Tesla is going to release an uber like service

Too late for that.

i just don't see legislation ever giving drivers the right to let a car operate autonomously on the open roads. we've had robust autopilot functionality in planes, trains, and ships for years now and with the exception of a few very tightly coordinated subway systems, not a single one operates without an operator present. and none of those operates at the volume and flexibility that the open roads do.

maybe to make it more tangible, if we agree that cars need to have override capabilities, then what's the protocol if a drunk person is riding the car home after a night out? who should get override privileges if a car is full of 11-year-olds? in neither case is anyone in the car reasonably trustworthy to override autopilot functionality, but certainly you don't think we're heading into a near future where self-driving cars will ignore everyone in the car, do you?

i hear a lot of self-driving car advocates talk feverishly about how they'll revolutionize car ownership, taxis, transportation, etc... but if the above issues prove insurmountable, then we'll always see a sober, focused operator in every car. that doesn't seem like a leapfrog for society the way advocates suggest.

Uber's value isn't threatened by Tesla. At least not until legislation allows car owners to send their cars off unsupervised to drive people around (which won't be for several years, at best). Uber's biggest threat is that their long game seems to be to ultimately replace all the human drivers with self-driving cars (presumably which they own), but that the same legislation that will ultimately allow that shift would also allow all of the individual car owners in the world to crowdsource their own cars to form the world's largest taxi fleet, all run as a worker cooperative or something.

>>57174467
yeah and we'll be going to Mars by June of 2017
Go shillpost on reddit Elon

>>57174467

http://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/10/dont-plan-on-using-an-autonomous-tesla-to-earn-money-with-uber-or-lyft/

>You can only my ridesharing platform to use the car I made even though you bought it fully

What kind of cuckoldry is this?

>>57175266
liability

>>57174467
Telsa is dead theres not enough lithium in the world for electric and compressed air is the new future

>>57175306

Bullshit, they just want their fleet available for their own ridesharing plaform

>>57174560
this

>>57174547
Legislation will be passed to let autonomous cars operate if they can prove to be 10x better than humans at safe, accident free driving. If Tesla lobbies a bit (they have Rick Perry's PR guy on their team), this won't be a hard sell to legislators.

>what's the protocol if a drunk person is riding the car home after a night out?
He would pass the fuck out most likely, if he decides to take over and drive drunk then it's the same problem we have today. Not quite sure what you're getting at tbqh

>if a car is full of 11-year-olds?
11 year olds don't ride in cars without an adult, and if in the future they did, then the car could just not let them operate it by way of facial recognition or something. Really trivial m8

Ubers value is *absolutely* threatened by tesla. See: "Please note also that using a self-driving Tesla for car sharing and ride hailing for friends and family is fine, but doing so for revenue purposes will only be permissible on the Tesla Network, details of which will be released next year."

Uber CEO has stated that he would buy every single Tesla if they are self driving and autonomous. So even he acknowledges their power, but now Tesla is walling in their self-driving capability.

>>57174478

yeah this. Uber itself is getting screwed between labor law violations in blue states (this has led to the creation of their driver's association, which is only one step away from getting collective bargaining rights) as well as heavy competition from Lyft. And then there are people like my mom who thinks taxis are for alcoholics and drives everywhere.

>>57174547
Lol when self driving cars become viable a ban on driving your own car will follow soon after. We live in a nanny state where the goverments want to ban McDonalds and encryption.

>>57175504

>Legislation will be passed to let autonomous cars operate if they can prove to be 10x better than humans at safe, accident free driving

Wrong, because the fact will remain that having both a human operator + auto drive will be safer even if it only reduces accidents even marginally. The NHTSA hates fun and will ensure that full auto vehicles never happen. For context, even fully operated trains (ATO) are defacto banned except inside completely isolated systems (no connection to the national rail network, no grade crossings, and safety doors at all stations). California (who has 60% of America's rail traffic through the Port of Los Angeles) even mandates two operators now for any train carrying "hazardous materials" (which, underneath the CA Prop 65 definition is everything that isn't food).

What are the reliability reports on Tesla vehicles though?

I would assume that due to minimal amount of moving parts and lack of a powertrain dependant on many auxiliary systems it could be better than regular ICE vehicles.

But then again, electric vehicles didn't have a chance to shine as something beyond "gimmicky shit for people suffering from money excess".

Any tesla owners on /g/?

File: 1326333665464.jpg (20KB, 422x347px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 422x347px

>>57175614
Bureaucracy is a bitch, saying full auto vehicles will never happen though is a bit of a stretch. Its just going to be a hard gap to close.

>>57175587
I actually see it the other way.

There will be one horrific accident involving a self-driving car and there will be bans on them.

They might wind up being statistically safer than human drivers but that won't matter because the concept is still alien to most people. They don't like the idea of a computer controlling their car (and more importantly, other cars on the road.)

I think it will take 1 horrific accident (just imagine the worst possible scenario that could happen.) That will have some lasting power in the news cycle and we will see serious discussion about banning them or limiting them. I might be wrong though.

>>57174547
>i hear a lot of self-driving car advocates talk feverishly about how they'll revolutionize car ownership, taxis, transportation, etc
They will, even if an operator is present. The guy supervising the car will be paid peanuts compared to what they make now.

>>57175652

When it comes to red tape the NHTSA wants to see the FRA allow it on railroads (which besides being a simpler environment, often have smaller margins). They want to see ships use it too.

However, going the final gap won't happen unless the industry pushes hard for it, and this really isn't the case as trucking is dominated by exploitable freelancers (especially after California began issuing CDLs to illegal immigrants) and RRs don't care to overhaul their entire network just to eliminate employees (especially when most employees ie conductors are already eliminated, with technology that can be used onboard trains without much infrastructure modernization. This is the subject of the "85/halloween agreement" fiasco).

It's going to remain an operator aide, we'll be lucky to see all Interstates allowing it by 2050.

>>57175685
>They will, even if an operator is present. The guy supervising the car will be paid peanuts compared to what they make now.
And economists expect people like that to simply "go back to school" to become competitive.

Seems to me the rate at which technology is able to displace workers is increasing but the ability for humans to re-tool is fairly constant. And that's where the problem originates. If you bring this up you are called a luddite and people start making (absurd) comparisons to horse drawn carriages and the model T, as if society is going to continue adapting to technological progress the same way as it did in 1900 for the rest of time.

I also lol when economists discuss the merits of globalism and free trade but they conveniently gloss over the fact that the third world countries making our shit are using slave wages and have zero workplace or environmental regulations. That's their comparative advantage. The employees are abused as fuck, China is full of teenagers who live inside the factories, the air is carcinogenic, the rice is plastic and the shrimp are pumped full of industrial waste. But it's supposed to be a good thing because they can make a TV for a fifth of the price we can.

>>57175912

As you mentioned, adapting is a nonissue as long as the supply of labor is capped. But due to a lack of immigration enforcement combined with free trade, it is not. Workers only have value if a company can't outsource or replace them.

>>57175652

you underestimate lobbying in US, they just have to get it legalized in one state. Once other states see that its raking in mad money they will follow suit

>>57175912
>(absurd) comparisons to horse drawn carriages and the model T
Those comparisons are meant to support what you're saying. When the automobile became popular the horse population plummeted. People started selling their horses to butchers and glue factories.

>>57175937

You don't know how things work. Cars cannot just be "legalized" for use in one state, because of the existence of federally funded (and managed) Interstates and Highways. It needs to come from the top down otherwise it's going to be a mess between municipal, County, State and Federal DOTs. Nobody is going to buy a vehicle they can only use in one state, and not on highways.

Additionally, simply making all Interstates compatible with self-driving cars is easier than trying to do it from the bottom up. But this also requires a fuckload of money for modernization, and Congress isn't keen on providing it when conservatives want toll roads while liberals want mass transit.

>>57176016

Additionally, a similar issue is why railroads don't electrify: there's no federal standard. There's no federal standard for computerized RR signalling either. It's just kind of a mess which slows implementation. In the 1950s cars became dominant precisely because the feds made standards for roadways and forced all 50 states to implement them (same is true in the 1850s for railroads).

>>57175973
>Those comparisons are meant to support what you're saying.
Well, I've heard that comparison used both ways... instead of focusing on the horse, focus on the guy operating the horse carriage, he just started driving a taxi instead. (Successfully adapted.)

People say when the main employment sector shifted from agriculture to manufacturing (because of the tractor and so forth) society did just fine. And so displacement caused by automation of manufacturing will be (or is being) handled the same way. People will go to school, re-tool for work in the "information economy."

Completely ignoring demand, I really think there are far more people "suitable" for employment in manufacturing than there are in services requiring bachelors/doctoral degrees EVEN IF that education is made available. Just sending everyone to higher education is not going to change that. (I don't think this is conjecture in any way, I think it is perfectly evident right now.) In other words the human capacity to re-tool is often being assumed infinite when it is really not.

>>57176016
>It needs to come from the top down otherwise it's going to be a mess between municipal, County, State and Federal DOTs. Nobody is going to buy a vehicle they can only use in one state, and not on highways.

It would not be legal to drive it in any state with a driver behind it, it would be illegal to not let it drive without a human driver behind the wheel

This is how Uber is able to test its autonomous driving software in Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh would likely end up as a major autonomous driving industry hub and would kickstart the legislation to allow autonomous cars without a driver necessary

I am sure they will try to come up with some safety guideline before they legalize it but it will definitely happen in a decade.

>>57176169

>This is how Uber is able to test its autonomous driving software in Pittsburgh

yes, because everything is handled by one DOT. Lyft is doing the same in Detroit. But their ability to do this ends at the city line which is an issue as people live outside of it. Again, it has to come from the top down.

>Pittsburgh would likely end up as a major autonomous driving industry hub

How is the "autonomous driving industry" any different from the auto industry at large? This is the same industry that has been completely ruined by falling new car sales and is relying on the recent wave of subprime auto loans to stay afloat. That's the larger problem here, even assuming the feds are completely on board there is no real drive (eh?) to modernize roadways in favor of autonomous cars because Congress is unwilling to continue propping up the auto industry.

>I am sure they will try to come up with some safety guideline before they legalize it but it will definitely happen in a decade.

A "safety guideline" is not the same as Policy, especially as it pertains to engineering requirements for freeways (ie lane sizes, curve radii, ramp gradient etc), making it work with existing signalling systems (both RR crossing systems and traffic lights), and adjusting LoS (Level-of-Service) metrics. This all requires money and a strong push from Congress.

>>57174467
What does this have to do with /g/?

>>57175685
the problem is that the cat is out of the bag on the contractor loophole, and if a "car operator" only gets paid peanuts but still has to be as attentive as a proper driver (or face citations from cops), then they'll demand similar compensation. it's not like these operators can work on their computers and be productive while they're ferrying people around.

>>57175504
your post in particular is really ill-thought out, so this is going to take a bit of disentangling...

>Legislation will be passed to let autonomous cars operate if they can prove to be 10x better than humans at safe, accident free driving.
i don't dispute that self-driving cars will be allowed to operate. what i'm questioning is whether cars will be allowed to drive unsupervised. we've seen, demonstrably, that autonomous subways, trains, etc... are dramatically safer than those run by conductors, and yet the overwhelming majority of systems around the world still demand to have a human at the helm. it may be irrational, but that's the point - that we will irrationally cling to the feeling that a human *must* be at the wheel or something bad might happen.

>He would pass the fuck out most likely
you seem not to understand the chasm of difference between sober and passed-out drunk. there's everything from tipsy to hammered to blackout drunk, none of which involves the person being unconscious but certainly capable of attempting to drive.

>11 year olds don't ride in cars without an adult
first: there are a number of startups that explicitly cater to this market, and there are some stories of rich parents in NYC sending their kids to school and stuff via Uber. Uber has policies against it, but the driver doesn't care - the money is good.

second: why wouldn't they do it if a self-driving car is available? it's a means of getting to school or home without the parents having to come back from work or leave home.

i'm running up on my character limit. think more deliberately before you post.

>>57176361
>A "safety guideline" is not the same as Policy

It will be when they successfully lobby for it

>>57175587
>We live in a nanny state where the goverments want to ban McDonalds and encryption.
we live in a country where not a single state has the political will to revoke the licenses of old people even after a geriatric has mowed down a bunch of people accidentally.

the notion that we live in a nanny state sounds like whiny bitching over a few personally relevant issues, rather than a determined objective evaluation.

>>57176547
also since evidence is king, some sources on the 11 year old stuff:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/14/business/smallbusiness/ride-sharing-start-ups-compete-in-uber-for-children-niche.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/parents-using-uber-to-shuttle-kids-home-2015-3

these aren't especially new. Uber has given parents the ability to have delegated accounts:
https://newsroom.uber.com/family-profiles/

>>57176573

What exactly do you mean by that? This is not how the NHTSA operates.

At the most fundamental level, everyone agrees that autocars will require some new investment in road infrastructure, and a modernization of US road policy. A "safety guideline" is not that.

>>57176547
>1
It does not matter how drunk someone is, they wont be driving the damn car...

>2

What the fuck does this have to do with allowing self driving cars? 11 year olds exist so this technology cant work? fucking logic do you speak it?