IMO HSR is a nice romantic thought, but largely impractical due to high costs and it should only be restricted to highly dense areas. I think autonomous cars have a lot more potential: can go faster, theoretically very safe, and could completely change how we get around. http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2011-06/nevada-passes-driverless-car-legislation-paving-way-autonomous-autos
Woot woot. Now your car is also your DD. LOL
No, it’s not going to work, because people will sue the sh*t out of any company that makes automatic cars. Here’s why: 2.4 million people in the US are injured in traffic accidents every year. Now, let’s say you invent an automatic car system that is 100 times safer than normal cars. Even though your system is 100 times better, 24000 people will still be injured every year. Since the system is automatic, they will not be able to attribute these injuries to driver error. As a result, every single one of these 24000 f*ckers is going to sue CBB Auto Company for compensation. Think about what happened to Toyota. They got sued and lost billions of dollars because some 20 people reported the brake problem. And guess what? *There wasn’t actually any problem.* It turned out to be driver error. Furthermore, these brakes haven’t changed in 20 years. It’s a reliable mechanism used in millions of cars across the world. Yet, people still managed to almost destroy Toyota over this. Imagine what will happen with a new technology like automatic cars.
I hear you on litigation, but you could say the same for airlines, autos, and many other industries, but they are still around… Never said it was going to be an easy ride, but practically speaking, its def. the best method.
In mother Russia, car drives you!
CFABLACKBELT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I hear you on litigation, but you could say the > same for airlines, autos, and many other > industries, but they are still around… > Airplanes are very very very safe. Imagine if airlines had the same accident frequency as ground traffic. Every airline would go bankrupt. “Autos”… I just explained why this is different. The point is that it seems practically impossible to reduce traffic accidents with autonomic cars to the point that litigation costs will not be too burdensome for car companies. No one is going to do it. Airplanes and train accidents are much easier to prevent, and normal car accidents are harder to sue a company about, since they are generally the fault of one of the involved parties.
CFABLACKBELT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > IMO HSR is a nice romantic thought, but largely > impractical due to high costs and it should only > be restricted to highly dense areas. > > > I think autonomous cars have a lot more potential: > can go faster, theoretically very safe, and could > completely change how we get around. > > http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2011-06/nevada- > passes-driverless-car-legislation-paving-way-auton > omous-autos HSR is good for the 300-600 mile range trip where driving would take 5-10hrs, flying would be not worth the TSA drama and arriving early, waiting for bags etc. Best option is HSR which would take 2-3hrs max and hopefully cheaper if adopted by the mass public I can see HSR connecting DC - NY - Boston working wonders…
Black Swan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In mother Russia, car drives you! Well done my friend.
ZeroBonus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > CFABLACKBELT Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > IMO HSR is a nice romantic thought, but largely > > impractical due to high costs and it should > only > > be restricted to highly dense areas. > > > > > > I think autonomous cars have a lot more > potential: > > can go faster, theoretically very safe, and > could > > completely change how we get around. > > > > > http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2011-06/nevada- > > > > passes-driverless-car-legislation-paving-way-auton > > > omous-autos > > > HSR is good for the 300-600 mile range trip where > driving would take 5-10hrs, flying would be not > worth the TSA drama and arriving early, waiting > for bags etc. Best option is HSR which would take > 2-3hrs max and hopefully cheaper if adopted by the > mass public > > I can see HSR connecting DC - NY - Boston working > wonders… HSR still is only practical in dense areas as you highlighted. Again though the initial capital costs and maintenance are very high so it makes it difficult to compete with planes. Not dealing with TSA is nice, but lets say HSR rail really takes off. It only takes one nut jub to ruin that “no hassle” of getting on the train.
But millions of people already take trains every day. Why would the TSA target “high speed” rail specifically? Is it because the faster train makes it easier for me to hijack and drive it into the Whitehouse?
ohai Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > CFABLACKBELT Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I hear you on litigation, but you could say the > > same for airlines, autos, and many other > > industries, but they are still around… > > > > Airplanes are very very very safe. Imagine if > airlines had the same accident frequency as ground > traffic. Every airline would go bankrupt. > “Autos”… I just explained why this is > different. > > The point is that it seems practically impossible > to reduce traffic accidents with autonomic cars to > the point that litigation costs will not be too > burdensome for car companies. No one is going to > do it. Airplanes and train accidents are much > easier to prevent, and normal car accidents are > harder to sue a company about, since they are > generally the fault of one of the involved > parties. Litigation will be an issue and should the system crash then ya thats a problem. But, car companies are investing in this, why else are the dumping millions of R&D ? Just to blow off some of that uh excess cash they are just rolling in after bankruptcy??? Also, don’t you think they are thinking of this and will find ways to curb a lot of that litigation before they decide to roll this out?
ohai Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But millions of people already take trains every > day. Why would the TSA target “high speed” rail > specifically? Is it because the faster train makes > it easier for me to hijack and drive it into the > Whitehouse? As I was saying if it really takes off then it becomes more of a target, right? Who said anything about driving it into the white house? An explosion in Penn Station on the train is material enough… it wouldn’t take much for people to overreact and then we would need a TSA for HSR.
what is your definition of an autonomic car? You do realize that an HSR would probably be 100x cheaper what you are envisioning…
CFABLACKBELT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Uhhh, terrorists can *already* blow up Penn Station if they wanted to… Why would having a few more train lines make any difference? As for why Google is spending money on this… Google spends money on a lot of weird crap. It doesn’t mean that everything they do will be adopted by the whole world. And no, I don’t think they are looking into how to counter 24,000 lawsuits a year, because no one thinks automatic cars are going to be mainstream for many many years if at all.
ZeroBonus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > what is your definition of an autonomic car? You > do realize that an HSR would probably be 100x > cheaper what you are envisioning… Fully autonomous. Based on what analysis that it would be 100x cheaper? They could be guided by wireless, satellite, etc… other than that and central computer hardware, facilities, software upgrades, and monitoring, I fail to see where the extra capital costs would come from. HSR is horribly expensive. Tracks and trains are expensive, most likely would need to deal w/ high cost labor b/c of unions, maintenance is expensive. I also don’t think they really address a high demand outside of the eastern corridor other than the romantic idea of traveling on a train. Outside that you’re really just addressing a market that already has a decent mode of transportation. Look I love the train more than you give me credit for, but even the ones now are still expensive and don’t always go at the times I want or to all the places I want. Autonomous cars could essentially be trackless trains; they could be driven very close and reduce traffic by several orders of magnitude. Also you aren’t restricted to one route and time schedule. This isn’t something I expect will start tomorrow, but I don’t see why the technology could not be achieved in the next 20-30 years.
ohai Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > CFABLACKBELT Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > Uhhh, terrorists can *already* blow up Penn > Station if they wanted to… Why would having a > few more train lines make any difference? > > As for why Google is spending money on this… > Google spends money on a lot of weird crap. It > doesn’t mean that everything they do will be > adopted by the whole world. And no, I don’t think > they are looking into how to counter 24,000 > lawsuits a year, because no one thinks automatic > cars are going to be mainstream for many many > years if at all. You’re argument still doesn’t address the situation of a possible attack. Just because it hasn’t happened doesn’t mean it won’t happen. And there have been attempts from what I recall. Again it only takes one dickbag to ruin it.
I think you’re getting a bit crazy and my mom says I shouldn’t talk to you.
ohai Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > CFABLACKBELT Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > Uhhh, terrorists can *already* blow up Penn > Station if they wanted to… Why would having a > few more train lines make any difference? > > As for why Google is spending money on this… > Google spends money on a lot of weird crap. It > doesn’t mean that everything they do will be > adopted by the whole world. And no, I don’t think > they are looking into how to counter 24,000 > lawsuits a year, because no one thinks automatic > cars are going to be mainstream for many many > years if at all. No one thinks its going to be mainstream? Where’d you get that from? Google isn’t the only one playing into this…
In soviet Amerika, bank borrows money from you!
Black Swan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In mother Russia, car drives you! In Soviet Russia, road forks you!