I think it would happen this way: firstly you would automate things that go on a track - like trains - which I think we already have. Then secondly you could have certain lanes or roads that are designed for specific self-driving vehicles. This could help buses and trucks (in certain areas) get around. Then you would keep adding more of those, until many roads have those and very few manual lanes. It wouldn't immediately work in a big established city, but some existing highways or interstates can be fitted easily. Anywhere that has an HOV/Carpool/EV lane can be refitted to be an automated driving lane. Think of it like the Cash Only vs. Easy Pass toll lanes. At first there was 1-2 Easy Pass lanes, then the cash lane was just 1-2 - now we automate them reading license plates.
So to sum up, I think that the self driving will start in very specific areas, and then those specific areas would be expanded until they are the only areas. Especially if those roads contain automated taxi (Uber, Lyft, etc) which you can call with your mobile device. The main reason a lot of people drive is because public transportation in their area is junk and you have to go by it's schedule and route. But having a point-point self-driving option is way more convenient. It's like the subway, but it doesn't need tracks.
Seriously, please automate highway driving first. You get all the benefits for shipping and efficiency and logistics, so the money is there. The problem is so much more simple, and there can be convergent infrastructure (embedded sensors, mesh network updates, higher standards of road quality).
On long trips on highways it just kills me that I have to stare at the same image for hours basically, and that a program couldn't do that more safely than me.
And if this happens, the airlines and all their fees and cramping and security and bad customer service can be brutally competed against for any trip under 800 miles, and probably longer.
Even a one hour 500 mile trip in a plane is really 3-4 hours, and you don't get a car at your destination, while driving there is about 5-6 hours. If I could surf that whole time or nap, then I'll drive.
If I can sleep overnight, then 8-10 hour drives become far preferable to flying.
If I have friends along the way to visit, or interesting places to vacation in, two or three day trips are more preferable than 1500-2000 mile flights, especially if you have a family and it is way way way cheaper.
Airlines have been reorienting themselves to shorter hops over the last couple decades. Self driving on highways will decimate that business, and only long haul/overseas will remain.
It seems there is a solution for your problem already: Busses.
Although not strictly automated, they are externalized. That is you are not the one doing the driving, and therefor you are free to sleep, read, work, etc, while you wait to get to your destination.
The beauty about busses is that they exists. There is no unsolved technology problems with busses. And they can be (and most likely already are) implemented without any or minimal additional infrastructure in your area.
If busses are overcrowded your local government can simply buy more, so they scale really well. If they become congested, we also have a solution called trains. Trains also solves your problems with driving and as a bonus get you to your destination far quicker then driving.
Many people want privacy and control over the vehicle they're in, and will pay a premium for it. When you take a bus you're sharing it with random people, can't stop to take a break whenever you want, and can't go directly door to door.
Trains can be a superior alternative depending on what country you're in. In the U.S. we're far behind some other countries in high speed rail infrastructure, so over long distances trains are usually slower than driving.
If there is political will to fund the research needed and create the infrastructure for autonomous highway driving lanes, surely politicians in the US can find the incentives to fund the infrastructure needed for extra buses (including luxury lines with first class seating; for those willing to pay the premium) and train lines.
Edit: As an example of political will for the established and proven solution of mass public transit system, over the unproven non-existent solution of autonomous highway driving lanes. Look at the steam (pun intended) the idea of establishing high speed rail between Portland OR, and Vancouver BC is getting from the public and politicians alike.
> There is no unsolved technology problems with busses.
They have similar physics problems as cars.
1. They can't go very fast nor carry a lot of weight before they become uneconomical or unsafe.
2. They especially can't go very fast for very long if they are electrical.
3. They need a driver which makes them expensive to run often or with few passengers.
If you get to choose, what you want is something like:
A. Medium speed trains. Cheaper than high speed ones, but still twice as fast as cars with more comfort and less attention. But they need to have good infrastructure, so they can go that speed well and consistently.
B. Local buses with fixed routes.
C. Better golf carts for local transport.
Eventually you would automate all of them. Which would be relatively easy because the fast trains go on tracks, the buses go known routes and the cars, that are the most complex to automate, go slow. Slow also wouldn't affect for example automated deliveries, or repositioning, over longer distances.
Also even before automation as the cars would be "underbuilt", relative to today, they are cheap. So the don't get the sunk cost of a car. And since they don't go outside the local area, each municipality can choose their own infrastructure more freely.
Of course I don't see it happening as things are today, but this is in my opinion more inline with what should be discussed. Since things relative to physics isn't likely to change quickly.
Indeed buses or by no means the optimal technology of transporting people. But they often are the cheapest and easiest, and therefor often the smartest choice for urban planners. However once buses start to become congested (Seattle, I’m looking at you), or forseen to become so, they really are a terrible option next to some sort of a train (light, or heavy, underground, elevated, or on ground).
Buses could probably work in urban areas if there were less cars. Today cars come from far and wide "bunch up" in cities. Much of the reasons why trains are better in urban areas today is because of the dedicated space and being electric. But train don't get to really use their speed, easier environment or carrying capacity much in urban areas.
With less cars in cities buses could be competitive with trains since they are street level and can go in different directions, but the would probably still have to be electric and automated for that to be true. (Of course you would still need subways and commuter trains anyway, but you wouldn't be as dependent on them). Trams could probably also be an option, but I am not entirely sure on the future of self-driving trams.
Your comment is how things "should work", but really not how they do. At least in the U.S.
The drive from Las Vegas to Los Angeles is about 3.5 hours. It's a 90 minute flight.
If you try to do it by Bus it takes 12 (often for about 1/2 the price of the plane ticket), and for some reason a train with NO STOPS took 16 hours. Which was discontinued just a couple years ago, because no one was using it.
Maybe someday we will get a high speed Mag Lev train for this commute, because mass transit has completely failed this commute.
> Your comment is how things "should work", but really not how they do. At least in the U.S.
Since this is a comment on a thread about the possibility of building the infrastructure required for highway lanes reserved for autonomous cars, i.e. a thread about how things "could work" I see no problems with giving my self the same leeway for the established technology as the parent does for any future technology.
I think the highway freight problem is also a good place for humans to act as a backup, since you more or less know when that will be needed (the beginning and the end). Also, a human driver on their 7th hour of driving is often not as alert as they normally would be, so the level of comparison is easier for AI to meet.
Unfortunately, what the people paying for this want to achieve is the ability to not have to pay for a human driver, and if you need a human for the beginning and the end of the drive, you have to pay them for the whole time. So, while this would be an excellent application, I fear the business incentives are not aligned for it to happen first like it ought to.
I wonder if "launch zones" will be one of the first "modify the environment" solutions for public roads. A staging area where a driver can leave the truck that is to go on the highway. Some place very near the highway (even better if it is something like weigh station simple to enter and exit).
If there were enough of them and someone like Elon Musk with lots of eyes on the road via teslas could identify when the vehicles need human drivers (wrecks / construction / weather) then maybe the trucks approaching the human-need area could get off at one of the staging areas for a human to take over. It would help with the "human from beginning to end" problem that would require level 5 automation.
You might not even need to team up for eyes on the ground if you have lightweight drones regularly flying the routes back and forth.
One problem might be enough people to take over at a moments notice. Another problem might be drivers who only get periodic experience handling the truck. But it seems like a semi-feasible solution to get a step closer to highway freight automation.
As someone that rides a motorcycle, I'm deathly scared of self-driving cars and the tech companies that will try to automate highway driving, especially with their agile 'move fast break things' 'ask forgiveness not permission' mentality
I think your prediction will turn out to be as closer or closer than any other. Certainly more on the money than the breathless “won’t be a problem in a few years when self-driving...”
But as I read your probably-on-the-money prediction, I was thinking “here we go again, dumping money for the two-ton wheelchairs while alternative transportation goes begging again.” Where’s my fucking barrier-protected bike lane? Or any bike lane at all?
Frankly, if that’s how it goes, I wonder if it happens at all. “Separate lanes for wealthy tech workers” is how that’s going to go. You know why we can’t even get bike lanes? Because people bitch and moan because they don’t personally use it. Expand that to an empty lane of moving traffic while the plebs sit in traffic.
> Frankly, if that’s how it goes, I wonder if it happens at all. “Separate lanes for wealthy tech workers” is how that’s going to go. You know why we can’t even get bike lanes? Because people bitch and moan because they don’t personally use it. Expand that to an empty lane of moving traffic while the plebs sit in traffic.
It’s bad policy to spend scarce resources (in this case road space) on something few people use. Just 0.6% of people bike to work at leas once a week. Bike lanes are a phenomenon completely out of proportion to how many people use them.[1]
Self driving cars will be that way at first, of course. But the big difference is that self driving technology has the possibility of becoming mainstream. Biking, by contrast, will never become mainstream. The average American commutes 16 miles one way. That’s an hour of biking each way (in weather that, in most of the country, is too hot or too cold most of the year).
It’s bad policy to spend scarce resources (in this case road space) on something few people use.
You mean like self-driving cars? How about we spend "scarce resources" on things people actually do use right now, like bicycles, scooters, electric skateboards, whatever.
You're also arguing, "let's not spend anything on infrastructure for $ACTIVITY, then when no one does $ACTIVITY, we can say, 'yeah, but nobody does that'."
We're already doing that in my neck of the woods with toll express lanes on the insterstates. The moneyed skip the traffic at the expense of widened roads which would help all. These express lanes will logically be the first to allow automation, but at least in that case the affluent will be paying to prove the technology which will eventually benefit everyone.
A problem with this is that I don't think there are very many places with available, extra lanes.
That prevents a smooth, gradual transition. Essentially you're proposing a massive public transport project that will progressively take over and replace existing transportation infrastructure.
I guess that's possible, but we could have done that without autonomous automobiles and it hasn't happened yet (well, not on a pervasive scale). Actually, if we could do that, I'm not sure we'd actually choose autonomous vehicles, as generally envisioned, as the mode of transportation.
Put another way: I think the whole lure of autonomous vehicles is the idea that they can adapt to existing infrastructure rather than the other way around. That's exactly what seems to make makes it possible for them to catch on in a big, general way, and eventually replace human driven cars.
This has been my line of thought as well, autonomous vehicle will slowly emerge over time. We are not waiting on 1 or 2 big tech breakthroughs alone, but also on a lot of infrastructure and regulatory changes, which take a lot of time to enact.
I would wager we are at least a decade away from self-driving cars being a common part of daily life, in the sense that the average driver would see them on the road somewhat regularly. And probably 2 decades away from self-driving cars being an "everymans" vehicle and/or delivering on the concept of not having to own a vehicle and instead summoning one when needed, or putting your autonomous vehicle to work for you while you are not using it.
> Then secondly you could have certain lanes or roads that are designed for specific self-driving vehicles
I have a friend in mapping at Uber ATG. Uber Eats is only available in areas she has mapped which makes me think that they aren't waiting for dedicated infrastructure and relying on their mapping database for now, at least for early development. Granted, Uber Eats isn't using AVs, but that makes me think the GIS crew is doing some heavy lifting there. Pure speculation on my part though.
The issue with the intermediate 'specific lanes' step is three-fold 1) those buses and trucks will still require a human driver for most of their journey for dealing with the non marked sections so there's not too much gained because you're still paying someone the whole time. 2) the infrastructure is useless without the vehicles and the added capability in the vehicles is useless without the infrastructure so there's a chicken and egg problem with getting either started. 3) On top of those unless the lanes are completely segregated the only real thing adding hardware to lanes adds is making lane keeping easier. If not you still need all the accident avoidance cameras/lidar on the car the same as you need on a more 'free range' auto.
I don't deny that this is a thing that is possible to do, but what's the value add of the cars being self driving - why wouldn't we invest public money more rationally than that? The only political way this could happen is if people in powerful political positions were being paid by the manufacturers or patent-holders of this technology.
I would expect full self-driving to come through remote operation capability - at first a single person can remotely operate one vehicle. After some improvements it would be possible for a single operator to control 2 vehicles and so on.
Your vision is idealistic, but I doubt it's going to work like that in advanced capitalism America. We don't even really have automated trains in the USA, though admittedly the business-case for those is much lower given the high worker:rider ratio. It stands to reason, in our very greedy and polarized nation, anything that requires infrastructure and policy changes is going to be VERY slowly rolled out. The most likely scenario is tech companies bust out advancing features in regulation-light states/municipalities in the USA.
Look at Uber, Lyft, Bird, AirBnB, and many other companies who just implement whatever they feel like and dare cities to challenge them. The path of corporate-profit-seeking SDC's seems far more likely than your vision of limitation and safety.
In fact, if we actually look what's happening on the ground, Waymo is advanced in Arizona, a regulation-light state. Tesla is pushing advancing features, hardware, and software across markets, though there are some exceptions made. Still, these companies are going to push for autonomy-everywhere faster than most would deem comfortable.
Traffic lights are automated. They detect how many cars are waiting to know when to change, they adjust their cycle length depending on time of day, etc., they synchronise along long roads so people generally get a string of green lights.
Only a small proportion of traffic light signals are adaptive and/or connected today. Most rely on manual signal timing studies to set a timing schedule. The up-front cost is typically prohibitive. Full disclosure I am founder of a startup changing the economics on this.
Most ones I regularly go through here (Christchurch, New Zealand) seem adaptive, as you can see the detector positions (often separate ones for cyclists as well). The lights clearly respond to them. The behaviour along long busy roads here may well be just timing to line up greens.
In the USA the latest statistics indicate less than 3000 of these adaptive lights are in operation (“less than 1%”). I am curious what New Zealand did to fund the six figure cost per intersection.
Hm. Maybe we're talking about different things. The detectors I mean are fairly simple: inductive loops in rectangles cut into the road, that detect the metal body of a car (or metal frame of a bike). They don't seem technologically advanced or expensive (but I don't know the cost). This article claims they're common: https://auto.howstuffworks.com/car-driving-safety/safety-reg...
Sorry, now I see what you mean!! Yes underground inductor loops are already pretty common. They make it possible to do things like preventing a change of lights if nobody is waiting on the red. The limitation is it can only detect the car that is physically on top of the inductor loop. They can also be less than ideal in some situations e.g. someone on a side road turning right who triggers a change of lights, needlessly stopping the main road. It’s typically a great improvement over nothing at all, but there is additional (massive) improvement.
I thought you were initially referring to Adaptive Traffic Signal Controllers [1]. They detect vehicle congestion in real time and adapt routing strategies to maximize throughflow. They also coordinate directly with other traffic lights instead of relying on manual timings. Which are often determined through lengthy and data intensive “signal studies”. These have shown to provide, for example, substantial time savings, fuel and emission savings, and there have been measurable positive effects on safety.
One of the things I do when I'm the only car waiting at an otherwise empty intersection is to think about all the ways it could be better automated rather than timed.
So to sum up, I think that the self driving will start in very specific areas, and then those specific areas would be expanded until they are the only areas. Especially if those roads contain automated taxi (Uber, Lyft, etc) which you can call with your mobile device. The main reason a lot of people drive is because public transportation in their area is junk and you have to go by it's schedule and route. But having a point-point self-driving option is way more convenient. It's like the subway, but it doesn't need tracks.