To be consistent with your opposition of being transported solely by hack-less systems, you haven’t taken a flight anywhere in the past 10+ years then, right?
How can you accurately compare the two? Number of people who fly VS. number licensed? No, because people drive their car more than they fly. Okay, so number of miles flown VS. driven? No, because the average flight is longer than the average car trip.
According to http://www.transtats.bts.gov/, a total of 631,939,829 passengers boarded domestic flights in the United States in 2010. Obviously that doesn’t include US citizens on international flights or remove non US citizens who already are in the US and fly from one US place to another.
In 2009 there were 210 million licensed drivers in the US. If the average driver makes 3 trips a day, more people fly domestic flights in the US than drive in the average year. If people make 6 trips a day, maybe that’s more than domestic flights, but what about US citizens who travel abroad?
So do people really drive more than they fly? By which metric?
I’m with Confused on this one. Bottom line we’re safer in robot controlled methods of transport than human. Even if hacked. When this happens, thousands of lives will be saved, thousands.
September 26, 2017 at 4:40 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
4
Perplexed, thank you for your comment. Yes, I do believe that most Americans drive all the time except for the live in the basement of mom types.
Have there already been an example, just one, of an auto that was hacked via tech intervention resulting in a single casualty or more? Ready, steady, … GO!
Your attempts to be an alarmist over a hypothetical while ignoring the rest of the benefits shows your agenda.
It doesn’t take a hack to cause Tesla’s to fail to recognize an 18 wheeler in time. However, with the plethora of hacks to many, many large companies, it is only a matter of time and watch the mischief begin.
September 26, 2017 at 1:39 pm
Average Joe says:
Like or Dislike:
4
0
The title should read, “Automakers wait for government regulation to force them to innovate”.
I think you missed my point. True innovators lead. They don’t wait for govco to give them permission and force out other competition by instituting barriers to entry.
Interesting article. I’m all for change and innovation. This obviously will take a while. 1) Just reading here I can see there is still a lot of consumer resistance to the technology, whether it be good or bad. 2) This really doesn’t take off until lots of people adopt it. Chicken and egg type thing. Do I wait to buy it until it’s really embedded or do I stick my neck out. And if everybody waits, when does it go? 3) And though I’m glad the government is not pushing this anymore, it may never get really moving unless the government pushes it.
BTW, never forget, however flawed these systems may be (nothing is perfect) it will be multitudes safer than human drivers which are inherently bad and make so many bad decisions. Deaths will be reduced 50-80%. And that is a good thing.
At a recent computer exposition, Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated: “If General Motors had kept up with the technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving $25.00 cars that got 1,000 miles to the gallon.”
In response to Bill’s comments, GM issued a press release stating: “If General Motors had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the following characteristics:
For no reason whatsoever, your car would crash twice a day.
Every time they repainted the lines in the road, you would have to buy a new car.
Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason. You would have to pull over to the side of the road, close all of the windows, shut off the car, restart it, and reopen the windows before you could continue. For some reason, you would simply accept this.
Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn would cause your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would have to reinstall the engine.
Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, was reliable, five times as fast and twice as easy to drive – but would run on only five percent of the roads.
The oil, water temperature, and alternator warning lights would all be replaced by a single “General Protection Fault” warning light.
The airbag system would ask “Are you sure?” before deploying.
Occasionally, for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle, turned the key and grabbed hold of the radio antenna.
Every time GM introduced a new car, car buyers would have to learn to drive all over again because none of the controls would operate in the same manner as the old car.
You’d have to press the “Start” button to turn the engine off.
All OEMs will buck against adding cost to their cars per a mandate from the federal government. The challenge is to measure the safety benefits. It is difficult to quantify how many lives anti-lock brakes has saved. Why? The accident didn’t happen since the brakes didn’t lock up. How many lives have airbags actually saved? Impossible to determine that every airbag deployment has saved a life and that life would have been lost without the airbag. Advanced warnings of surrounding vehicle movements and conditions would absolutely and drastically reduce accidents. V2V/V2I technology would definitely save lives and save consumers and insurance companies millions of dollars. But again, concrete numbers are impossible to measure since you can’t count the accidents that never happened.
I’d prefer to ride in a car that can’t be hacked. So, I’ll wait until tech gets good enough to provide that level of safety.
To be consistent with your opposition of being transported solely by hack-less systems, you haven’t taken a flight anywhere in the past 10+ years then, right?
Confused, we all drive much more than we fly. I’m with Polar on this one.
How can you accurately compare the two? Number of people who fly VS. number licensed? No, because people drive their car more than they fly. Okay, so number of miles flown VS. driven? No, because the average flight is longer than the average car trip.
According to http://www.transtats.bts.gov/, a total of 631,939,829 passengers boarded domestic flights in the United States in 2010. Obviously that doesn’t include US citizens on international flights or remove non US citizens who already are in the US and fly from one US place to another.
In 2009 there were 210 million licensed drivers in the US. If the average driver makes 3 trips a day, more people fly domestic flights in the US than drive in the average year. If people make 6 trips a day, maybe that’s more than domestic flights, but what about US citizens who travel abroad?
So do people really drive more than they fly? By which metric?
I’m with Confused on this one. Bottom line we’re safer in robot controlled methods of transport than human. Even if hacked. When this happens, thousands of lives will be saved, thousands.
Perplexed, thank you for your comment. Yes, I do believe that most Americans drive all the time except for the live in the basement of mom types.
My comment refers to cars, with MUCH simpler tech equipment than commercial jets.
Provide an example, just one, of a commercial jet that was hacked via tech intervention, resulting in a single casualty or more. Ready, steady, … GO!
Your attempts to discredit me, rather than stay on topic, shows your agenda.
Have there already been an example, just one, of an auto that was hacked via tech intervention resulting in a single casualty or more? Ready, steady, … GO!
Your attempts to be an alarmist over a hypothetical while ignoring the rest of the benefits shows your agenda.
It doesn’t take a hack to cause Tesla’s to fail to recognize an 18 wheeler in time. However, with the plethora of hacks to many, many large companies, it is only a matter of time and watch the mischief begin.
The title should read, “Automakers wait for government regulation to force them to innovate”.
Government has been hacked a lot with serious consequences. Why should we trust them?
I think you missed my point. True innovators lead. They don’t wait for govco to give them permission and force out other competition by instituting barriers to entry.
Interesting article. I’m all for change and innovation. This obviously will take a while. 1) Just reading here I can see there is still a lot of consumer resistance to the technology, whether it be good or bad. 2) This really doesn’t take off until lots of people adopt it. Chicken and egg type thing. Do I wait to buy it until it’s really embedded or do I stick my neck out. And if everybody waits, when does it go? 3) And though I’m glad the government is not pushing this anymore, it may never get really moving unless the government pushes it.
BTW, never forget, however flawed these systems may be (nothing is perfect) it will be multitudes safer than human drivers which are inherently bad and make so many bad decisions. Deaths will be reduced 50-80%. And that is a good thing.
Have you ever installed a new version of a Microsoft O/S with no bugs?
Me neither.
Consider the above in regard to auto-automation (sic).
Polar, how may times has Bill Gates stopped supporting his versions forcing us to adopt the newest, latest version?
I’m not denying that hacking may become possible, but it will save thousands of lives, thousands of them.
reminds me of an lod joke
At a recent computer exposition, Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated: “If General Motors had kept up with the technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving $25.00 cars that got 1,000 miles to the gallon.”
In response to Bill’s comments, GM issued a press release stating: “If General Motors had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the following characteristics:
For no reason whatsoever, your car would crash twice a day.
Every time they repainted the lines in the road, you would have to buy a new car.
Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason. You would have to pull over to the side of the road, close all of the windows, shut off the car, restart it, and reopen the windows before you could continue. For some reason, you would simply accept this.
Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn would cause your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would have to reinstall the engine.
Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, was reliable, five times as fast and twice as easy to drive – but would run on only five percent of the roads.
The oil, water temperature, and alternator warning lights would all be replaced by a single “General Protection Fault” warning light.
The airbag system would ask “Are you sure?” before deploying.
Occasionally, for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle, turned the key and grabbed hold of the radio antenna.
Every time GM introduced a new car, car buyers would have to learn to drive all over again because none of the controls would operate in the same manner as the old car.
You’d have to press the “Start” button to turn the engine off.
http://www.snopes.com/humor/jokes/autos.asp
Interesting how this kind of thing works. Still, good joke.:-)
R, I wish I could give you a thousand likes for your post.
All OEMs will buck against adding cost to their cars per a mandate from the federal government. The challenge is to measure the safety benefits. It is difficult to quantify how many lives anti-lock brakes has saved. Why? The accident didn’t happen since the brakes didn’t lock up. How many lives have airbags actually saved? Impossible to determine that every airbag deployment has saved a life and that life would have been lost without the airbag. Advanced warnings of surrounding vehicle movements and conditions would absolutely and drastically reduce accidents. V2V/V2I technology would definitely save lives and save consumers and insurance companies millions of dollars. But again, concrete numbers are impossible to measure since you can’t count the accidents that never happened.