![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
walkitouthttp://www.businessinsider.com/there-are-2-competing-ideas-for-the-car-of-the-future--and-only-one-can-win-2015-3
Look, I _get_ that he's doing this for the clix, the lulz, the whatevs. But let's take a look at the structure of the argument anyway.
Lead paragraph provides the frame: in the last year, futurecar went from dream to near-reality. Obviously, this is false. But let's play along anyway. Evidence in the next paragraphs: an incremental Audi drove from Las Vegas to LA, and Tesla has sales projections. Google has weird looking things on wheels. The Audi is designed to be autonomous on dry highways with no precipitation (sort of limited, hencethe LV-LA test). Basically, cooler cruise control.
Debord then suggests a conflict between two future transportation worlds: Tesla (electric, expensive, ownership-model, incrementally moving to a more autonomous driving style) vs. pay-per-ride. He does not _call_ it pay per ride.
"The car as we know it will go away, replaced by an autonomous node in an on-demand, ownership-free transportation matrix, enabled by inexpensive personal technology that's ubiquitous — who needs a garage when you have a smartphone?"
Basically, Uber for all, initially a world of cars owned by entrepreneurial drivers but eventually owned by ... it's really not clear is it? In a world of fully autonomous robot cars, who owns the fleets?
"If you can order up a ride — a driverless ride, running on electricity — anywhere, anytime, in all but the most remote places, you don't need a personal car."
Well, as long as it's not snowing, raining, and as long as all the other cars are not currently in use, and as long as you are okay with schlepping all your crap in and out of those cars, rather than storing it in the car (okay, single people, mocking everyone who lives in their car, but clearly there's a needed car seat solution, never mind adaptive vehicles for people who need much more substantial assistance and transport for things like their wheel chair).
I really do sort of wonder how everyone thinks rush hour is going to work. Will future employers and school systems magically become okay with the But All the Cars Were Already In Use and I Had to Wait excuse replacing the I Got Stuck in Traffic/It Took Forever to Find a Parking Space excuse.
The way I figure it, there will always be a slice of the population which is willing to own its own vehicle, either because it makes sense economically (they need enough rides that owning the vehicle pays for itself, or they need special adaptations to their vehicle, or they want the certainty of a ride at particular times) or it serves a status purpose or both. And Tesla has clearly indicated that it intends to serve that market in the world of ICE and in this hypothetical Everyone Ubers Everywhere world.
Debord asserting Tesla is incompatible with the Uber/Google transportation matrix is sort of like saying, hey, once RyanAir is flying between the US and Europe, that'll be the end of private jet ownership, or at least jetshare companies.
Ya, sure, ya betcha.
ETA: http://mashable.com/2015/03/13/autonomous-car-road-trip/
On March 22, an Audi is going to start driving from SF to NY, taking about a week (why a week? You can make that trip in 4 days stopping for meals and full night's sleep.). It has radar AND lidar, so in theory it can keep going even if it rains.
A bit more detail here; drivers will be handling urban portions of the trip.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/03/16/delphi-autonomous-selfdriving-car-nyautoshow/24838897/
"Drivers probably will wind up doing some of the maneuvering in urban areas."
Altho I have to say I'm wondering about this claim:
"Delphi's engineers already tested the vehicle on the roads in busy downtown Las Vegas, where they had to dodge drunk pedestrians falling down in front of the car and navigate extremely congested traffic."
Seriously? Drunk pedestrian_s_? Multiple ones falling down in front of the car? I hear a fish story. . .
Turns out some all important quotes have been left off.
http://www.autoworldnews.com/articles/13690/20150317/self-driving-car-set-for-3-500-mile-cross-country-adventure.htm
"The company also brought the car to the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas back in January where spectators seemed impressed by demonstrations that included two "drunk" pedestrians falling in front of the car to test its brakes."
That would be a planned demo, not actual drunk persons. Kinda different as a claim.
WEIRDLY, Musk is sort of on Debord's transport matrix no human drivers side (just not necessarily on the ownership model).
http://arstechnica.com/cars/2015/03/elon-musk-believes-non-self-driving-cars-may-one-day-be-outlawed/
I find this kind of talk utterly kooky. WE DO NOT HAVE SELF DRIVING CARS. It is premature to think about banning human drivers in favor of a TECHNOLOGY THAT DOES NOT YET EXIST on the basis of claims that the technology will be much safer than humans, especially if no humans are allowed to participate.
I don't know why people go along with this sort of thing, but I suspect it's right up there with some of the other things that otherwise intelligent people worry about, like hostile alien attack. It would probably bother me _less_ honestly if the same intelligent people didn't sometimes go around making fun of people who believe in fairies or angels or whatever.
CNET coverage of a closed course ride in a Mercedes concept car.
http://www.cnet.com/news/ride-along-in-the-mercedes-benz-f-015-concept/
"But when we reach that point 30-plus years from now where we can totally trust a car to handle the driving, the F 015 posits that we'll be able to literally turn our backs on the road and interact face-to-face with the other passengers or explore more extensive entertainment and productivity technology without fear of distracting the driver. In the self-driving car of the future, we'll all be passengers. Meanwhile, the vehicle will be interacting with pedestrians, other vehicles and even infrastructure on our behalf."
Look, I _get_ that he's doing this for the clix, the lulz, the whatevs. But let's take a look at the structure of the argument anyway.
Lead paragraph provides the frame: in the last year, futurecar went from dream to near-reality. Obviously, this is false. But let's play along anyway. Evidence in the next paragraphs: an incremental Audi drove from Las Vegas to LA, and Tesla has sales projections. Google has weird looking things on wheels. The Audi is designed to be autonomous on dry highways with no precipitation (sort of limited, hencethe LV-LA test). Basically, cooler cruise control.
Debord then suggests a conflict between two future transportation worlds: Tesla (electric, expensive, ownership-model, incrementally moving to a more autonomous driving style) vs. pay-per-ride. He does not _call_ it pay per ride.
"The car as we know it will go away, replaced by an autonomous node in an on-demand, ownership-free transportation matrix, enabled by inexpensive personal technology that's ubiquitous — who needs a garage when you have a smartphone?"
Basically, Uber for all, initially a world of cars owned by entrepreneurial drivers but eventually owned by ... it's really not clear is it? In a world of fully autonomous robot cars, who owns the fleets?
"If you can order up a ride — a driverless ride, running on electricity — anywhere, anytime, in all but the most remote places, you don't need a personal car."
Well, as long as it's not snowing, raining, and as long as all the other cars are not currently in use, and as long as you are okay with schlepping all your crap in and out of those cars, rather than storing it in the car (okay, single people, mocking everyone who lives in their car, but clearly there's a needed car seat solution, never mind adaptive vehicles for people who need much more substantial assistance and transport for things like their wheel chair).
I really do sort of wonder how everyone thinks rush hour is going to work. Will future employers and school systems magically become okay with the But All the Cars Were Already In Use and I Had to Wait excuse replacing the I Got Stuck in Traffic/It Took Forever to Find a Parking Space excuse.
The way I figure it, there will always be a slice of the population which is willing to own its own vehicle, either because it makes sense economically (they need enough rides that owning the vehicle pays for itself, or they need special adaptations to their vehicle, or they want the certainty of a ride at particular times) or it serves a status purpose or both. And Tesla has clearly indicated that it intends to serve that market in the world of ICE and in this hypothetical Everyone Ubers Everywhere world.
Debord asserting Tesla is incompatible with the Uber/Google transportation matrix is sort of like saying, hey, once RyanAir is flying between the US and Europe, that'll be the end of private jet ownership, or at least jetshare companies.
Ya, sure, ya betcha.
ETA: http://mashable.com/2015/03/13/autonomous-car-road-trip/
On March 22, an Audi is going to start driving from SF to NY, taking about a week (why a week? You can make that trip in 4 days stopping for meals and full night's sleep.). It has radar AND lidar, so in theory it can keep going even if it rains.
A bit more detail here; drivers will be handling urban portions of the trip.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/03/16/delphi-autonomous-selfdriving-car-nyautoshow/24838897/
"Drivers probably will wind up doing some of the maneuvering in urban areas."
Altho I have to say I'm wondering about this claim:
"Delphi's engineers already tested the vehicle on the roads in busy downtown Las Vegas, where they had to dodge drunk pedestrians falling down in front of the car and navigate extremely congested traffic."
Seriously? Drunk pedestrian_s_? Multiple ones falling down in front of the car? I hear a fish story. . .
Turns out some all important quotes have been left off.
http://www.autoworldnews.com/articles/13690/20150317/self-driving-car-set-for-3-500-mile-cross-country-adventure.htm
"The company also brought the car to the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas back in January where spectators seemed impressed by demonstrations that included two "drunk" pedestrians falling in front of the car to test its brakes."
That would be a planned demo, not actual drunk persons. Kinda different as a claim.
WEIRDLY, Musk is sort of on Debord's transport matrix no human drivers side (just not necessarily on the ownership model).
http://arstechnica.com/cars/2015/03/elon-musk-believes-non-self-driving-cars-may-one-day-be-outlawed/
I find this kind of talk utterly kooky. WE DO NOT HAVE SELF DRIVING CARS. It is premature to think about banning human drivers in favor of a TECHNOLOGY THAT DOES NOT YET EXIST on the basis of claims that the technology will be much safer than humans, especially if no humans are allowed to participate.
I don't know why people go along with this sort of thing, but I suspect it's right up there with some of the other things that otherwise intelligent people worry about, like hostile alien attack. It would probably bother me _less_ honestly if the same intelligent people didn't sometimes go around making fun of people who believe in fairies or angels or whatever.
CNET coverage of a closed course ride in a Mercedes concept car.
http://www.cnet.com/news/ride-along-in-the-mercedes-benz-f-015-concept/
"But when we reach that point 30-plus years from now where we can totally trust a car to handle the driving, the F 015 posits that we'll be able to literally turn our backs on the road and interact face-to-face with the other passengers or explore more extensive entertainment and productivity technology without fear of distracting the driver. In the self-driving car of the future, we'll all be passengers. Meanwhile, the vehicle will be interacting with pedestrians, other vehicles and even infrastructure on our behalf."