Hi-Tech Cars of the Future (Present)

It's all part of SkyNet(the internet of things), which has been constructed while we were sleeping....

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_25052391/government-require-vehicle-vehicle-communication-road-self-driving

Which means we'll be able to sleep while "driving"?

Yeah....sleeping....

in the old days you could actually the engine if you popped the hood

Yeah, it made lots of noise and was rated in horse power, not kilo watts.

Dinosaurs! No gentlemen I'm afraid IC engines are on the way out, gone are the days of a big rumbling V-8 proclaiming to all that the owner possessed a huge pair........of tailpipes...all that remains is the smooth hum of electrificated inards and gizmos clicking sending out small talk to other like minded machines all plotting some undefined fate for yours truly....

Wait a minute! Don't you drive a Mustang?

Yes I'm one of the hold-outs(like you) that was raised on the fumes of gasoline and exhaust, and consider my exhaust note to be an integral part of the driving experience...

Yeah, me too. Except perhaps on two wheels ?

Nice bike.

.

Hey, where is your riding crop? Didn't those boots come with a riding crop?

Thanks. The Buell is a fun bike to ride. The H-D engine definitely gives it a bit of a raw feel/sound. And the box-o-rox transmission too. The first twenty five years of riding has been on rice burners with their well known smoothness and slick shifting transmissions and so on.

I will say this though, Erik Buell put first class legs on his bikes. The Ulysses was the first bike I've ever owned that I didn't feel like I needed to change out the rear shock, re-valve the forks, put in different fork springs, upgrade the brakes, etc. He also put nice scoot into the H-D engine.

As for the retro boots, those are vintage "Fast Lane" road race boots from Bates Leathers. I bought those back in the mid-eighties and they have held up well. The riding crop is for the bedr . . . oh, never mind.

I had always been curious about how well the H-D engines adapted to a more high performance oriented task. So that is the on-road and off-road sport bike version? Does it do both pretty well?

Oops, in my narcissistic history of my bike riding, I missed part of your question. Yes, it is an on-road/off-road version of the Lightning. Longer travel suspension, high clearance (read this as I am on my tippy-toes at traffic lights. I'm also 6'0" ) , and the Dunlop D616's are geared towards 90% paved/10% 'off-road'. I like the seat too, it's wide and comfortable.

As for off-road, we would better to refer to it as un-paved roads. Given the weight (light for a street bike, but . . .), the tires, CG and all, this is better classed as an adventure tourer. Dirt roads and fire roads would be all that a sane person would ever attempt.

What is does excel at is crappy, rough paved roads. Keeps its composure there much better than any other sport bike I've ridden.

Cheers !

I don't really miss being able to 'actually the engine'. Doesn't seem like that big of a loss to me for some reason.

I freely admit to being a dinosaur then but I do miss being able to play inside the engine bay without having to remove a thousand pieces of plastic that serve only to cover up another piece of plastic.

I am living for the day when public transit carries all, and personal vehicles are for special outings. Believe it or not, there is always someone going in your direction.

Oh I think that is a wave of the future. As a very senior programmer, I do not trust computer apps with my life. Most AI, Artificial Intelligence is too simple to be accurate most of the time some less than half the time. AI at this time has very poor judgment. It will do the obvious not the right thing to do.

I recall when driving in a torrent a car a few cars ahead of me hits deep water and the unforgivable idiot slams on the breaks turning the car into a whirling dervish spinning between both lanes of a 2 lane divided highway. The cars were spaced widely for the heavy rain but the water was too deep for even much slow breaking. I expected a several car pileup. Fortunately, the other drivers were both competent and cool headed. The car behind me was going to take to the shoulder to avoid me. I somehow signaled the rider that I would take the shoulder and the remaining gap between him and the next car was enough breathing room. We all were able to avoid all the other cars. By the time most of us passed the car we were going much slower and the whirling car was stopped when it hit the shallows.

No software could have saved us all because the conditions were too complex for any AI in the near future. I have read about a new type of computer memory that goes beyond digital mimicking our brain by having many states not just 0 and 1. Maybe when we can produce an artificial brain we will be able to automate many things. Our brain works very slowly compared with a computer. We can only outsmart a computer if the task requires judgment. Judgement is so complex it is beyond today's computers. I love one website that uses pictures that you must select the one that doesn't belong to prove you are a human. The choice is always obvious for me but would baffle a computer routine.

Also a very senior programmer, also distrustful of code. But I'm also well aware of how much we already trust software with our lives.

Self-driving is merely the end state of where we are now. Most cars built since 2000 (or earlier) are drive-by-wire to some extent. The quality of the software is adequate for now, and I believe it will continue to be adequate.

In your example, the AI can decide to slow down before hitting the standing water. I guess that most current traction control systems wouldn't slam on the brakes once hydroplaning happens. (The code can easily be smarter than your "unforgiveable idiot.") The spinning car's TCS could broadcast a panic to all the surrounding cars, using the ample space to bring all cars to a slow enough speed to preserve safety. Of course, all the cars would know that the safety margins need to be increased due to conditions.

If someone tries to tell me that version 1 through, say, 5 of AutoAI is good enough to maintain highway speeds, regardless of conditions, with 1 meter of separation between vehicles, I'll say, "Over YOUR dead body." But give a fully automated system at least 5 years to mature, and I'll consider it.

Yes, I think it is inevitable. I think the first few versions ought to be warning only.

Software does not usually make decisions unless all the possibilities are known and can be addressed otherwise it is kicked out for a human to judge.

I don't even like plastic bumpers! My car has one but only because I would have to get an SUV to avoid it.

The quality of the software is adequate for now, and I believe it will continue to be adequate. - Tell that to the dead Prius owners when their car hit the metal to the petal for no understandable reason. That routine was only to increase the throttle as you depressed the petal. That bug saved the US car industry.

Here are some interesting videos along this line of discussion:

Fuzzing

Darpa

In my early driving days, there were times when evasive action had to be made to avoid a collision or two. By my being able to get out of the way, gave the car following me (close) to have enough room to avoid hitting the car in front of me. Can't see how AI would do better.

I'm almost stopped behind a slowing car in a snow storm and a car is barreling down on my rear out of control. What do I do? Most would just come to a stop. I sped up and got out of the way, giving the car behind me a chance to regain control.

Unfortunately, driving is a chore to most of us, most of the time. Therefore, self-driving cars will come and they will be a pleasure, after a period of adjustment.

That's not to say that old-fashioned cars will be banned, or that professional drivers will be out of work. I like to drive a fun car on an open road, but the same congested route every day... Ick.

I think we'll gradually build a compromise system. Perhaps, many lanes or roads reserved for Otto Pilot during commute hours/days, others reserved for organic drivers.

BTW, does anyone have or know of a feature in a car that allows the owner to program reminders into the odomoter? It seems such a no-brainer.

I drive a 2013 model and no such item exists, though the car will tell us when it's time for an oil change, and maybe other maintenance items (haven't driven it long enough to see them). That doesn't help for tire rotation (which varies by tire and driving style). I'm sure there are other owner-dependent items that also depend on mileage.

Some Navigation units will tell you when to stop for a break, I think its usually time orientated, not distance. You did not say why you wanted it, so I have to guess a bit......

A phone alarm could do the same thing.....

The phone doesn't know about distance travelled. I'd want it to have the car remind me to rotate the tires.

Why bother?

If you rotate PROPERLY, you end up with 4 tyres that need replacing at about the same time, if you don't do it, you mostly only need to replace two at a time!!! Years apart!!

On my car, the front driven wheels need replacing far more often than the rears.....

I see that as positive, half the costs each time.....

Just a guess, but you might not be getting as much mileage out of tires on average due to less even wear.

I get well above average tyre mileage, often twice that expected for similar cars.

"Why?" you may ask.

Well firstly its defensive driving, staying way back from the car in front, longer than the 2 seconds recommended in the UK for example.

I take my foot off the gas pedal as soon as I see I am getting closer to the Guy in front.

I drive with the maximum allowed pressure in all tyres, fully loaded pressure....

That does very well for brakes, fuel consumption, engine wear and tyre wear.....you can either do it, or pay more....each person has that choice!! I like to pay less........

By extending their life that far, you may be exceeding the safe, chronological age of your tires, or tyres.

The safe age is considered to be between 6 and a max of 10 years here. 6 for cars and 10 for caravans and trailers. It is depending upon usage.....

Mine don't last that long!! We do a lot of mileage....I usually need to replace a pair every 1 1/2-3 years on average.

We also have two sets of tyres, the winter ones last longer, there I am getting between 4-5 years approximately on those.

In countries where the Sun is there more often and maybe stronger, possibly less frequently used tyres do not last as long due to UV light....That is NOT a problem in Germany.....

I would like to be more exact, but its all from memory, sorry.....

My car is heavy and we are allowed to drive fast in many places, that shortens tyre life.....

Just a thought.

I had a set of Michelin's on my truck for almost 6 years here in AZ.

98% city driving, under 50 MPH. Parked in the shade all the time.

Great tires. I put almost 60,000 miles on them.

On my minibus I put 160,000 KMs, they were still legal when I replaced them......I have never had a car since that was so good......My Volvo was close......

I had a VW karman-Ghia that got 80,000 miles on Continental 5:50-15's. Never came close again.

A smart phone can tell the distance, by adding the travelled segments together .. and by combining time, determine max and min speeds etc .... and if disclosing to the authorities ... issue a speeding ticket.

As for the tyre rotation, there are already sensors in some wheels that measure the inflation pressure and maybe also the 'sit' of the car on the road through the suspension rest and underload conditions ... yes, this is the world of F1. So yes, tyre rotation advice is possible, as onscreen and audio tips on how to drive better to cause less rubber wear. It is not driving as we know it.

As for speeding up to avoid accidents etc, welcome to the world of fuzzy logic. AI is no longer the 'pocket calculator' thinking of the 70's ... there have been engineers already working on the features and benefits. "You aint seen nothin yet".

There are commercial aircraft flying today that can travel ramp-to-ramp without a human touching the controls.

Unfortunately, they can also fly themselves into the ground, regardless of who is at the controls.

Hyundai is introducing a fuel-cell driven electric car this spring (2014). Toyota will do the same in 2015. These will use only hydrogen to create the electricity to drive the traction motors.

P.S. I am driving a Prius hybrid, which still uses a small engine to charge the traction battery.

I think most of the recent innovations are like toys to sell more cars. if you can't park you belong in the backseat. I don't think marketing will push advances by individual auto companies as much as legislation. we'tr getting close to where all cars on the road must communicate with each other...the idea is collision avoidance. this will lead to auto-braking and speed control(limitation). driving wont be fun anymore when it turns just into "riding" in a car.

Will you need a driver's license to operate a driverless car? Think revenue lost.

yep driver-less "car"

behold the future

;)

I'll send the driverless truck down for a bottle of milk ....

I had a discussion about this with my coworkers several years ago. Of course we all would love to see (and be part of the development) of consumer autonomous vehicles, but there are several hurdles beyond the technical aspect.

1) Insurance. If an autonomous car crashes into another autonomous car, who is at fault?

2) Insurance Companies. Do they lose profits because every autonomous car would likely have a lower rate of collision so people wouldn't buy as much insurance, or risk buying no insurance at all!

3) If an autonomous car causes an accident (with anything), is the maker of the car at fault? If so, why would any car company make one of these cars for a consumer? (military, industrial excluded)

4) How will the population react to having automated cars driving them? Would they trust them? How about non-automated cars, and those drivers driving along side an automated car.

5) Speed limit. So will automated cars follow the speed limit? Would be annoying if you want to get somewhere fast but the car won't go above the speed limit.

6) Licenses/training. Do you need to know how to drive a car to use an automated one?

With that said, we are seeing automated feature creep into the consumer vehicle every year. IMO this is a smart move because no one is going to trust a fully automated vehicle from the get go, but by adding in features that are useful, the consumer gets use to and begins to rely on these features, thus it is easier to add more autonomous features... and voila we have a nearly* fully automated car.

*: I don't think we'll have a fully automated personal car, but a lot of features will be added to reduce human error.

I have this one desire... a smart windshield (See Samsung's smart windows technology) that knows where your eyes are. It then blocks out (or tints/fades) distractions as you are driving like bright 'blinding' lights. Take this a step further and move the entire speed display onto the windshield so you never have to look down again. Add cameras to the windshield that replace using the side mirrors and completely cover all blind spots. Take it another step further and give you warnings/whatever on the screen like when someone is braking hard up ahead, it shows a warning for you to start breaking. Also, add a tv screen so I can watch movies while driving.

I do think we will eventually see fully automated personal cars. It will be huge advantage for those who could be conducting business during travel time, and it should eventually be available at a cost much lower than having a personal driver. I suspect we will see fully automated taxis first, probably with one person in a central location available to patch into communicate and control the taxi if/as need arises.

.

I don't see the hurdles you've suggested as presenting very significant obstacles:

.

1. Insurance: The insurance companies will cover the damage to their respective cars. If damage to something else is in dispute it will be decided by negotiation, arbitration or in the courts. This is no different from today.

.

2. Insurance companies are unlikely to lose profits in the adoption of autonomous vehicles. Insurance in many places in mandatory. With increased connectivity, the chance that someone will be able to drive without insurance is likely to decrease. Similarly the chance that an autonomous vehicle might take to the road without required insurance will also be a small and likely decreasing probability.

.

3. If a car causes an accident (with anything) if the automaker is determined to be at fault then they will be held responsible. This is not meaningfully different from today. If an automaker today manufactures cars with a defective tie rod that results in accidents, if this can be established in court, the automaker will likely be held responsible for damage+. While there is greater responsibility for the automaker in the situation of a fully autonomous vehicle the precedent is clear and unambiguous.

.

4. The population will mostly be oblivious with their faces pressed to their smart-whatevers. Their might be some initial reaction, but accidents are likely to decrease as adoption increases.

.

5. Are you frustrated when the subway car does not exceed its normal speed when you are in a hurry? Remember people who are not driving are probably not even going to be looking at the speed limit.... why would they?

.

6. You will need to be licensed to drive a car, I doubt there will be a license required for riding in a car.

You make some good points, but I think you may be over simplifying things.

1/2) Insurance is probably the biggest hurdle in my opinion. A few hills that would need to be reviewed:

a) As it is today, people make the decision whether to report or pay the damages themselves to avoid higher rates. A smart car may automatically alert the authorities of a collision, and possibly even the insurance companies, as a feature designed to assist the riders, especially if they are outside a city or are involved in some sort of hit and run.

Consider the amount of data mining that is used by any smart application. I doubt this would go unharvested for a smart car as well.

Imagine if you, as the owner, had no choice in reporting an accident to your insurance company. While insurance premiums may be lower (because less accidents = less repair costs = lower premiums), if you don't have that choice, then you are putting all your trust into the vehicles capabilities and as it is, even smart devices and computers still give people problems, so I can see a lot of grief on the consumer end if this were the case.

b) Smart car collision metrics would ideally be recorded much like a black box in an airplane, so insurance companies can determine which car/owner is more at fault.

IMO, the insurance companies want to avoid paying so long as someone else will foot the bill. Any metrics or collision date can be used more effectively to determine who is at fault, and who should pay.

Currently, insurance companies don't have this data so they have to trust the consumer. These companies offset this cost by increasing rates. But if these companies had access to pre-accident data, then they would be even more ruthless at assigning damage charges (based on other insurance industries).

Either insurance companies will split the damages between cars; cover only their car; or look for reasons for the other company to take most or all of the damages.

Split the damage = inexpensive car vs. expensive car, both premiums go up, inexpensive car owner ultimately pays more.

Cover only their car = probably the best solution, each car's worth is factored into the repair costs, each owner's premium is adjusted differently.

Cover one car or the other (one insurance pays, one doesn't) = imo, the likely scenario. One owners premium greatly rises (the loser), one owners premium slightly rises (the winner).

c) I agree with you that insurance rates would probably go down since driver experience/age/sex/etc wouldn't be required and collisions would go down, thus repair costs are less frequent, and these companies can maintain their same profits (or more) at much lower premiums. That would be a great thing for everyone, and a great incentive to develop/purchase smart cars.

d) Re: Driver license/training, what if there is an issue with a smart car - would their be a manual mode that would require a driver? Or what about if a driver wanted to drive manually, would this be available. I think that AI movie with Will Smith (or was it demolition man?) has a smart car where a police officer activates a manual mode so they could override a vehicles safe driving. I could see this being a feature on some vehicles for the general population - but perhaps a feature that is only available at the start of the smart car era and is eventually removed as people become accustom to automated driving.

e) I am positive insurance companies would lobby against smart cars having no insurance. Each car = cash for them regardless if the car never has a collision. Smart cars may require insurance to operate / move.

f) However I could see insurance companies allowing an owner to insure a car and not themselves (like a house), so the owner doesn't require to be in the vehicle when an accident occurs, or buy add-on insurance for family members.

3+) You make some good points and I have no rebuttals :)

100) Another point I just thought of is something I hate as a reality of any automation, and that is loss of jobs / services in certain fields. Almost unavoidable if the consumer has the desire to embrace a technology.

Examples: auto-repair, less accidents = less repairs. However less accidents could also mean higher part costs because less parts are made, meaning when a car is in an accident, the repair shop could have a higher profit on repairs. But less accidents mean less cars to repair, so independent shops would have to rely on other services such as car maintenance.

Car maintenance may be programmed to be done ever 6 months and I would be inclined to think a manufacturer would "suggest" their company car care places over independent places.

Insurance car claims departments, less accidents means less personal to handle claims.

3rd party parts. Smart cars imo will follow the market trend of advertising to the highest bidder. So when it is time to get your snow tires or new wiper blades, the car may suggest car-branded parts versus 3rd party parts. This would ultimately monopolize the market as less competition over parts.

Consider another point to the above - being able to order parts and service while driving or from a smart phone. Your car says, "I need new wiper blades. We have a special on right now with free shipping for $x.xx. Do you wish to order?" And since this advertisement would reach a greater amount of car owners, the price would be lower than that of what you could buy in the store (supply and demand).

If a car company were to release a smart car and adapt, this would be the new microsoft or mac from the 80's. Invest and get rich quick =D

Good points.

.

I may have inadvertently suggested it would be simple, but my intent was to suggest that it wouldn't be inordinately more difficult than it is today. It isn't really all that simple today. Anytime attorneys are regularly involved, they have made it excessively complex (probably for job security).

.

You are certainly right that more connectedness, specifically more information about accidents and driving habits (when not fully automated) are likely to play important roles. Already today there are insurance companies that offer reduced rated if the insured will put a 'black box' in their vehicle.

.

I see most of the 'black box' driving/accident data mining as likely to be beneficial to insurance companies and the average (or better) drivers alike. Insurance rates are likely to be far more appropriate to actual driving style, rather than being based on expected driving style guessed at based on things like age/gender/type of car. etc.. This should allow the average driver to pay lower premiums while the drivers with risky driving styles pay more to express their nonconformity.

.

My guess is that the reduction in risk for automobiles operating as fully automated will be sufficient that insurance companies will be quick to institute a policy of 'no deductible' if an accident happens while the vehicle is autonomous.

.

I think it would expose companies to excess liability if automation could not be over ridden (on a train track for example), but I would expect to eventually see fully automated vehicles to inquire if the situation is an emergency and if not request the driver's license and insurance information.

.

I am certainly playing devil's advocate here, since I myself am not, as of yet, ready to trust every aspect of a fully automated car. I have amusing day-mares of finding myself behind the wheel waiting to find an opening to turn left across a busy several lane road in a car using a Microsoft driving system. Just as I am starting to cross, the car begins questioning me...." Are you sure you want to turn left?", "Honk twice if you are sure you want to left.", "Are you sure you want to accelerate this quickly?", "flash your headlights twice if you are sure you want to accelerate this quickly.", "Put on your hazards to upgrade to Microsoft Roadway 2.1 now".

.

That will certainly require some more customer service techs, but they are likely to be somewhere not in the US....for the calls at least.

.

You do raise an important aspect of advancement, and not just for automobiles. As technology improves and advances, whether through the ability for more to be produced per person, or the reduction in maintenance and upkeep required for each thing, we get closer and closer to a time when technology will be so advanced that equivalent amount of goods and services a single person can utilize in a lifetime will be dwarfed by the equivalent amount of goods and or services a single technology enabled person can produce in a working lifetime.

.

The results of this occurring or even being closely approached, by any reasonable approximation are not good. A rapid downward deflationary spiral is almost certain to crash the economy and send earnings and employment tumbling. It seems like the inevitable end game for a successful capitalist approach. That isn't a vote for the other approaches, because while capitalism may have an endgame you'd rather not consider, the others seem to have endgames impossible to reach.

.

That problem is not one I know how to simplify, or even one I have much optimism can be meaningfully overcome.

I have amusing day-mares of finding myself behind the wheel waiting to find an opening to turn left across a busy several lane road in a car using a Microsoft driving system. Just as I am starting to cross, the car begins questioning me...." Are you sure you want to turn left?", "Honk twice if you are sure you want to left.", "Are you sure you want to accelerate this quickly?", "flash your headlights twice if you are sure you want to accelerate this quickly.", "Put on your hazards to upgrade to Microsoft Roadway 2.1 now".

I think those first few rides in a fully autonomous car on a road full of autonomous cars will be terrifying for the uninitiated. If all cars are linked, all with comparable AIs, then margins of safety under good conditions will decrease to video game levels.

Passenger/non-driver: "AIIIIIIEEEEE!"

Car: "What's the problem? I allocated an extra 50-millisecond margin just for your peace of mind."

Hi,

Yes we are frequently hearing such news that this car model is having this extra feature of self driving,and other exciting specifications.But I doubt are they really worth it.It would be really risky to purchase such cars initially.Because such cars would be costly and so would be the repairing cost.

________________________________________________________________________

Check over here for best car deals

Hi,

I totally agree with you. Just imagine how many costly repairs you will have to do for your car. And what will you do if someone hacks your car?

________________________________________________________________________

Check over here to find best deals on salvage vehicles online

With the automation in many cars now some can be hacked and remotely controlled.

Fully driverless cars would be even more vulnerable.

Unfortunately virus writers seem to take delight in stuffing up other people's activities and I doubt fully autonomous cars would be an exception.