4 ms·

"As a person within the industry" has there been any talk about the paths driverless will take? New roadways? Attendant-less roadways? Change in existing de

"As a person within the industry" has there been any talk about the paths driverless will take? New roadways? Attendant-less roadways? Change in existing designation of highways? How to accomodate 10-20 people (vehicles won't look like they do now)? I envision future photos-videos of driver and driver less "vehicles" at a busy intersection just like horses and early cars.

nkoren 10y ago
These are the right questions to be asking! Yes, there has been some talk -- but not remotely enough. At present, the vast majority of work in the vehicle-automation space is being done by, well, vehicle people. The assumption is that driverless vehicles will slot into the existing infrastructure with minimal modification. There's a fair amount of consideration being given to vehicle-to-infrastructure communications (so that vehicles can notify traffic signals that they are approaching, for example), but relatively little consideration being given to how the roadways will actually _physically_ evolve. Personally, I expect that this evolution will be roughly as significant as what was catalysed by the horseless carriage.
- losteverything 10y ago
  Ty. Love to follow this as it progresses Government has to get involved. Sometime and somewhere. Public safety is one aspect I suggested to one town councilman that our town introduces a bill (ordinance) banning driver less vehicles. Just like we can ban oversized vehicles and parking in the winter. Our government should ban then now while it is not yet happening. He thought it would be a good idea not to ban them but to capture a licensing fee. Hopefully this will get introduced at the next meeting
  - tunap 10y ago
    Not supposed to down/up vote to show dis/agreement, but since it is already in play have a vote for tempering new-tech zeal with real world pragmatism. PS: I don't necessarily agree w/ bans or taxes, just don't like the up/down culture of 'popularity'. The sooner the texters & PMGo players are relegated to child seats, the better for all drivers/passengers/riders, IMO.
- falafel_muncher 10y ago
  Take the Las Vegas Strip for example. They have a lot of pedestrian bridges for people to avoid crossing streets. Granted, this also works to funnel folks into casinos. However, it would be difficult for a pedestrian to get into the street at some intersections because of fences and barricades. I have to think that most cities will evolve similarly when self-driving cars become commonplace
- fixermark 10y ago
  One big challenge there is that infrastructure is expensive; replacing it moreso. To use an analogy, it's a lot cheaper to replace trains in a rail fleet than to replace track (the per-unit cost might be lower, but the logistical cost of downing a track network to switch it out can be significant, especially in last-mile areas or bottlenecks). Horseless carriages drive on roads that were minimally modified from what the horses used (in some parts of Pittsburgh, for example, they never swapped out the Belgian block).
- mikeash 10y ago
  Is that an assumption, or a requirement? It seems to me that autonomous vehicles are based on fitting into the existing infrastructure because that's what they'll have to actually deal with. Any technology which requires new infrastructure hits a chicken and egg problem, since nobody will want to spend on infrastructure without any cars to use it, and nobody will want to buy cars that use it if the infrastructure isn't there. Seems like it would basically be a two-step process. First, you need autonomous vehicles which work on roads as we have them now. Once they're common, they can start adding features which can take advantage of more sophisticated infrastructure when it comes. Sort of like how early cars had to work on paths built for horse carriages, but once they were common we could start building things like freeways.

nkoren 10y ago

These are the right questions to be asking! Yes, there has been some talk -- but not remotely enough. At present, the vast majority of work in the vehicle-automation space is being done by, well, vehicle people. The assumption is that driverless vehicles will slot into the existing infrastructure with minimal modification. There's a fair amount of consideration being given to vehicle-to-infrastructure communications (so that vehicles can notify traffic signals that they are approaching, for example), but relatively little consideration being given to how the roadways will actually _physically_ evolve. Personally, I expect that this evolution will be roughly as significant as what was catalysed by the horseless carriage.

losteverything 10y ago
Ty. Love to follow this as it progresses Government has to get involved. Sometime and somewhere. Public safety is one aspect I suggested to one town councilman that our town introduces a bill (ordinance) banning driver less vehicles. Just like we can ban oversized vehicles and parking in the winter. Our government should ban then now while it is not yet happening. He thought it would be a good idea not to ban them but to capture a licensing fee. Hopefully this will get introduced at the next meeting
- tunap 10y ago
  Not supposed to down/up vote to show dis/agreement, but since it is already in play have a vote for tempering new-tech zeal with real world pragmatism. PS: I don't necessarily agree w/ bans or taxes, just don't like the up/down culture of 'popularity'. The sooner the texters & PMGo players are relegated to child seats, the better for all drivers/passengers/riders, IMO.
falafel_muncher 10y ago
Take the Las Vegas Strip for example. They have a lot of pedestrian bridges for people to avoid crossing streets. Granted, this also works to funnel folks into casinos. However, it would be difficult for a pedestrian to get into the street at some intersections because of fences and barricades. I have to think that most cities will evolve similarly when self-driving cars become commonplace
fixermark 10y ago
One big challenge there is that infrastructure is expensive; replacing it moreso. To use an analogy, it's a lot cheaper to replace trains in a rail fleet than to replace track (the per-unit cost might be lower, but the logistical cost of downing a track network to switch it out can be significant, especially in last-mile areas or bottlenecks). Horseless carriages drive on roads that were minimally modified from what the horses used (in some parts of Pittsburgh, for example, they never swapped out the Belgian block).
mikeash 10y ago
Is that an assumption, or a requirement? It seems to me that autonomous vehicles are based on fitting into the existing infrastructure because that's what they'll have to actually deal with. Any technology which requires new infrastructure hits a chicken and egg problem, since nobody will want to spend on infrastructure without any cars to use it, and nobody will want to buy cars that use it if the infrastructure isn't there. Seems like it would basically be a two-step process. First, you need autonomous vehicles which work on roads as we have them now. Once they're common, they can start adding features which can take advantage of more sophisticated infrastructure when it comes. Sort of like how early cars had to work on paths built for horse carriages, but once they were common we could start building things like freeways.