Your cars will soon be obsolete

drypowder

drypowder

Les Deplorables
Joined
Dec 17, 2016
Messages
4,565
Location
behind enemy lines
Rating - 100%
15   0   0
Not because they won't be suitable for getting you from point A to point B. But because you won't want to pay for the insurance.

With driver assistance technology starting to gain market share, whether it's fully autonomous or something in-between such as GM's Super Cruise, the data is going to show that computers are much safer drivers than humans. And insurers are going to price accordingly, which could mean large differences in liability insurance between 'dumb' vehicles and those with driver assistance tech.
 
Last edited:
drypowder said:
Not because they won't be suitable for getting you from point A to point B. But because you won't want to pay for the insurance.

With driver assistance technology starting to gain market share, whether it's fully autonomous or something in-between such as GM's Super Cruise, the data is going to show that computers are much safer drivers than humans. And insurers are going to price accordingly, which could mean large differences in liability insurance between 'dumb' vehicles and those with driver assistance tech.
Click to expand...
Logically, if computer-driven cars are safer, then they should reduce the overall incidence (and cost) of auto accidents. And if putting computer-driven cars on the road does not increase my likelihood of being involved in an accident, (which it shouldn't) then my insurance rates should be no higher than they are now. To put it another way, I'm the same driver tomorrow (with computer-driven cars on the road with me) as I am today (without them), so there's no reason to increase my rates.
 
Last edited:
drypowder said:
That's a bit like saying smartphones were just a way to take your money. After all, dumb phones were perfectly capable of making phone calls!
Click to expand...

Not really, a smart phone is an option. I can live within the confines of the law without one. I cannot however drive myself back and forth to work without insurance and with the cost of new cars, I don't see myself buying one anytime soon.
 
spittinfire said:
Not really, a smart phone is an option. I can live within the confines of the law without one. I cannot however drive myself back and forth to work without insurance and with the cost of new cars, I don't see myself buying one anytime soon.
Click to expand...
You'll still be able to get insurance, and you'll pay for the risk that your vehicle poses. People with lower risk vehicles will pay less (for liability, though they'll pay more for everything else since it would generally be a newer vehicle)..
 
Pack72 said:
Logically, if computer-driven cars are safer, then they should reduce the overall incidence (and cost) of auto accidents. And if putting computer-driven cars on the road does not increase my likelihood of being involved in an accident, (which it shouldn't) then my insurance rates should be no higher than they are now. To put it another way, I'm the same driver tomorrow (with computer-driven cars on the road with me) as I am today (without them), so there's no reason to increase my rates.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The reasoning in the OP isn't that you'll pay more, but that you won't want to pay for insurance on a dumb vehicle when the insurance (liability portion) on a smart vehicle will be less.
 
spittinfire said:
Not really, a smart phone is an option. I can live within the confines of the law without one. I cannot however drive myself back and forth to work without insurance and with the cost of new cars, I don't see myself buying one anytime soon.
Click to expand...

Why, illegals do it all the time.
 
So Government controlled cars for the masses while only the rich can afford independence.
After all, the government will have absolute control over where and when these robocars can go.
Guv has been trying for decades to force us into guv controlled public transit. Robocars and insurance regulations will give Big Guv more control.
 
fishgutzy said:
So Government controlled cars for the masses while only the rich can afford independence.
After all, the government will have absolute control over where and when these robocars can go.
Guv has been trying for decades to force us into guv controlled public transit. Robocars and insurance regulations will give Big Guv more control.
Click to expand...

Yep because I am sure you will need to swipe a verified payment method to use one of these wonderful methods of transport. More control. Always more control.
 
'soon'????
I wouldnt hold my breath on that, but yall start worrying.
 
drypowder said:
Not because they won't be suitable for getting you from point A to point B. But because you won't want to pay for the insurance.

With driver assistance technology starting to gain market share, whether it's fully autonomous or something in-between such as GM's Super Cruise, the data is going to show that computers are much safer drivers than humans. And insurers are going to price accordingly, which could mean large differences in liability insurance between 'dumb' vehicles and those with driver assistance tech.
Click to expand...

Funny you brought this up dry. Just this morning I had a yearly meeting with our insurance company safety auditor. He said the exact same thing you just posted above and told me the insurance industry is pushing for this. This guy is about to retire so he's not exactly a new young inexperienced insurance risk/loss analyst.
 
Qball said:
Funny you brought this up dry. Just this morning I had a yearly meeting with our insurance company safety auditor. He said the exact same thing you just posted above and told me the insurance industry is pushing for this. This guy is about to retire so he's not exactly a new young inexperienced insurance risk/loss analyst.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the feedback, Q. Makes sense the relevant industries are planning for this long before it's on the average consumer's radar.

GM's Super Cruise will be on the Cadillac CT6 later this year, so the future is coming a lot sooner than many realize.
 
If computer controlled cars can eliminate auto accidents then we won't need insurance anymore so they'll program in a crash here and there

Oh. my 2002 Buick Lesabre is already obsolete....and embarrassing. :)
 
fuelpiper said:
If computer controlled cars can eliminate auto accidents then we won't need insurance anymore so they'll program in a crash here and there
Click to expand...
They won't eliminate accidents, but they should greatly cut down on accidents, especially once there are a significant number on the road.

Even beyond avoiding accidents, they will almost certainly greatly reduce the severity of accidents. Consider rear-end collisions when you are stopped at a light. Unlike a human driver, a smart car can constantly monitor vehicles behind you. When it senses that a vehicle will not stop in time, it can move you forward or off to the side.
 
Why can't a human monitor traffic from the rear while stopped? I do it all the time, especially on my motorcycle.
 
SPST said:
Why can't a human monitor traffic from the rear while stopped? I do it all the time, especially on my motorcycle.
Click to expand...
Smartphones.
Which should be called crackphones.
 
Last edited:
SPST said:
Why can't a human monitor traffic from the rear while stopped? I do it all the time, especially on my motorcycle.
Click to expand...
No, you don't. If you did, you wouldn't have written "especially on my motorcycle".

We are not machines. But we can use machines to perform the repetitive tasks that we would rather not waste our time/energy doing.
 
Last edited:
drypowder said:
No, you don't. If you did, you wouldn't have written "especially on my motorcycle".

We are not machines. But we can use machines to perform the repetitive tasks that we would rather not waste our time/energy doing.
Click to expand...

I do it enough to stay alive. I've had to go between stopped cars before to keep from being rear ended. I'll take my experience over your computer any day.
 
drypowder said:
They won't eliminate accidents, but they should greatly cut down on accidents, especially once there are a significant number on the road.

Even beyond avoiding accidents, they will almost certainly greatly reduce the severity of accidents. Consider rear-end collisions when you are stopped at a light. Unlike a human driver, a smart car can constantly monitor vehicles behind you. When it senses that a vehicle will not stop in time, it can move you forward or off to the side.
Click to expand...

I like it, so I keep my traditional car, drive like a lunatic, and all the smart cars get out of my way.

Have you considered that the cars won't just sense the vehicle behind you, by that your car will actively communicate with all other cars within some radius? Not limited by the radio in the car because the mesh network could easily extend a hundred miles.
 
JimB said:
I like it, so I keep my traditional car, drive like a lunatic, and all the smart cars get out of my way.

Have you considered that the cars won't just sense the vehicle behind you, by that your car will actively communicate with all other cars within some radius? Not limited by the radio in the car because the mesh network could easily extend a hundred miles.
Click to expand...

I bought a new Cadillac about ten years ago and sold it three years later. I remember the guys at the dealership I knew telling me they couldn't park the Escalades next to some other variety of Caddies because the tire pressure gauges in the valve stems would "talk to each other" and kill the car's batteries in a few weeks.

"Smart" cars, my arse. lol
 
Last edited:
JimB said:
Have you considered that the cars won't just sense the vehicle behind you, by that your car will actively communicate with all other cars within some radius? Not limited by the radio in the car because the mesh network could easily extend a hundred miles.
Click to expand...
Yep. Huge network benefit once we get to the point where there are a significant proportion of smart vehicles on the road.
 
My BIL works for Viacom and the rumors he's hearing is that cars will become rolling theaters where movies, news, ads, etc can be watched while the car takes the rider where they want to go.
 
fuelpiper said:
My BIL works for Viacom and the rumors he's hearing is that cars will become rolling theaters where movies, news, ads, etc can be watched while the car takes the rider where they want to go.
Click to expand...
It's the perfect captive audience situation. Much more so than the person at home in front of the TV or on their smartphone. When you're in a car, there is very little to do, and if the car is doing the driving, your eyeballs are free to be monetized.
 
drypowder said:
Yep. Huge network benefit once we get to the point where there are a significant proportion of smart vehicles on the road.
Click to expand...
Of course the man also knows everywhere you go and when you go there. Probably uses biometrics to identify authorized users.

I envision a car leasing program where you subscribe to a service and just take any available vehicle, you'll be billed for usage and entertainment. The application will study demand and know how much capacity is needed at any place at any time. I think this is what Uber is really aiming for.

Gas stations and quick marts as we know them will go away, the vehicles will have a new filling mechanism that doesn't require human interaction, and most may be electric. This may also trigger a massive exodus of Pakistanis from the US.

You think Amazon drones are interesting, a self-driving vehicle with a detachable delivery robot that can put a box on your doorstep will crash FedEx, UPS and USPS unless they adopt the tech and become a service provider.

It's gonna turn a lot of stuff on its head.
 
I'll believe this and shop them right next to the hydrogen fuel cells and cars that run on water. You seriously think the auto industry and petroleum industry is going to eliminate 90% of their customers?
 
  • Like
Reactions: HMP
drypowder said:
so the future is coming a lot sooner than many realize.
Click to expand...
and it's going to put a lot of average people out of work if they ever automate the entire shipping process. Tons of truck drivers and delivery drivers. I love technology, but we are losing a lot of basic jobs for the masses, I'm not sure how this bodes for the overall economy and those who can't adapt.
 
Ikarus1 said:
You seriously think the auto industry and petroleum industry is going to eliminate 90% of their customers?
Click to expand...
They care about sales volume, they don't care about customers, and to top it off the car manufacturers would like nothing more than to eliminate the dealership networks.

Of course it is very hard to predict when technology will be adopted and when everything around it will realign, but I think the benefits are too big to ignore.
 
JimB said:
I envision a car leasing program where you subscribe to a service
Click to expand...
Fleet subscription is definitely the future. It solves the largest inefficiency in vehicle ownership - ridiculously low capacity utilization. For the most expensive purchase for most people apart from a house, having 2% or less capacity utilization is horribly inefficient.

For families, it's easy to see them go from 2 cars to 1 car plus a fleet subscription.

We can get capacity utilization up at least 10-fold, and instead of wearing out cars in 10 or 20 years, wear them out in 1 or 2 years. Which has the added benefit of always having fairly modern tech.



Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
Ikarus1 said:
I'll believe this and shop them right next to the hydrogen fuel cells and cars that run on water. You seriously think the auto industry and petroleum industry is going to eliminate 90% of their customers?
Click to expand...
That's the beauty of competition. Too many players in this arena for effective collusion. The traditional auto manufactures cannot afford to slow play it because Tesla and other tech companies will eat their lunch.

Tesla's market cap already exceeds that of GM and Ford.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
Silver_Bullet said:
and it's going to put a lot of average people out of work if they ever automate the entire shipping process. Tons of truck drivers and delivery drivers. I love technology, but we are losing a lot of basic jobs for the masses, I'm not sure how this bodes for the overall economy and those who can't adapt.
Click to expand...
Autonomous trucks will be widespread before passenger cars because highway miles are easiest for AI to navigate.

Eventually AI will be able to navigate city streets.

We'll need drone delivery pilots. But eventually AI will be able to handle that as well.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
Silver_Bullet said:
and it's going to put a lot of average people out of work if they ever automate the entire shipping process. Tons of truck drivers and delivery drivers. I love technology, but we are losing a lot of basic jobs for the masses, I'm not sure how this bodes for the overall economy and those who can't adapt.
Click to expand...

They're using that argument to push for Universal Basic Income.
 
Universal basic income is an interesting concept if all other forms of welfare is eliminated but we know welfare will never go away.


Sent from my NSA enabled iPad using Crapatalk
 
drypowder said:
We can get capacity utilization up at least 10-fold, and instead of wearing out cars in 10 or 20 years, wear them out in 1 or 2 years.
Click to expand...


But will the eco-mentalists make the connection between this and the environmental impact of new car manufacturing? Probably not.
 
Partsfreak said:
I wait for the day they can be hacked. Then for instance a carload of dipsheets can be driven off a cliff.
Click to expand...
It is said that the current electronic control systems can already be hacked to cause crashes remotely.
It will be so much easier to make 'undesirable ' people dead with fully government controlled vehicles.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
GoWolfpack said:
But will the eco-mentalists make the connection between this and the environmental impact of new car manufacturing? Probably not.
Click to expand...
While higher capacity utilization would mean more frequent turnover of vehicles, it would also mean fewer vehicles.

But environmentalists are ideological marxists, so they don't take principled stands based purely on environmental impact. If they did, they'd be against immigration from the third world and against budget deficits, both of which have huge environmental impacts.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom