8 ms·

Do you seriously think we'll have widespread self-driving cars — and not just the bare bones technology, but ones that we can ride in without any control at all

Do you seriously think we'll have widespread self-driving cars — and not just the bare bones technology, but ones that we can ride in without any control at all, even while intoxicated — within a timespan short enough for every other advancement in car technology to not matter? I am almost 100% certain that we won't see that kind of thing even within the next few decades, if ever. Self-driving cars have way too many hurdles to overcome before they reach that point. I mean, Europe hasn't even moved over to automatic transmission yet.

BillinghamJ 13y ago
That is by choice. I live in the UK. Personally, I don't see the point in driving manual, but most drivers in the UK enjoy using stick shift. In the context of a self-driving car, that doesn't matter. The self-driving car technology is also very viable to use right now. I have seen Google self-driving cars on the freeways driving next to me. It would not surprise me if they were being sold within the next 5 years, commonplace within 20-30 years.
- girvo 13y ago
  I personally just love driving a manual car. Its not for any practical reason, I just get a kick out of shifting perfectly, the feel of the engine and the control that I have. That said, if there's a self driving car, you bet Id rather use that.
  - gambiting 13y ago
    >> I just get a kick out of shifting perfectly, the feel of the engine and the control that I have Funny how I feel exactly same way when I drive an automatic.
lutusp 13y ago
> I am almost 100% certain that we won't see that kind of thing [self-driving cars] even within the next few decades, if ever. Come on -- self-driving cars are already legal in California -- "Self-driving cars now legal in California" : http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/tech/innovation/self-driving-car-california/ http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/tech/innovation/self-driving-c... -- and the military are testing self-driving trucks to prevent IUD casualties in hostile areas -- "Army tests self-driving trucks for the next big war: " http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/army-tests-self-driving-trucks-next-big-war-214248512.html http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/army-tests-self-drivi... -- so your doubts are anachronistic to say the least. > Self-driving cars have way too many hurdles to overcome before they reach that point. I mean, Europe hasn't even moved over to automatic transmission yet. Hey -- wake up and smell the Cappuccino. :)
- MrScruff 13y ago
  As I understand it current self driving car technology fails whenever the situation becomes sufficiently complex (eg. icy/wet roads, some other unexpected traffic situation) and require the driver to take control at this point. My inference from that was that the 'simple' problems have been solved, but to have technology that can safely drive an intoxicated person home would require solving another set of much harder problems. Ie. the ninety-ninety rule.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > My inference from that was that the 'simple' problems have been solved, but to have technology that can safely drive an intoxicated person home would require solving another set of much harder problems. But they already have cars that drive themselves, without human interference. Google (and other companies') engineers have been driving them all over the country on test runs. Obviously if the car will drive itself to a specified destination autonomously, the physical state of the occupant is no longer an issue. > Ie. the ninety-ninety rule. Yes, fair enough -- I'm sure there are still edge cases, but the OP said, with respect to this technology, "... we won't see that kind of thing even within the next few decades, if ever." The turning point will be when the technology's edge cases are less dangerous than a human driver's edge cases. That won't take very long.
    - rimantas 13y ago
      > when the technology's edge cases are less dangerous than a human driver's edge > cases. That won't take very long. Just a couple of decades.
      - lutusp 13y ago
        That seems about right. For American drivers, maybe a bit too long. :)
      - matthewmacleod 13y ago
        A vanishingly small amount of time, really.
arethuza 13y ago
"Europe hasn't even moved over to automatic transmission yet" After having a couple of cars with automatic gearboxes (including a 4.4L BMW - so lack of power wasn't the problem) I find that I am much happier with a manual gearbox. NB I'm not resistant to new technology in cars - my current car has automatic parking and I use it a lot and normally leave the lights on auto as well. [Note I am in the UK]
- stinos 13y ago
  second. I don't know what it is with it exactly, but automatic shifting kills any pleasure in driving I still have. All the ones I tried seem to react to pedal movements too slowly, which I find sometimes even dangerous because I'm not used too it, and I cannot use the engine to do light to intermediate braking anymore. and normally leave the lights on auto as well. Why don't you just leave them always on anyway? Or is that not allowed in the UK?
  - willyt 13y ago
    It used to freak people out, others would flash their headlights at you if you had them on in the daytime. Now all new cars automatically put sidelights on during daytime anyway, I think its a (pretty sensible) EU regulation.
  - pistle 13y ago
    Down-shifting puts extra stress on transmission and engine components which are far harder to replace than brake pads. If you're heading down a long slope, sure, use the lower gears to add control. If you're just trying to come down from your amazing commute freeway race into the clover leaf... use the brakes for braking. Most people downshift incorrectly and add unneeded wear to their clutch. There's few enough sticks out there already... don't leave me one with a beat up clutch.
    - acct 13y ago
      Irrelevant amounts of so. Any driving school teaches using engine braking for increased fuel efficiency and decreased wear of brakes. Manual clutches still last for far longer than even high-end automatic ones.
Marazan 13y ago
I mean, Europe hasn't even moved over to automatic transmission yet. That's because automatic transmission is the worst and invented by the devil. More seriously, using an automatic transmission results in trade-offs, for instance fuel usage was the historical number 1 sticking point with automatics guzzling up the petrol compared to manuals. Modern engineering has closed that gap but there are still issues related to control - ironically a move to fully autonomous cars would solve most of them (principally in non-autonomous cars drivers in manual transmission cars can use knowledge of future road conditions to make gear selection decisions that an automatic transmission cannot make as they have only a limited input set)
- Tyrannosaurs 13y ago
  I used to think automatics were horrible (I live in the UK, drove manual for 15 years) then I got one... In terms of fuel economy, isn't it just a matter of time before automatics become as economical (then probably more economical) than manuals? Even without anticipating future events? Driving efficiently feels like something a computer could optimise for and that a human has no natural advantage doing.
  - josephlord 13y ago
    A traditional automatic with a torque converter will always be less efficient I but the newer dual clutch models can probably match (or even exceed through better gear selection) the efficiency of manuals.
  - Marazan 13y ago
    Without being able to determine future road conditions then automatics can't guarantee being in the "right" gear for the up coming section of road. Be that due to traffic, grading, weather, banking, sharpness of corner etc. My go to example is the insanity of junction 15 of the m8, that loop onto the west bound motorway is a 270 degree corkscrew rising 30 feet with a diameter of 55 yards onto a 5 lane motorway where I need to go from the left hand lane to the right hand lane (as there are entrance and exit lanes on both the inside and outside of the motorway at that point). A current automatic engine wouldn't know what was the right thing to do in that situation ( https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@55.8672951,-4.2358853,374m/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@55.8672951,-4.2358853,374m/da... ) To determine all of that you'd basically be at the level of self-driving car. Which would be awesome.
rimantas 13y ago
> I mean, Europe hasn't even moved over to automatic > transmission yet. For the good reasons.
mattlutze 13y ago
I think your gut-check here will turn out to be inaccurate. We will have self-driving cars, and they will come soon. Ultimately, you need: 1. Cars capable of making decisions real-time, on the road, given unpredictable stimuli 2. A network of things, between the cars on the road, to allow optimization and homogeneity of traffic 3. Regulatory environments permissive of autonomous vehicles. All of this is well under way and I'd say conservatively we'll see robust networks in less than a decade.
- ekianjo 13y ago
  > All of this is well under way and I'd say conservatively we'll see robust networks in less than a decade. I'd say you are being quite optimistic here. Such major changes will be heavily monitored and regulated, and regulations will make it very hard to market any of these vehicles before a long time. 10 years go by pretty fast, I don't think changes are going to that fast and radical. More likely in the scale of 15 to 30 years. But we'll see.
  - prawn 13y ago
    Think about them being allowed in private areas (theme parks) or certain districts (Vegas or a city's CBD, etc). That will ease things in against those stonewalling it all.
  - mattlutze 13y ago
    Sage advice from Mr. Gates in his book "The Road Ahead": "We always overestimate the change that will occur in the next two years and underestimate the change that will occur in the next 10. Don't let yourself be lulled into inaction." There are myriad examples of the amazing leaps our civilization makes in a decade, particularly in technology. I really don't think my prior post is unduly optimistic, given the pace of the last decade in the auto industry, the continual convergence of the various problem spaces, and the incentives to be the first-to-market with the remaining building blocks.
ekianjo 13y ago
> I mean, Europe hasn't even moved over to automatic transmission yet. Haha. 1) Driving automatic cars is so boring. 2) it makes your body unbalanced constantly since you use a single foot, therefore your back will ache over long periods of driving. 3) You cannot adjust your speed as fast with an automatic car, we are stuck with binary controls while manual cars provide all the flexibility you need in real, and critical driving situations. All serious cars (like sports cars) are by far usually manual.
- apierre 13y ago
  Well driving with an automatic in London traffic jam is much more comfortable than not being able to shift beyond 2nd gear ;-) I have a Golf with a 7 speed DSG gearbox and trust me, in sport mode, you can have amazing and smooth acceleration.
  - dipth 13y ago
    I can confirm that the 7 speed DSG gearbox in the Golf will get you up to speed at an amazing and smooth pace!
- baddox 13y ago
  Regarding point 2, long freeway drives will still be just as unbalanced with either transmission, or if you have cruise control, more balanced. Regarding point 3, is that really true to an extent that would actually matter for ordinary driving?
  - Blahah 13y ago
    In europe, we don't have long freeways. I can drive from one end of my country to the other in a day, and most people don't ever do such long drives.
- gambiting 13y ago
  I disagree with both points so much it hurts. Driving automatics is fun, especially if you are in a car with a massive and a powerful engine - the sensation of it dropping just to the right gear,and then holding up to just the right amount of RPMs is exciting, something that only pro drivers can achieve in cars with manual transmission. As for the second point - in critical situations on the road, I would rather keep my eyes on the road and both hands firmly on the steering wheel - not manipulate gears and clutch. And I also disagree with the notion that automatic cars don't give you control - with enough experience,you can force precisely the gear you want in an automatic by operating the throttle in a right way. They actually give you way more control - if I find myself at a need to suddenly accelerate, I just press the throttle all the way down and then the transmission just drops down two gears,or one, and does it in less than a second. I am pretty sure that 90% of drivers would not be able to do is as quickly/smoothly/efficiently in a manual, selecting the right gear, declutching and starting at the right rpm - automatic transmission does that for you. I never had an automatic stall, they don't do jarring shifts between gears, and my left leg is not about to fall off from holding the clutch in a slowly moving traffic jam. And "serious" cars like sport cars mostly come with an automatic transmission without the manual as an option. You know why Bugatti Veyron comes with an automatic? Because no human would be ever able to change gears as quickly as needed with that car. And interestingly, the entire off-road market is moving towards automatics as well. You know why? Because you can't burn out a hydrokinetic clutch while starting uphill or in difficult conditions. I've driven many many cars in my life, and while there are situations where I can see how the manual transmission is "enjoyable", automatics are just objectively better, with new ones offering lower fuel consumption, better acceleration, smoother gear changes and relative lack of maintenance in comparison to manual transmissions.
hershel 13y ago
Basic slow models are availble now , so that's a good sign: http://ideas.4brad.com/navias-induct-officially-sale-250-000 http://ideas.4brad.com/navias-induct-officially-sale-250-000
t__r 13y ago
In Europe, virtually every brand and model of car can be bought with an automatic gearbox as well as manual. So it's not that they (the manufacturers) have not moved over yet - it is just that they (the drivers) generally prefer manual.
bananas 13y ago
Note: Europe doesn't spectacularly drive through shop windows, through petrol stations and car parks at least 5 times a day though (source: live leak, youtube etc)
awjr 13y ago
I think you'll be surprised at how quickly this type of thing is evolving. Google is putting an immense effort into solving this problem. I don't see self-drive cars as a solution for rural areas, but I do see a massive demand for cars in a city, replacing taxis and car clubs. I can even see it being a sort of a 'mini-bus service', for example, noting that you and 4 others are doing a pickup in an area and doing a school drop off, offering to split the cost of the journey. The point is that individual car ownership doesn't really 'work' in a city too well. Getting to the point where this is socially acceptable shouldn't take too long. The reduction in cost base and the fact you can sit in the car and work/play should make it very attractive.
- mschaecher 13y ago
  I'm from Nebraska originally, and I see a bigger market for self-driving cars in flyover country than in an area like SF Bay. Lots of long, straight drives with far less vehicles on the road probably even make it more realistic to accomplish bc it's a less dynamic environment. I know 20+ who drive an hour both ways to work...and on the morning drive you can do it and only see a handful of cars if it's early.
  - robmcm 13y ago
    I have a car with Adaptive Cruise Control (it has a fricking radar on it's head) and it rocks for long straight roads. Add adaptive lane assist and your half way there ;)
Kurtz79 13y ago
This is definitely a cultural difference. In many countries in Europe driving a car is considered a pleasure and a skill. Driving manual vs. automatic is considered the same as playing a guitar vs. playing Guitar Hero.
- cmurdock 13y ago
  Wonder if that has something to do with size of America relative to most countries in Europe. Americans just simply have to drive more and for longer distances. Driving doesn't seem so fun in the midwest.
- Shebanator 13y ago
  Well, car enthusiasts here in the US also consider driving a pleasure and a skill, and I too vastly prefer shifting myself when driving at speed. On the other hand, I find driving in heavy traffic with a manual transmission to be incredibly tedious. That's why a dual-clutch transmission is my favorite - manual performance and control when I want it, automatic convenience when I don't.
bsder 13y ago
> Do you seriously think we'll have widespread self-driving cars — and not just the bare bones technology, but ones that we can ride in without any control at all, even while intoxicated — within a timespan short enough for every other advancement in car technology to not matter? Yes. Without question. It's a process that has an exponential adoption curve to it. The benefits from self-driving cars are so enormous its ridiculous. Productivity goes up, so for any entrepreneur, a self-driving car will become a necessity (no more wasting an hour of unproductive work to get to the airport, for example). Pollution goes down because self-driving cars have to be electric. Self-driving cars can go recharge themselves at a nearby central charging station instead of requiring expensive charging stations at every company. Parking can be decentralized (somewhat, eventually you have to cope with self-driving cars causing a mini rush hour when they come get their passengers). You don't need "long term" parking anywhere. You can take your bike to work, but call your car in if it rains. It might not cause the revolution that the Internet has, but it's gonna be damn close.
- noblethrasher 13y ago
  > It might not cause the revolution that the Internet has, but it's gonna be damn close. Ubiquitous autonomous roving robots will lead to a revolution at least as big as the Internet, but probably bigger. Like the printing press, the Internet made distances shorter, but in a low-fidelity way since reality has much higher bandwidth. With self-driving cars, suddenly “real” distances become smaller since 12 hour trips become routine†. The differences between, say, a middle-class Oklahoman, Texan, Missourian, Coloradian, et.al. start to disappear, and this scenario will play out all across the U.S. and other large regions (Canada? India?). †If we raise the speed limit to 120 mph (mostly afforded by a change in energy policy), then I could trek from Oklahoma to NY or LA every weekend.
fizz_and_buzz 13y ago
For some strange reason it is users in Europe that prefer manual transmission, since basically every car is available also with automatic transmission also. If anybody cares, here is my theory (at least for Germany, where I am from): Driving lessons are very expensive in Germany and you have to decide if you want to learn automatic or manual transmission. If you learn on automatic transmission, you are only allowed to drive automatic cars. If you learn on a manual, you are allowed to drive both. The prices for the drivers license are the same. So, most people will learn to drive stick. Since they are then only used to driving stick, they are actually more comfortable with than with automatic. I have met quite a few people who I had to explain how to drive an automatic (it's obviously super easy if you already know how to drive a manual). So, I think it's want you learned first that you will stick with.
- r00fus 13y ago
  > For some strange reason it is users in Europe that prefer manual transmission, since basically every car is available also with automatic transmission also. The more likely cause is that gas in Europe is far far more expensive than it is here, and manual transmissions are historically more efficient than automatics (may have changed with hybrid e-CVT and newer drivetrains). Also possibly an explanation is that engines in Europe are far smaller than here (to improve gas mileage) and manual transmissions gives the ability for a driver to play with the torque curve and delay shifts to improve immediate speed/responsiveness.
n6mac41717 13y ago
>Europe hasn't even moved over to automatic transmission yet. I wonder if there's been a study that looks at the safety of manual vs. automatic transmission vehicles. This coming from a guy who made it a pre-req that his future wife drive stick...

BillinghamJ 13y ago

That is by choice. I live in the UK. Personally, I don't see the point in driving manual, but most drivers in the UK enjoy using stick shift. In the context of a self-driving car, that doesn't matter. The self-driving car technology is also very viable to use right now. I have seen Google self-driving cars on the freeways driving next to me. It would not surprise me if they were being sold within the next 5 years, commonplace within 20-30 years.

girvo 13y ago
I personally just love driving a manual car. Its not for any practical reason, I just get a kick out of shifting perfectly, the feel of the engine and the control that I have. That said, if there's a self driving car, you bet Id rather use that.
- gambiting 13y ago
  >> I just get a kick out of shifting perfectly, the feel of the engine and the control that I have Funny how I feel exactly same way when I drive an automatic.

lutusp 13y ago

> I am almost 100% certain that we won't see that kind of thing [self-driving cars] even within the next few decades, if ever. Come on -- self-driving cars are already legal in California -- "Self-driving cars now legal in California" : http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/tech/innovation/self-driving-car-california/ http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/tech/innovation/self-driving-c... -- and the military are testing self-driving trucks to prevent IUD casualties in hostile areas -- "Army tests self-driving trucks for the next big war: " http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/army-tests-self-driving-trucks-next-big-war-214248512.html http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/army-tests-self-drivi... -- so your doubts are anachronistic to say the least. > Self-driving cars have way too many hurdles to overcome before they reach that point. I mean, Europe hasn't even moved over to automatic transmission yet. Hey -- wake up and smell the Cappuccino. :)

MrScruff 13y ago
As I understand it current self driving car technology fails whenever the situation becomes sufficiently complex (eg. icy/wet roads, some other unexpected traffic situation) and require the driver to take control at this point. My inference from that was that the 'simple' problems have been solved, but to have technology that can safely drive an intoxicated person home would require solving another set of much harder problems. Ie. the ninety-ninety rule.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > My inference from that was that the 'simple' problems have been solved, but to have technology that can safely drive an intoxicated person home would require solving another set of much harder problems. But they already have cars that drive themselves, without human interference. Google (and other companies') engineers have been driving them all over the country on test runs. Obviously if the car will drive itself to a specified destination autonomously, the physical state of the occupant is no longer an issue. > Ie. the ninety-ninety rule. Yes, fair enough -- I'm sure there are still edge cases, but the OP said, with respect to this technology, "... we won't see that kind of thing even within the next few decades, if ever." The turning point will be when the technology's edge cases are less dangerous than a human driver's edge cases. That won't take very long.
  - rimantas 13y ago
    > when the technology's edge cases are less dangerous than a human driver's edge > cases. That won't take very long. Just a couple of decades.
    - lutusp 13y ago
      That seems about right. For American drivers, maybe a bit too long. :)
    - matthewmacleod 13y ago
      A vanishingly small amount of time, really.

arethuza 13y ago

"Europe hasn't even moved over to automatic transmission yet" After having a couple of cars with automatic gearboxes (including a 4.4L BMW - so lack of power wasn't the problem) I find that I am much happier with a manual gearbox. NB I'm not resistant to new technology in cars - my current car has automatic parking and I use it a lot and normally leave the lights on auto as well. [Note I am in the UK]

stinos 13y ago
second. I don't know what it is with it exactly, but automatic shifting kills any pleasure in driving I still have. All the ones I tried seem to react to pedal movements too slowly, which I find sometimes even dangerous because I'm not used too it, and I cannot use the engine to do light to intermediate braking anymore. and normally leave the lights on auto as well. Why don't you just leave them always on anyway? Or is that not allowed in the UK?
- willyt 13y ago
  It used to freak people out, others would flash their headlights at you if you had them on in the daytime. Now all new cars automatically put sidelights on during daytime anyway, I think its a (pretty sensible) EU regulation.
- pistle 13y ago
  Down-shifting puts extra stress on transmission and engine components which are far harder to replace than brake pads. If you're heading down a long slope, sure, use the lower gears to add control. If you're just trying to come down from your amazing commute freeway race into the clover leaf... use the brakes for braking. Most people downshift incorrectly and add unneeded wear to their clutch. There's few enough sticks out there already... don't leave me one with a beat up clutch.
  - acct 13y ago
    Irrelevant amounts of so. Any driving school teaches using engine braking for increased fuel efficiency and decreased wear of brakes. Manual clutches still last for far longer than even high-end automatic ones.

Marazan 13y ago

I mean, Europe hasn't even moved over to automatic transmission yet. That's because automatic transmission is the worst and invented by the devil. More seriously, using an automatic transmission results in trade-offs, for instance fuel usage was the historical number 1 sticking point with automatics guzzling up the petrol compared to manuals. Modern engineering has closed that gap but there are still issues related to control - ironically a move to fully autonomous cars would solve most of them (principally in non-autonomous cars drivers in manual transmission cars can use knowledge of future road conditions to make gear selection decisions that an automatic transmission cannot make as they have only a limited input set)

Tyrannosaurs 13y ago
I used to think automatics were horrible (I live in the UK, drove manual for 15 years) then I got one... In terms of fuel economy, isn't it just a matter of time before automatics become as economical (then probably more economical) than manuals? Even without anticipating future events? Driving efficiently feels like something a computer could optimise for and that a human has no natural advantage doing.
- josephlord 13y ago
  A traditional automatic with a torque converter will always be less efficient I but the newer dual clutch models can probably match (or even exceed through better gear selection) the efficiency of manuals.
- Marazan 13y ago
  Without being able to determine future road conditions then automatics can't guarantee being in the "right" gear for the up coming section of road. Be that due to traffic, grading, weather, banking, sharpness of corner etc. My go to example is the insanity of junction 15 of the m8, that loop onto the west bound motorway is a 270 degree corkscrew rising 30 feet with a diameter of 55 yards onto a 5 lane motorway where I need to go from the left hand lane to the right hand lane (as there are entrance and exit lanes on both the inside and outside of the motorway at that point). A current automatic engine wouldn't know what was the right thing to do in that situation ( https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@55.8672951,-4.2358853,374m/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@55.8672951,-4.2358853,374m/da... ) To determine all of that you'd basically be at the level of self-driving car. Which would be awesome.

rimantas 13y ago

> I mean, Europe hasn't even moved over to automatic > transmission yet. For the good reasons.

mattlutze 13y ago

I think your gut-check here will turn out to be inaccurate. We will have self-driving cars, and they will come soon. Ultimately, you need: 1. Cars capable of making decisions real-time, on the road, given unpredictable stimuli 2. A network of things, between the cars on the road, to allow optimization and homogeneity of traffic 3. Regulatory environments permissive of autonomous vehicles. All of this is well under way and I'd say conservatively we'll see robust networks in less than a decade.

ekianjo 13y ago
> All of this is well under way and I'd say conservatively we'll see robust networks in less than a decade. I'd say you are being quite optimistic here. Such major changes will be heavily monitored and regulated, and regulations will make it very hard to market any of these vehicles before a long time. 10 years go by pretty fast, I don't think changes are going to that fast and radical. More likely in the scale of 15 to 30 years. But we'll see.
- prawn 13y ago
  Think about them being allowed in private areas (theme parks) or certain districts (Vegas or a city's CBD, etc). That will ease things in against those stonewalling it all.
- mattlutze 13y ago
  Sage advice from Mr. Gates in his book "The Road Ahead": "We always overestimate the change that will occur in the next two years and underestimate the change that will occur in the next 10. Don't let yourself be lulled into inaction." There are myriad examples of the amazing leaps our civilization makes in a decade, particularly in technology. I really don't think my prior post is unduly optimistic, given the pace of the last decade in the auto industry, the continual convergence of the various problem spaces, and the incentives to be the first-to-market with the remaining building blocks.

ekianjo 13y ago

> I mean, Europe hasn't even moved over to automatic transmission yet. Haha. 1) Driving automatic cars is so boring. 2) it makes your body unbalanced constantly since you use a single foot, therefore your back will ache over long periods of driving. 3) You cannot adjust your speed as fast with an automatic car, we are stuck with binary controls while manual cars provide all the flexibility you need in real, and critical driving situations. All serious cars (like sports cars) are by far usually manual.

apierre 13y ago
Well driving with an automatic in London traffic jam is much more comfortable than not being able to shift beyond 2nd gear ;-) I have a Golf with a 7 speed DSG gearbox and trust me, in sport mode, you can have amazing and smooth acceleration.
- dipth 13y ago
  I can confirm that the 7 speed DSG gearbox in the Golf will get you up to speed at an amazing and smooth pace!
baddox 13y ago
Regarding point 2, long freeway drives will still be just as unbalanced with either transmission, or if you have cruise control, more balanced. Regarding point 3, is that really true to an extent that would actually matter for ordinary driving?
- Blahah 13y ago
  In europe, we don't have long freeways. I can drive from one end of my country to the other in a day, and most people don't ever do such long drives.
gambiting 13y ago
I disagree with both points so much it hurts. Driving automatics is fun, especially if you are in a car with a massive and a powerful engine - the sensation of it dropping just to the right gear,and then holding up to just the right amount of RPMs is exciting, something that only pro drivers can achieve in cars with manual transmission. As for the second point - in critical situations on the road, I would rather keep my eyes on the road and both hands firmly on the steering wheel - not manipulate gears and clutch. And I also disagree with the notion that automatic cars don't give you control - with enough experience,you can force precisely the gear you want in an automatic by operating the throttle in a right way. They actually give you way more control - if I find myself at a need to suddenly accelerate, I just press the throttle all the way down and then the transmission just drops down two gears,or one, and does it in less than a second. I am pretty sure that 90% of drivers would not be able to do is as quickly/smoothly/efficiently in a manual, selecting the right gear, declutching and starting at the right rpm - automatic transmission does that for you. I never had an automatic stall, they don't do jarring shifts between gears, and my left leg is not about to fall off from holding the clutch in a slowly moving traffic jam. And "serious" cars like sport cars mostly come with an automatic transmission without the manual as an option. You know why Bugatti Veyron comes with an automatic? Because no human would be ever able to change gears as quickly as needed with that car. And interestingly, the entire off-road market is moving towards automatics as well. You know why? Because you can't burn out a hydrokinetic clutch while starting uphill or in difficult conditions. I've driven many many cars in my life, and while there are situations where I can see how the manual transmission is "enjoyable", automatics are just objectively better, with new ones offering lower fuel consumption, better acceleration, smoother gear changes and relative lack of maintenance in comparison to manual transmissions.

hershel 13y ago

Basic slow models are availble now , so that's a good sign: http://ideas.4brad.com/navias-induct-officially-sale-250-000 http://ideas.4brad.com/navias-induct-officially-sale-250-000

t__r 13y ago

In Europe, virtually every brand and model of car can be bought with an automatic gearbox as well as manual. So it's not that they (the manufacturers) have not moved over yet - it is just that they (the drivers) generally prefer manual.

bananas 13y ago

Note: Europe doesn't spectacularly drive through shop windows, through petrol stations and car parks at least 5 times a day though (source: live leak, youtube etc)

awjr 13y ago

I think you'll be surprised at how quickly this type of thing is evolving. Google is putting an immense effort into solving this problem. I don't see self-drive cars as a solution for rural areas, but I do see a massive demand for cars in a city, replacing taxis and car clubs. I can even see it being a sort of a 'mini-bus service', for example, noting that you and 4 others are doing a pickup in an area and doing a school drop off, offering to split the cost of the journey. The point is that individual car ownership doesn't really 'work' in a city too well. Getting to the point where this is socially acceptable shouldn't take too long. The reduction in cost base and the fact you can sit in the car and work/play should make it very attractive.

mschaecher 13y ago
I'm from Nebraska originally, and I see a bigger market for self-driving cars in flyover country than in an area like SF Bay. Lots of long, straight drives with far less vehicles on the road probably even make it more realistic to accomplish bc it's a less dynamic environment. I know 20+ who drive an hour both ways to work...and on the morning drive you can do it and only see a handful of cars if it's early.
- robmcm 13y ago
  I have a car with Adaptive Cruise Control (it has a fricking radar on it's head) and it rocks for long straight roads. Add adaptive lane assist and your half way there ;)

Kurtz79 13y ago

This is definitely a cultural difference. In many countries in Europe driving a car is considered a pleasure and a skill. Driving manual vs. automatic is considered the same as playing a guitar vs. playing Guitar Hero.

cmurdock 13y ago
Wonder if that has something to do with size of America relative to most countries in Europe. Americans just simply have to drive more and for longer distances. Driving doesn't seem so fun in the midwest.
Shebanator 13y ago
Well, car enthusiasts here in the US also consider driving a pleasure and a skill, and I too vastly prefer shifting myself when driving at speed. On the other hand, I find driving in heavy traffic with a manual transmission to be incredibly tedious. That's why a dual-clutch transmission is my favorite - manual performance and control when I want it, automatic convenience when I don't.

bsder 13y ago

> Do you seriously think we'll have widespread self-driving cars — and not just the bare bones technology, but ones that we can ride in without any control at all, even while intoxicated — within a timespan short enough for every other advancement in car technology to not matter? Yes. Without question. It's a process that has an exponential adoption curve to it. The benefits from self-driving cars are so enormous its ridiculous. Productivity goes up, so for any entrepreneur, a self-driving car will become a necessity (no more wasting an hour of unproductive work to get to the airport, for example). Pollution goes down because self-driving cars have to be electric. Self-driving cars can go recharge themselves at a nearby central charging station instead of requiring expensive charging stations at every company. Parking can be decentralized (somewhat, eventually you have to cope with self-driving cars causing a mini rush hour when they come get their passengers). You don't need "long term" parking anywhere. You can take your bike to work, but call your car in if it rains. It might not cause the revolution that the Internet has, but it's gonna be damn close.

noblethrasher 13y ago
> It might not cause the revolution that the Internet has, but it's gonna be damn close. Ubiquitous autonomous roving robots will lead to a revolution at least as big as the Internet, but probably bigger. Like the printing press, the Internet made distances shorter, but in a low-fidelity way since reality has much higher bandwidth. With self-driving cars, suddenly “real” distances become smaller since 12 hour trips become routine†. The differences between, say, a middle-class Oklahoman, Texan, Missourian, Coloradian, et.al. start to disappear, and this scenario will play out all across the U.S. and other large regions (Canada? India?). †If we raise the speed limit to 120 mph (mostly afforded by a change in energy policy), then I could trek from Oklahoma to NY or LA every weekend.

fizz_and_buzz 13y ago

For some strange reason it is users in Europe that prefer manual transmission, since basically every car is available also with automatic transmission also. If anybody cares, here is my theory (at least for Germany, where I am from): Driving lessons are very expensive in Germany and you have to decide if you want to learn automatic or manual transmission. If you learn on automatic transmission, you are only allowed to drive automatic cars. If you learn on a manual, you are allowed to drive both. The prices for the drivers license are the same. So, most people will learn to drive stick. Since they are then only used to driving stick, they are actually more comfortable with than with automatic. I have met quite a few people who I had to explain how to drive an automatic (it's obviously super easy if you already know how to drive a manual). So, I think it's want you learned first that you will stick with.

r00fus 13y ago
> For some strange reason it is users in Europe that prefer manual transmission, since basically every car is available also with automatic transmission also. The more likely cause is that gas in Europe is far far more expensive than it is here, and manual transmissions are historically more efficient than automatics (may have changed with hybrid e-CVT and newer drivetrains). Also possibly an explanation is that engines in Europe are far smaller than here (to improve gas mileage) and manual transmissions gives the ability for a driver to play with the torque curve and delay shifts to improve immediate speed/responsiveness.

n6mac41717 13y ago

>Europe hasn't even moved over to automatic transmission yet. I wonder if there's been a study that looks at the safety of manual vs. automatic transmission vehicles. This coming from a guy who made it a pre-req that his future wife drive stick...