would go down by 90 percent. That should mean that car insurance costs would also go down by 90 percent. So my insurance should go down from $700 per year to $70 per year. Gas-wise, if cars were computer-driven, I could order up a Smart Car to get me to work...maybe even an electric Smart Car: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymake/smart2013.shtml That would cut my $870 per year by several hundred dollars per year. Even better, a computer-driven car would know whether there was anybody near me going near the same places I was going at nearly the same time. If I was with one other rider, we would cut our costs per mile nearly in half. If I was with two other riders, our costs per mile would be about one-third of what they'd be driving alone. Another thing...I use airport remote lot parking approximately 3 weeks per year. It costs $6 per day, or $42 per week. Unfortunately, a taxi costs about the same amount ($42 for a round trip). But a computer-driven car would probably cost half that, or less. So that's another $60 or more saved per year.
Computer directed operation seems to add a level of complexity to a system that would make it radically less resilient.No, computer-directed operation makes the system radically more resilient. Think of what it would have been like in NYC with computer-driven cars. There was mandatory car-pooling. But if computers knew where everyone was going, and at what time, the whole thing could have been done with minivans carrying 6+ people, or even small buses containing 20+ people. Plus, the intersections wouldn't have had the big traffic jams due to the lights being out. Even with police directing traffic, the movement is very inefficient, compared to a computer-driven car. With a computer-driven car, the cars can go past each other at 90 degree angles at high speed, because the computers are better drivers. In fact, the power companies sent crews from Iowa and even farther to restore power to NYC. If there were computer-driven buses, the same thing could have been done, so that essentially all the traffic in NYC would have been buses. (That would mean that many cities would have a few less buses than normal...but they would be made up by computer-driven minivans, or more ride-sharing in cars.)
I actually do believe in the basic principals of Democracy,Democracy = Two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
It not about me forcing my opinion on you.Yes it is. Y'all (you, and RJE, and phfresno) only want trains if y'all can force me and millions of others to help you pay for them.
I don't know what form of government you are advocating, I'd be curious to hear the details. Membership in any group has it's costs and benefits, whether it be a family, church, community or country. I may not have been it the mood to walk my son all night because he had ear aches after working all day, but I did night after night. I may not love my father in law, be he is family and in need of care and can't live own his own, so he is living with us. If I didn't pay for my kids college education I probably could have traveled to europe a few times and retired by now, but I didn't because I didn't want them to start off life with a mountain of debt.
I don't consider myself exceptional, most fathers out there do as much and more for their families, and like me feel it is a great privilege to be in a position to give as much as we do. I don't have the freedom to do whatever I want to do whenever I want to, but that's OK because I get so much more than I give up. Membership in any community or country is much the same. In a majority rule situation you don't get to have your own way all the time, but the benefits outweigh the sacrifice because a large community of people can achieve so much more than a collection of “free” individuals. Freedom without responsibility has no meaning. Freedom by itself turns into the self indulgent narcissistic black hole.
The great law of the Iroquois Nations is “In every deliberation, we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations”. What would such a creed do to our personal “freedoms”, nothing, it would probably restrain them, but it may create a world worth living in. Looking around at the world today at the environmental destruction, war, cruelty, violence, and human misery, I don't get the feeling that we have not had enough freedom, but instead I see a species with a complete in ability to take responsibility for itself and the consequences of its own actions. So in a long winded way, I don't feel that Freedom is better than Democracy, not that we have one in the USA, but it is certainly something worth working for.
Wealth of a few individuals is not really the point, we as Americans are collectively broke (personally I am not, I have NO debt, none). Warren Buffet may be able to purchase a few highways, but who will be able to pay the tolls? We have come to the point where we have the wealth distribution of a third world country, we are now keeping company with Cameroon, Madagascar, Rwanda and Uganda in that regard. Is that because most americans have become lazy and suddenly lack the entrepreneurial spirit? No, because in the name of freedom we have allowed those with wealth to leverage there positions power to stack the deck against the majority of the population. There is no longer the rule of law for the “market makers”. No law, more freedom and a better society, right?
I don't think that there is any debate regarding the efficiency of various modes of transportation. See the chart below:
List of Transportation Modes By Person-Miles Per Gallon (PMPG)
| Transport | Average PMPG | Max PMPG |
| Bicycle [3] | 984 | 984 |
| Walking [1] | 700 | 700 |
| Freight Ship [10] | 340 | 570 |
| Running [2] | 315 | 315 |
| Freight Train [7] | 190.5 | 190.5 |
| Plugin Hybrid [5] | 110.6 | 350 |
| Motorcycle [4] | 71.8 | 113 |
| Passenger Train [7] | 71.6 | 189.7 |
| Airplane [9] | 42.6 | 53.6 |
| Bus [8] | 38.3 | 330 |
| Car [4] | 35.7 | 113 |
| 18-Wheeler (Truck) [5] | 32.2 | 64.4 |
| Light Truck, SUV, Minivan [4] | 31.4 | 91 |
If we don't start looking at the most efficient means of moving people around we may wind up all riding horses because the limited fuel supplies that we have left may be to expensive to burn in our transportation system, not to even mention the impacts of global warming.
Mark, first I didn't comment much on the trains other than to say what a nice story Gregor told in his part of the country. It was a feel good story because I think Sandy was part of our news.
I think tolls should be part of the freeway system. You drive you pay. I also believe that you pay an extra tax at the pump based on how many miles you get to a gallon. I also believe they should raise gasoline prices now to $5-$6 bucks and start some of these mass transit, low energy transportations.
I think we need to get started now, and plan an adjoining electrical smart grid too and follow the rails. Coast to coast, city to city.
I also think we plan for a commercialized battery storage system not yet in production. We must have this or we are surely toast.
YES, I want trains because I want to travel. Travel by air may not be here and I hate flying, and suspect the Baby Boomer class to hate it too as we age.
The Freeway system cannot be a part of the future, and to think that it will be is at best an arguement for arguements sake.
We have a need, mass transit, coast to coast travel, commerce, and city to city needs for moving people. We also have a jobs needs for transpotation build and rebuild, electrical infrastructure, oil and gas infrastructure, and many municiple water systems. So we have to get it done. Use the interstates for trains and leave a lane for the car travel. Just a thought and I have no clue about road anything and how it would be planned.
Have you done the depletion rate math on world oil supply? I think you might favor a train ride yourself even if you have a car but then again I wouldn't know that. I guess it would depend on how much cash you like to burn.
Regards
BOB
Sometimes I wonder if in the future we will end up chugging down the interstate on bicycles wishing we had an easier transportation that we could afford. We could set up food kiosks and camping grounds at overpasses for the folks that have to go a long way. It would be better to travel in a caravan though, just for safety's sake. Those rich folks with cars will just have to dodge the potholes. I suppose that computer car could do that, but wouldn't it be aggravating to be slowed down by horses and bikes?
Yes it is. Y'all (you, and RJE, and phfresno) only want trains if y'all can force me and millions of others to help you pay for them.I want trains because they are one of the most sustainable forms of transportation there is. Taxes get spent about 10 times more on roads than trains. Let's not act like those who favor more taxes to go towards trains are forcing ANYTHING on ANYBODY.
In the short term, rather than learning as you are hungry to learn how to feed your body for life. You probably already have a short-term, rapid weight loss, more than anyone else I know how to eat for the results. Delivered health food