DRIVERLESS ELECTRIC CARS

[avag...@gmail.com‏]

OH JOY


https://www.nytimes.com/video/technology/100000005473373/take-a-test-ride-in-a-driverless-car.html?emc=edit_nn_20171004&nl=morning-briefing&nlid=71480105&te=1

[Jeff Liebermann‏]

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 07:54:47 -0700 (PDT), avag...@gmail.com wrote:

>OH JOY
>https://www.nytimes.com/video/technology/100000005473373/take-a-test-ride-in-a-driverless-car.html

"Bikes May Have To Talk To Self-Driving Cars For Safety's Sake"
<http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/07/24/537746346/bikes-may-have-to-talk-to-self-driving-cars-for-safetys-sake>
I guess the next step is a semi-self-driving-bicycle that detects road
and vehicle hazards and takes over control of the bicycle if it
detects something dangerous or unsafe.

Hint:
- Would you fly in an autonomous airplane?
- Would you ride in a self driving bus or train?
- How do you feel in a driverless elevator?
- Would you really want to do the same in an automobile or bicycle?

--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[avag...@gmail.com‏]

Google Fairfield and Pittsburgh are over the horizon

definitive, both ignore the now fact we can't hear an electric car

DUH

[Jeff Liebermann‏]

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 14:36:59 -0700 (PDT), avag...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 9:52:38 AM UTC-7, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 07:54:47 -0700 (PDT), avag...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >OH JOY
>> >https://www.nytimes.com/video/technology/100000005473373/take-a-test-ride-in-a-driverless-car.html
>>
>> "Bikes May Have To Talk To Self-Driving Cars For Safety's Sake"
>> <http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/07/24/537746346/bikes-may-have-to-talk-to-self-driving-cars-for-safetys-sake>
>> I guess the next step is a semi-self-driving-bicycle that detects road
>> and vehicle hazards and takes over control of the bicycle if it
>> detects something dangerous or unsafe.
>>
>> Hint:
>> - Would you fly in an autonomous airplane?
>> - Would you ride in a self driving bus or train?
>> - How do you feel in a driverless elevator?
>> - Would you really want to do the same in an automobile or bicycle?

>Google Fairfield and Pittsburgh are over the horizon definitive,

Nothing found.

>both ignore the now fact we can't hear an electric car

"Electric cars are now required to make noise at low speeds so they
don’t sneak up and kill us"
<https://www.theverge.com/2016/11/16/13651106/electric-car-noise-nhtsa-rule-blind-pedestrian-safety>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_vehicle_warning_sounds>

Sample sounds:
<https://web.archive.org/web/20130306092938/http://www.nhtsa.gov/SampleSounds>
I wonder how long it will take for drivers to substitute the sounds of
horses, cattle stampede, steam trains, covered wagons, tanks, toys,
and such?

You didn't answer my question. Do you really want a
semi-self-driving-bicycle? I'm told that it's for your safety.

[John B.‏]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2017 09:52:39 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 07:54:47 -0700 (PDT), avag...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>OH JOY
>>https://www.nytimes.com/video/technology/100000005473373/take-a-test-ride-in-a-driverless-car.html
>
>"Bikes May Have To Talk To Self-Driving Cars For Safety's Sake"
><http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/07/24/537746346/bikes-may-have-to-talk-to-self-driving-cars-for-safetys-sake>
>I guess the next step is a semi-self-driving-bicycle that detects road
>and vehicle hazards and takes over control of the bicycle if it
>detects something dangerous or unsafe.
>
>Hint:
>- Would you fly in an autonomous airplane?
>- Would you ride in a self driving bus or train?
>- How do you feel in a driverless elevator?
>- Would you really want to do the same in an automobile or bicycle?

I believe that essentially most modern subway trains are computer
controlled although they may have a "driver" in the control cab and I
can't remember ever being in an elevator that had a driver :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[avag...@gmail.com‏]

SUPER !

have not heard anything from them.

[Jeff Liebermann‏]

On Thu, 05 Oct 2017 07:37:01 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I live on the left coast of the USofA. We don't have subways except
for BART. Subways are an east coast thing.

Trains and subways have various levels of automation:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_urban_metro_subway_systems#Degrees_of_Automation>
I think there has been sufficient experience to consider a self
driving train to be safe. Probably same for an elevator. Airplanes
have been able to takeoff, fly, and land without a pilot for many
years. I'm not sure if the airlines actually do that:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoland>

So, are you ready and willing to have your bicycle do many of the same
things?

Incidentally, the last time I rode in an elevator with an operator was
in the late 1950's or early 1960's.

[Frank Krygowski‏]

Pittsburgh International Airport uses self-driving subway shuttles to
carry passengers between terminals. I've never experienced or even heard
of a problem.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[David Scheidt‏]

Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
:On Thu, 05 Oct 2017 07:37:01 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>

I rode one last month. (Fine Arts building in Chicago has completely
manually operated elevators, operator has to stop in the right place.)

--
This is a randomly numbered sig.

[Doc O'Leary‏]

For your reference, records indicate that

Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:

> I think there has been sufficient experience to consider a self
> driving train to be safe. Probably same for an elevator.

It’s not even a question of experience, but of environment. Elevators
operate in a very controlled space. It should come as no surprise
that they were easy to automate a long time ago, and that people are
comfortable with their automation.

Trains also operate in a fairly restricted space. Being on rails,
they’re essentially a low-hanging-fruit version of an autonomous
vehicle. If they aren’t the *first* vehicles being universally
controlled by computers, that technology is not road worthy.

> Airplanes
> have been able to takeoff, fly, and land without a pilot for many
> years.

Air travel is “easy” because there’s very little in the way of physical restrictions on the vehicle.

> So, are you ready and willing to have your bicycle do many of the same
> things?

Cars, motorcycles, and (lastly) bikes are used in *very* different
conditions from those other vehicles. The driving environment is
inherently messy, and the smaller the vehicle is the less equipment you
can put on it to process that data. It doesn’t help that smaller
vehicles will also be able to travel into places that a larger vehicle
cannot. So, no, I wouldn’t want my bike to always operate like a car,
just like I’m sure most people don’t want a car that operates like a
train.

Or, put another way, why would I go biking if the only thing I’m acting
as is a weak engine? Just slap an electric motor on it at that point
and make it like every other autonomous vehicle on the road.

--
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly

[avag...@gmail.com‏]

no haven't heard any noises from slow trajectory electrics.

small cars like Fit and uh the low space coupe are so curious I feel an urge for driving one. Not like going for a Camo Cayenne but ....


where we're headed here is Big Bro will ask us to carry a trashponder ...an appleponder or a goolex...there being then fewer appleponders over the road than on the berm. works gut no ?

[cycl...@gmail.com‏]

A week ago I was riding along on a mountain road, I had been watching behind me but was passing the occasional home. I pull out a couple of inches to miss a crack in the pavement and a Transit van JUST missed me by mere inches. He had purposely aimed to pass me with his right mirror just missing me and so when I pulled over my elbow almost hit the side of his van. Mark that there was clear road and sight ahead so that he COULD have cleared me by feet.

There was NO SOUND either of his approach or after he passed. Or at least none that could be heard above my vocal opinion of him. Looking in the rear window he gave a "then get out of my way" sign. Good thing he didn't stop.

I don't believe these are made in electric so there should be laws that ALL vehicles should make sufficient sound to be detected. I know that you can hear a bicycle overtaking you so why not a motor vehicle?

[Jeff Liebermann‏]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2017 09:52:39 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>"Bikes May Have To Talk To Self-Driving Cars For Safety's Sake"
><http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/07/24/537746346/bikes-may-have-to-talk-to-self-driving-cars-for-safetys-sake>
>I guess the next step is a semi-self-driving-bicycle that detects road
>and vehicle hazards and takes over control of the bicycle if it
>detects something dangerous or unsafe.
>
>Hint:
>- Would you fly in an autonomous airplane?
>- Would you ride in a self driving bus or train?
>- How do you feel in a driverless elevator?
>- Would you really want to do the same in an automobile or bicycle?

I can see that I'm not making my point, so I'll try again.

It's highly likely that we're going to have driverless cars inflicted
upon the American public either the choice of government edict. My
guess(tm) is that such driverless cars will need to communicate with
each other and with some manner of central traffic authority via some
kind of mesh network. It's this network that controls which roadway
the vehicles will travel, distributes the traffic to prevent
bottlenecks, and hopefully helps prevent accidents. If bicycles are
going to continue riding on the same roads, they will need to check
into the same mesh network that will be used by cars, buses, trucks,
and such in order to be deemed safe.

Are you ready for the semi-self-driving-bicycle of the future? If
not, you might want to practice your hands free bicycle riding.

(Sorry for the delayed retort. I've been rather busy lately).

[John B.‏]

On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 20:08:08 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>

wrote:

>On Wed, 04 Oct 2017 09:52:39 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
>wrote:
>
>>"Bikes May Have To Talk To Self-Driving Cars For Safety's Sake"
>><http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/07/24/537746346/bikes-may-have-to-talk-to-self-driving-cars-for-safetys-sake>
>>I guess the next step is a semi-self-driving-bicycle that detects road
>>and vehicle hazards and takes over control of the bicycle if it
>>detects something dangerous or unsafe.
>>
>>Hint:
>>- Would you fly in an autonomous airplane?
>>- Would you ride in a self driving bus or train?
>>- How do you feel in a driverless elevator?
>>- Would you really want to do the same in an automobile or bicycle?
>
>I can see that I'm not making my point, so I'll try again.
>
>It's highly likely that we're going to have driverless cars inflicted
>upon the American public either the choice of government edict. My
>guess(tm) is that such driverless cars will need to communicate with
>each other and with some manner of central traffic authority via some
>kind of mesh network. It's this network that controls which roadway
>the vehicles will travel, distributes the traffic to prevent
>bottlenecks, and hopefully helps prevent accidents. If bicycles are
>going to continue riding on the same roads, they will need to check
>into the same mesh network that will be used by cars, buses, trucks,
>and such in order to be deemed safe.
>

Are they actually made to communicate with each other? I see some
tests being carried out (in Singapore) and in one case a driverless
car drove into a lorry. Or maybe they only talk with each other :-)

>Are you ready for the semi-self-driving-bicycle of the future? If
>not, you might want to practice your hands free bicycle riding.
>
>(Sorry for the delayed retort. I've been rather busy lately).

--

Cheers,

John B.

[avag...@gmail.com‏]

Yes but the personal transponder creates a net for .50 where a complete NET for DLC is millions

A system approach to DLC is more sci fi.

BUT ! a commuting corridor system ? Need to check goo scolar


We are concerned abt your health when you're absent.

[avag...@gmail.com‏]

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C3&q=automated+driverless+cars+commuter+systems+analysis&btnG=

This exists now ...4 cars on green...go no go ramp entry

Or instead of a jam at Ave Z, a system would acquire Z vehicles n process dribbling Z onto exit with TSD ...would that. Mean total involvement between all vehicles ? Is that possible ?

where's the economic gain, social justice, common welfare ?

[cycl...@gmail.com‏]

On Saturday, October 7, 2017 at 8:08:00 PM UTC-7, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
> It's highly likely that we're going to have driverless cars inflicted
> upon the American public either the choice of government edict. My
> guess(tm) is that such driverless cars will need to communicate with
> each other and with some manner of central traffic authority via some
> kind of mesh network. It's this network that controls which roadway
> the vehicles will travel, distributes the traffic to prevent
> bottlenecks, and hopefully helps prevent accidents. If bicycles are
> going to continue riding on the same roads, they will need to check
> into the same mesh network that will be used by cars, buses, trucks,
> and such in order to be deemed safe.
>
> Are you ready for the semi-self-driving-bicycle of the future? If
> not, you might want to practice your hands free bicycle riding.

Jeff, I have no doubt that we will see self-driving cars on the road. Tesla already has a self driving feature.

But because of the number of older cars on the road they will not operate via intercommunications but the same way you and I drive - by sensing everything around us.

Will the government demand that everyone install a detector in their car so that self-driving cars can detect ahead of time that there is an asshole afloat in the sea of traffic? Do you really thing that hot-rodders are about to accept that? And from what I've seen of heavy traffic the worst drivers are those that appear to have the most money.

So it's more likely that a bicyclist will be in far less danger from self driving cars that work properly that from driven cars. But note the "work properly" component. I do not think that will occur.

[cycl...@gmail.com‏]

On Saturday, October 7, 2017 at 10:02:04 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
>
> Are they actually made to communicate with each other? I see some
> tests being carried out (in Singapore) and in one case a driverless
> car drove into a lorry. Or maybe they only talk with each other :-)

When they have a strong connection.

[Jeff Liebermann‏]

On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 12:01:58 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Are they actually made to communicate with each other? I see some
>tests being carried out (in Singapore) and in one case a driverless
>car drove into a lorry. Or maybe they only talk with each other :-)

No, or rather not yet. The "autonomous vehicle", which implies that
all the intelligence is on-board, is being deprecated in favor of
"driverless vehicle". I'm not sure of the status of "self-driving
car" and "robo-car". When the carnage of totally autonomous vehicles
is over, the obvious solution is to have the vehicle talk to other
vehicles, potential hazards, traffic control devices, and perhaps
bicycles. My guess(tm) is this will manifest itself in the form of an
ad-hoc wireless network between all the autonomous vehicles and
similar devices within range. In my never humble opinion, it's the
only effective way to do traffic management over wide areas.

The article:

"Bikes May Have To Talk To Self-Driving Cars For Safety's Sake"
<http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/07/24/537746346/bikes-may-have-to-talk-to-self-driving-cars-for-safetys-sake>

is the first one that I've seen that suggests a bicycle "talk" to an
autonomous vehicle under the banner of safety. Would you want to ride
your bicycle on a roadway full of bumper cars without any way to warn
the cars to keep their distance?
<https://www.google.com/search?q=bumper+cars&tbm=isch>

Since everyone seems to be avoiding the question, perhaps rephrasing
the question will help: Are you prepared to cede some of your bicycle
autonomy in order to be allowed to ride the highway of the future? Are
you ready for robo-bike?

[Jeff Liebermann‏]

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 06:20:29 -0700 (PDT), cycl...@gmail.com wrote:

>Jeff, I have no doubt that we will see self-driving cars on
>the road. Tesla already has a self driving feature.
>But because of the number of older cars on the road they
>will not operate via intercommunications but the same way
>you and I drive - by sensing everything around us.

The current idea of an autonomous car was borrowed from the DARPA
trials of autonomous military vehicles used to carry supplies,
munitions, and such. Someone thought it might be useful for solving
the drunk driving, distracted driving, tailgating, and general
stupidity behind the wheel, for the average driver. So, it's being
sold on the basis of safety which will allegedly save 30,000 lives per
year. That could have been done cheaper and easier by simply hiring
chauffeurs for all the clueless drivers, but that's not how things
work in our technological society. So, the first generation of
driverless vehicles will be totally autonomous, with no connection to
any other autonomous vehicles or road hazards because the
infrastructure currently doesn't exist to do this. I predict that
there will be a sufficiently large number of undesirable incidents,
which will inspire an ad-hoc wireless network scheme to enhance the
system and take the load off the autonomous computer trying to
identify various objects.

>Will the government demand that everyone install a detector
>in their car so that self-driving cars can detect ahead of
>time that there is an asshole afloat in the sea of traffic?

You're getting ahead of me a little, but yes, it will shove it down
our safety conscious throats, exactly like seat belts, crash resistant
bumpers, dashboard padding, air bags, autie-lock brakes, extra tail
lights, and other expensive safety features. As an added bonus, we'll
probably be blessed with a crude flight recorder, which already exists
in some automobiles, to collect data during last few seconds before
impact. In the name of safety, there's no limit to what can be
justified.

>Do you really think that hot-rodders are about to accept that?

Of course not. But I'm not talking about hot rod motorists. I'm
talking about bicyclists, although I could lump the e-bike hot rodders
into a similar class. Will cyclists accept computer control over
their speed and direction in order to check into the roadway of the
future?

>And from what I've seen of heavy traffic the worst drivers are
>those that appear to have the most money.

Maybe. I've always suspected that the new car buyers were those who
had totaled their previous vehicle.

>So it's more likely that a bicyclist will be in far less danger
>from self driving cars that work properly that from driven cars.
>But note the "work properly" component. I do not think that will
>occur.

Less danger is not the goal. It's zero danger. With a bicycle
mounted transponder or full blown directional control, the idea is to
make the bicycle equal to any autonomous car and make it part of some
kind of collision avoidance system. Relying on the pattern
recognition software to do this for bicyclists strikes me as a bit
risky.

More later. One cord of firewood just arrive. Time to get some
exercise stacking it.

[AMuzi‏]

On 10/8/2017 11:42 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 12:01:58 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:


> When the carnage of totally autonomous vehicles

> is over...


Jeff, you are SUCH an optimist.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[avag...@gmail.com‏]

robo cycle ? no, again too expensive and again a .50 transponder suits an 11 year olds cycle.

the bottom line with cycle are kids n kids costs.

[Doc O'Leary‏]

For your reference, records indicate that
Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:

> It's highly likely that we're going to have driverless cars inflicted
> upon the American public either the choice of government edict. My
> guess(tm) is that such driverless cars will need to communicate with
> each other and with some manner of central traffic authority via some
> kind of mesh network. It's this network that controls which roadway
> the vehicles will travel, distributes the traffic to prevent
> bottlenecks, and hopefully helps prevent accidents. If bicycles are
> going to continue riding on the same roads, they will need to check
> into the same mesh network that will be used by cars, buses, trucks,
> and such in order to be deemed safe.

That’s quite a leap. The streets are and will continue to be full of
vehicles that *aren’t* going to be part of that sort of network for a
long, long time. Add to that all sorts of other traffic like
pedestrians and pets and things that fall from trucks, downed trees
and rocks and snow drifts, and on and on. If autonomous vehicles
can’t be safe without active communication, they are a danger to
everyone and don’t belong on the road. There’s nothing special about
bikes from that viewpoint.

[AMuzi‏]

On 10/8/2017 2:46 PM, Doc O'Leary wrote:
> For your reference, records indicate that
> Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
>> It's highly likely that we're going to have driverless cars inflicted
>> upon the American public either the choice of government edict. My
>> guess(tm) is that such driverless cars will need to communicate with
>> each other and with some manner of central traffic authority via some
>> kind of mesh network. It's this network that controls which roadway
>> the vehicles will travel, distributes the traffic to prevent
>> bottlenecks, and hopefully helps prevent accidents. If bicycles are
>> going to continue riding on the same roads, they will need to check
>> into the same mesh network that will be used by cars, buses, trucks,
>> and such in order to be deemed safe.
>

> That’s quite a leap. The streets are and will continue to be full of
> vehicles that *aren’t* going to be part of that sort of network for a

> long, long time. Add to that all sorts of other traffic like
> pedestrians and pets and things that fall from trucks, downed trees
> and rocks and snow drifts, and on and on. If autonomous vehicles

> can’t be safe without active communication, they are a danger to
> everyone and don’t belong on the road. There’s nothing special about
> bikes from that viewpoint.
>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1uYrMlhdWE

Maybe it's in the algorithm, maybe it's not.

[Jeff Liebermann‏]

On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 12:33:07 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 10/8/2017 11:42 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 12:01:58 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> When the carnage of totally autonomous vehicles
>> is over...

>Jeff, you are SUCH an optimist.

I prefer realist. Few new technologies have ever been introduced
without sacrificing a few people in order to learn what doesn't work.
Prognostications, predictions, and pontifications:
1. Driverless cars will include optional ejection seats.
2. Someone on Kickstarter will offer a driverless eBike, probably for
pickup and deliver errands.
3. Someone in government will suggest that the only safe way to
operate a driverless car is to have it centrally managed by yet
another inept and expensive state or federal agency.
4. Driving a driverless car will not require a driving license.
5. The Calif Vehicle Code will add a requirement for a MINIMUM speed
for vehicles (including bicycles) that use the safe highway of the
future.
6. Driverless anything will be required to make engine like noises to
warn pedestrians and cyclists of their approach. eBikes are next.
7. There will be a problem with people getting out of their
driverless vehicles, and then watching the driverless vehicle drive
off into the sunset to who knows where.
8. The first successful driverless vehicle with be a large truck
(because replacing the union driver has the highest payback).
9. Delivering a bomb by driverless vehicle will become a problem.
10. The shortest distance through traffic will NOT be where the
driverless car wants to go.

"Smarter Cycling Series: Watch out for laws that demand cyclists get
out of the way of driverless cars"
<https://ecf.com/news-and-events/news/smarter-cycling-series-watch-out-laws-demand-cyclists-get-out-way-driverless>

[AMuzi‏]

All interesting observations.
What I meant about optimism was, what makes you think the
carnage will slow or stop?

[Frank Krygowski‏]

On 10/8/2017 3:46 PM, Doc O'Leary wrote:
> For your reference, records indicate that
> Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
>> It's highly likely that we're going to have driverless cars inflicted
>> upon the American public either the choice of government edict. My
>> guess(tm) is that such driverless cars will need to communicate with
>> each other and with some manner of central traffic authority via some
>> kind of mesh network. It's this network that controls which roadway
>> the vehicles will travel, distributes the traffic to prevent
>> bottlenecks, and hopefully helps prevent accidents. If bicycles are
>> going to continue riding on the same roads, they will need to check
>> into the same mesh network that will be used by cars, buses, trucks,
>> and such in order to be deemed safe.
>
> That’s quite a leap. The streets are and will continue to be full of
> vehicles that *aren’t* going to be part of that sort of network for a
> long, long time.

Agreed. Yesterday, a friend and I attended an event somewhere east of
his home and west of mine. He arrived in his 1930 Model A. I arrived on
my 1972 motorcycle.

Also: We spent today walking and biking around a major city. That meant
frequently negotiating with motorists as we walked across streets using
crosswalks. As has been pointed out many times, the per-mile fatality
rate for pedestrians is triple that of bicyclists.

So: Transponders in shoes?


--
- Frank Krygowski

[cycl...@gmail.com‏]

Not only is it not over but it has hardly begun. If you think for one second that young men are going to turn their cars over to an artificial intelligence you're going to have to think a little harder on that Jeff.

[cycl...@gmail.com‏]

On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 11:59:21 AM UTC-7, avag...@gmail.com wrote:
> robo cycle ? no, again too expensive and again a .50 transponder suits an 11 year olds cycle.
>
> the bottom line with cycle are kids n kids costs.

Well, I don't think you have a tight grasp on transponders yet but I do agree with your general ideas.

[cycl...@gmail.com‏]

I came down a street this morning at about 30 mph dodging pot holes the entire distance. Some 5 miles. No auto-car could do that.

[cycl...@gmail.com‏]

1. Why? So that they can land into the pathway of another vehicle?
2. Driverless e-bikes will NEVER exist.
3. I'm absolutely sure you're correct. But they will be given the thumbs down.
4. That could be correct but is somewhat questionable.
5. No.
6. Bicycles are already too quiet. I almost bought it today when a man stopped for a car backing out of a slanted parking spot and then as I was passing pulled into that spot without ever signaling. He apologized but what difference would that have made if I was less alert.
7. That is absolutely the LAST worry that would be possible. They are tied to the occupant's phone.
8. No, you have to have driven a truck to understand that.
9. Possibly but unlikely. Too easily thwarted.
10. Err, auto-mapping already finds the quickest route to anywhere.

[cycl...@gmail.com‏]

On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 4:22:13 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>
> All interesting observations.
> What I meant about optimism was, what makes you think the
> carnage will slow or stop?

As I see it it will remain unchanged and driverless cars will not exist because they will be and remain unsafe as a truck rolling down a hill without a driver or brakes.

[cycl...@gmail.com‏]

I rode past a school and there was a car show on the field consisting of virtually every sports car built before 1960.

[Jeff Liebermann‏]

On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 18:22:03 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>What I meant about optimism was, what makes you think the
>carnage will slow or stop?

Oh that. Well, it can go either way. Initially, it will be a balance
between early adopters, who are generally competent and reasonably
affluent, and customer tested beta quality software, which is certain
to be FOB (full of bugs). These early adopters are generally willing
to tolerate a few bugs and fatalities in order to win points among
their peers for being a technical pioneer or adventurer. Once these
are gone, the next wave of buyers will be less competent and less
affluent. At the same time, the lessons learned by the fatal
accidents of the early adopters will improve the software to keep the
second wave of buyers alive long enough to run the driverless car into
a commodity. Of course, government will try to help accelerate
progress, but more likely will simply hinder progress with
bureaucratic impediments. In other words, I don't have any idea if a
driverless car will actually save 30,000 lives per year. It might
simply kill the same number of drivers in a different manner. My
guess(tm) is that the carnage will initially slow down but later
increase as the software becomes old, communications protocols change,
and the roads become even more clogged with additional driverless
"things". Talk to anyone with an older car that has a dashboard GPS
mapping display, who has tried to obtain an up to date map.

The key to the puzzle is the word "safety". I've dealt with safety
equipment in an industrial environment. Once safety interlocks and
shields are introduced, the accident rate usually increases rather
than decreases. That's because workers genuinely believe that the
safety device will protect them from harm, no matter how stupid they
act. So, they do risky things and soon learn that safety devices only
protect against a limited number of possible actions.

Methinks that much the same will be when driverless cars are
introduced while chanting the "safety" mantra. Drivers will believe
that the driverless car technology will protect them from harm, and
proceed to perform new and original stupid stunts, testing the limits
of the new technology. If the programmers have anticipated such
stunts, then these drivers might live to tell the story at the next
party. If not, the drivers become a statistic. I'm not worried
because natural selection should be able to eliminate drivers with
more faith in the new technology than understanding.

Now, back to my question. How much are you willing to relinquish for
the privilege of riding your bicycle on the driverless highway of the

future? Are you ready for robo-bike?

[avag...@gmail.com‏]

Average vehicle life is 12 years so 7-9 years from now is electric driverless territory.

Advanced 1 liter car ...

There is an assumption in the background that cleanER energy generation is possible

The entire scheme is similar to the cat convertor n vinyl/acrylic paint.

There are way to many cars n way to few pools n it's gonna get air worse not better

[Jeff Liebermann‏]

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 20:14:20 -0700 (PDT), cycl...@gmail.com wrote:

>I came down a street this morning at about 30 mph dodging pot
>holes the entire distance. Some 5 miles. No auto-car could do that.

At this time, that's probably true. However, they're working on the
problem.

"Driverless Cars Stay In Their Lane - Even If It Means Hitting
Potholes"
<https://www.newsy.com/stories/autonomous-cars-take-pothole-hits-to-keep-other-drivers-safe/>

"5 Things That Give Self-Driving Cars Headaches"
<https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/06/automobiles/autonomous-cars-problems.html>
"But potholes are tough. They lie below the road surface,
not above it. A dark patch in the road ahead could be a
pothole. Or an oil spot. Or a puddle. Or even a filled-in
pothole."

[Jeff Liebermann‏]

Nothing is too expensive for the safety of our children. There will
probably be some minimal IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) type
transponder built into the kids smartphone to warn approaching
driverless cars that the speeding maniac on a bicycle, going the wrong
way on the street, across traffic, wearing clothes invisible on LIDAR,
is an 11 year old.

"The Suit You Will Need to Avoid Surveillance in the Future"
<https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/where-the-lasers-cant-see-you/409303/>

[AMuzi‏]

Tom, you might spend a little time with teenagers of my
grandsons' cohort. They don't think as we did. Their world
has always been safe, adventure proscribed, opportunity
closed. Cars have little attraction or meaning for most of
that generation.

I'm uncomfortable with their ethos, but then again it's not
my generation.

[AMuzi‏]

I'll take my bad attitude and antiauthoritarian streak
wherever my bike wants to go, sans tracking device. We're
USAians - defiance is among our dearest cultural values.

To the phrase, "Everyone ought to...", my reply is a raised
middle finger.

[cycl...@gmail.com‏]

I find it difficult to believe that this is what humans have become. Shaking in their boots that someone in another state used a gun to kill people while ignoring the deaths of thousands of people every year due to vehicular accidents.

But perhaps you're correct. Today children are kept inside with very limited access to adventure of any sort. I spent most of my childhood above the age of 6 walking miles and playing in salt marshes collecting snakes and lizards. The other day I was riding up one of the local hills through a canyon and there was a medium sized tarantula walking down the road. I rode around it without a second though and they later reading email from the riding group was fearful complaints that it's the season which tarantulas are out.

One time we were riding in a group on the Bay Trail and there was a garter snake slithering across the trail and people started screaming, "Kill it, kill it!". It took them all by surprise that I simply picked it up and put it on the other side of the trail through a fence so none of them could get at it to kill it.

Perhaps the horror movies are having this sort of effect on people. I don't go to crap like that and so do not even understand the sort of fears these people have.

[cycl...@gmail.com‏]

Unfortunately that is aimed straight at Frank who makes the most absurd comments. It's like reading a 6th grade primer on "what everyone should do".

[Jeff Liebermann‏]

On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 07:43:57 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>I'll take my bad attitude and antiauthoritarian streak
>wherever my bike wants to go, sans tracking device. We're
>USAians - defiance is among our dearest cultural values.
>
>To the phrase, "Everyone ought to...", my reply is a raised
>middle finger.

I'll take that to mean that you don't like the idea of converting your
bicycle into a computerized autonomous vehicle. I recommend a slogan
such as "Death before I change anything" for those occasions when you
confront progress. I assume you realize that by refusing to have a
remote controlled autopilot installed on your bicycle, you are
sentencing 30,000 people per year to needless and senseless deaths in
automobile accidents? You are also obstructing the technical progress
by which literally all the auto manufacturers are furiously
developing, presumably because they smell profit. Since a casual poll
of my friends and associates have indicated that they would gladly
purchase a driverless car for their wives and teenagers, but would
never buy one for themselves, it's amazing that all these auto
manufacturers would consider the R&D expenditure worthwhile. Maybe
they know something that we don't, such as if it can be made to work,
the government will buy into the program and shove it down our
throats?

Even if you refuse to embrace technical progress in cycling, what
about your customers? Surely you will have requests for totally safe
bicycles suitable for cyclists that are a hazard to themselves and
others. What will you say to bicycle commuters, who only want to
arrive on time and in one piece? What about the lost sales of wiring,
power, sensors, computers, radios, and bolt on accessories that will
soon be necessary on the bicycle of the future? What will you say to
a paraplegic who wants to experience an improvement in mobility? Can
you really look the other way to the local drug dealer who needs a
better get-away vehicle? Are you planning to ignore the potential
market of adding mobility to the IoT (Internet of Things) which with
the addition of some navigation hardware can act as a delivery vehicle
on behalf of the owner? Can you really ignore these and many other
benefits that only require that you relinquish a few fundamental
freedoms, personal preferences, and cycling habits?

[cycl...@gmail.com‏]

Jeff, remember that this is a sue-happy society and you can be assured that if a self driving car hits another car, cyclist or pedestrian that that company will be done for.

[AMuzi‏]

At least on one point, you're out of date. Dope dealers
used to be very big into flashy race bikes. Oh, do I ever
miss those days! Park your expensive car in a not so
expensive neighborhood and it sticks out like an 'arrest me'
sign. Nobody sees bicycles, even nice ones. And they just
go with you, indoors/ upstairs out of sight.

[Jeff Liebermann‏]

On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 21:29:58 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 20:14:20 -0700 (PDT), cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>I came down a street this morning at about 30 mph dodging pot
>>holes the entire distance. Some 5 miles. No auto-car could do that.
>
>At this time, that's probably true. However, they're working on the
>problem.
>
>"Driverless Cars Stay In Their Lane - Even If It Means Hitting
>Potholes"
><https://www.newsy.com/stories/autonomous-cars-take-pothole-hits-to-keep-other-drivers-safe/>
>
>"5 Things That Give Self-Driving Cars Headaches"
><https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/06/automobiles/autonomous-cars-problems.html>
> "But potholes are tough. They lie below the road surface,
> not above it. A dark patch in the road ahead could be a
> pothole. Or an oil spot. Or a puddle. Or even a filled-in
> pothole."

Incidentally, one of the proposed solutions to the pothole problem is
for a self driving vehicle to "mark" the location of any road hazards
on the map which all the other cars use. It's essentially a crowd
sourced technology that in use today with traffic monitoring software
such as Waze and Google Maps. The first vehicle that finds a pothole
sends the GPS lat-long position of the pothole to the central
computer, which then redistributes the hazard to navigation
information to the other self-driving cars. The first car to drive
into the pot hole may have a problem, but those that follow can the
avoid the pothole.

"Google Is Developing a System to Map Potholes Using a Car's GPS"
<http://time.com/money/4009901/google-patent-gps-potholes-tracking-map/>
My explanation of the origin, nature, and characteristics of potholes,
a little about their reproductive habits, and their connection to
gophers:
<http://members.cruzio.com/~jeffl/nooze/pothole.txt>

[(PeteCresswell)‏]

Per Jeff Liebermann:

>Once safety interlocks and
>shields are introduced, the accident rate usually increases rather
>than decreases. That's because workers genuinely believe that the
>safety device will protect them from harm, no matter how stupid they
>act. So, they do risky things and soon learn that safety devices only
>protect against a limited number of possible actions.

Our Industrial Relations 101 prof told us the following (approximate)
story:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lumbering operations are notoriously dangerous. You have hundreds of
large, whole, trees piled up and workers have to navigate the mess.

One particular hazard is the crane: guys get killed and maimed as trees
being moved around by the crane impact workers.

One such operation had a conspicuously-good safety record and The Powers
That Be wanted to find out how it was accomplished.

They brought the crane operator in for questioning.

"How do you manage to keep such a good safety record in such a dangerous
environment?"

"Well, when I hook up a tree and start moving it, I yell 'RUN YOU
SONOFABITCHES, RUN!!!!'."
------------------------------------------------------------------------

And that was it.

There was no Snopes back then, so I don't know....


--
Pete Cresswell

[Jeff Liebermann‏]

On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 12:58:24 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid>
wrote:

Probably baloney. You can't hear anyone yelling over the noise of a
big diesel crane motor. Large logging cranes also have a long reach,
making the distance where one can be heard a problem.
<https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=logging+crane>
Having someone suddenly run in some random direction is a really bad
idea. Without first looking around, chances are good that they'll run
into a harazardous situation, rather than away from it. Best to stay
put, look around, determine the best exit strategy, and then do
whatever is appropriate. Lastly, there's the "sky is falling" effect.
If the crane operator really does yell "run" with every load, fairly
soon, everyone in the yard is going to ignore him.

Unfortunately, my safety story is quite real. I don't have time to
tell the story in detail, but basically, the safety guards and
interlocks were responsible for more accidents than the unsafe
original equipment. Much of this was in the 1970's and 1980's, when
OSHA was empowered to demand these safety features, and machinery
manufacturers were forced to retrofit existing machinery with
dangerous safety guards and awkward interlocks. It's much better
today, but the basic principle applies. If people feel that they're
safe, they tend to do risky things on the assumption that the safety
devices will protect them from injury.

[Frank Krygowski‏]

On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 11:32:54 PM UTC-4, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
> Methinks that much the same will be when driverless cars are
> introduced while chanting the "safety" mantra. Drivers will believe
> that the driverless car technology will protect them from harm, and
> proceed to perform new and original stupid stunts, testing the limits
> of the new technology. If the programmers have anticipated such
> stunts, then these drivers might live to tell the story at the next
> party. If not, the drivers become a statistic. I'm not worried
> because natural selection should be able to eliminate drivers with
> more faith in the new technology than understanding.

Yep. You're describing "risk compensation." It's real.

> Now, back to my question. How much are you willing to relinquish for
> the privilege of riding your bicycle on the driverless highway of the
> future? Are you ready for robo-bike?

I'm not willing to relinquish my right to travel by bicycle.

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski‏]

On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 11:51:51 AM UTC-4, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> ... it's amazing that all these auto

> manufacturers would consider the R&D expenditure worthwhile. Maybe
> they know something that we don't, such as if it can be made to work,
> the government will buy into the program and shove it down our
> throats?

I really doubt that. Consider: The attempt to force seat belt interlocks
down our throats was a failure. People will put up with some things (like
explosive safety devices in their cars) if they're pretty much invisible.
But people tend to reject interventions that require behavior changes they
don't want to make.

- Frank Krygowski

[avag...@gmail.com‏]

ROBOCYCLE ?

is but a small rectangle....go to hell n we know your there

enforcing cycle laws against children is $$$$$$$$$$$$$
but Mom can sew a transponder to their spec cycle shorts

a bicycle isnot a gun or a manifesto.

if turning the bike life into a manifesto... kinda anticycling

[Frank Krygowski‏]

On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 1:40:44 PM UTC-4, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, my safety story is quite real. I don't have time to
> tell the story in detail, but basically, the safety guards and
> interlocks were responsible for more accidents than the unsafe
> original equipment. Much of this was in the 1970's and 1980's, when
> OSHA was empowered to demand these safety features, and machinery
> manufacturers were forced to retrofit existing machinery with
> dangerous safety guards and awkward interlocks. It's much better
> today, but the basic principle applies. If people feel that they're
> safe, they tend to do risky things on the assumption that the safety
> devices will protect them from injury.

I developed and taught the robotics class in my program. My best friend worked
as an OSHA inspector in another state. I brought him in to talk about a robot-
related fatality he investigated.

The robotic workcell was designed and installed by a German company, and a
young German engineer working in the plant was charged with maintaining it.

One day the robot stopped mid-process. One of the many interlock sensors was
preventing it from accessing the workpiece. Now, the workcell had all the
proper lockout/tagout controls. It even had a remote camera that could be
placed where needed to safely watch any problem steps. Of course, it had a
gate in the chain link barrier fence that would stop all operation if opened,
and require restart from outside the workcell.

But this young engineer was too smart for that. He felt he needed to see the
problem up close; so he lay down on the parts conveyor and let himself be
rolled into the workcell through a small opening. He then went over to the
fixture holding the workpiece, saw the sensor that wasn't making contact,
adjusted it, and was stabbed to death from behind by the now-satisfied robot
as it reached for the part in the fixture.

- Frank Krygowski

[Jeff Liebermann‏]

I beg to differ. Most US states already have driverless car
legislation in place:
<http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/autonomous-vehicles-self-driving-vehicles-enacted-legislation.aspx>
Prez Obama asked for $4 billion over 10 years be spent on autonomous
vehicle research. I couldn't determine if this became a budget
proposal or was passed.
<https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/15/business/us-proposes-spending-4-billion-on-self-driving-cars.html>
UK is spending 20 million pounds on research:
<https://www.gov.uk/government/news/driverless-cars-technology-receives-20-million-boost>
Offhand, it looks like these states and governments are expecting
large deployments of driverless vehicles and are doing their best to
prepare. Kinda sounds like they're rather confident that there will
be widespread adoption of driverless vehicles, even though there are
going to be problems and there will be widespread resistance for
various reasons. Besides, if there are any behavior changes required,
government sponsored re-education camps for non-conformists could be
available.

[DougC‏]

On 10/9/2017 11:06 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> ...

> Incidentally, one of the proposed solutions to the pothole problem is
> for a self driving vehicle to "mark" the location of any road hazards
> on the map which all the other cars use. It's essentially a crowd
> sourced technology that in use today with traffic monitoring software
> such as Waze and Google Maps. The first vehicle that finds a pothole
> sends the GPS lat-long position of the pothole to the central
> computer, which then redistributes the hazard to navigation
> information to the other self-driving cars. The first car to drive
> into the pot hole may have a problem, but those that follow can the
> avoid the pothole.
>
> "Google Is Developing a System to Map Potholes Using a Car's GPS"
> <http://time.com/money/4009901/google-patent-gps-potholes-tracking-map/>
> My explanation of the origin, nature, and characteristics of potholes,
> a little about their reproductive habits, and their connection to
> gophers:
> <http://members.cruzio.com/~jeffl/nooze/pothole.txt>
>
>

I think eventually self-driving cars will be a lot more efficient than
what we have now, but two things will need to happen.

1) there may need to be stationary "base stations" that track local
problems, that the cars will automatically connect to and query for
local road conditions (such as the locations of really bad road damage...)

2) people will have to get used to the car doing the navigation, even
when it doesn't appear to be the most-direct way to go--due to traffic
conditions or road construction or whatever.

Of course, #2 above means that cities will basically be tracking
wherever you drive, all the time. Which sounds creepy at first, but
eventually normal people won't care. Some cities are kinda doing it now,
with stationary and mobile license plate scanners. At least to some
degree your ISP tracks everything you do online, and your cell phone
company tracks everything you do (and where you go) with your cell
phone. The way these systems are constructed and managed makes doing so
necessary to an extent.

......

Also the bicycle detection problem is not so much of a problem. All you
need is a unique optical reflector type that isn't allowed to be used
for other things.

Such as, instead of a single round silver (front) or red (rear)
reflector, have three smaller round reflectors, mounted in a pyramid.

For the side reflectors on the bicycle frame (not on the wheels) use two
round reflectors, the 'leading' one mounted 45-degrees to the trailing one.

Cars will already have IR lighting for their self-driving feature
anyway, new reflectors don't cost much and just doing this would make
the task of a computer picking out a bicycle from a camera image WAY
faster and easier.

Plus I just wanna see Lance-wannabes with 50-cent reflectors on their
$5000 carbon road bikes. :]

[AMuzi‏]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_z0LJt1GtpyU/SxA9I1eLIaI/AAAAAAAABYU/YMShJUnKj4w/s320/this-bike-is-a-pipe-bomb-001.jpg

[DougC‏]

On 10/9/2017 3:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 10/9/2017 1:39 PM, avag...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> ROBOCYCLE ?
>>
>> is but a small rectangle....go to hell n we know your there
>>
>> enforcing cycle laws against children is $$$$$$$$$$$$$
>> but Mom can sew a transponder to their spec cycle shorts
>>
>> a bicycle isnot a gun or a manifesto.
>>
>> if turning the bike life into a manifesto... kinda anticycling
>>
>
> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_z0LJt1GtpyU/SxA9I1eLIaI/AAAAAAAABYU/YMShJUnKj4w/s320/this-bike-is-a-pipe-bomb-001.jpg
>
>

The main real-world mention of bicycles as bombs was an article on the
bomb squads in Israel. This was where the Florida punk-rock group got
their name from IIRC, but the wiki page for the band does not mention that-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Bike_Is_a_Pipe_Bomb

Oddly enough, the wiki page for bicycle bomb has no mention of Israel at
all, even though it's probably had to diffuse more bombs than any of the
other locations mentioned (maybe even... all of the other locations
combined?)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_bomb

In the Arab/Israeli version I read of, the bicycle frame tubes were
packed with explosives and a timer and just left somewhere in a public
place.

[Doug Landau‏]

Including the foomobile?

[AMuzi‏]

On 10/9/2017 6:45 PM, Doug Landau wrote:
> On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 8:27:41 PM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 7:20:16 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 10/8/2017 3:46 PM, Doc O'Leary wrote:
>>>> For your reference, records indicate that
>>>> Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's highly likely that we're going to have driverless cars inflicted
>>>>> upon the American public either the choice of government edict. My
>>>>> guess(tm) is that such driverless cars will need to communicate with
>>>>> each other and with some manner of central traffic authority via some
>>>>> kind of mesh network. It's this network that controls which roadway
>>>>> the vehicles will travel, distributes the traffic to prevent
>>>>> bottlenecks, and hopefully helps prevent accidents. If bicycles are
>>>>> going to continue riding on the same roads, they will need to check
>>>>> into the same mesh network that will be used by cars, buses, trucks,
>>>>> and such in order to be deemed safe.
>>>>

>>>> That’s quite a leap. The streets are and will continue to be full of
>>>> vehicles that *aren’t* going to be part of that sort of network for a

>>>> long, long time.
>>>
>>> Agreed. Yesterday, a friend and I attended an event somewhere east of
>>> his home and west of mine. He arrived in his 1930 Model A. I arrived on
>>> my 1972 motorcycle.
>>>
>>> Also: We spent today walking and biking around a major city. That meant
>>> frequently negotiating with motorists as we walked across streets using
>>> crosswalks. As has been pointed out many times, the per-mile fatality
>>> rate for pedestrians is triple that of bicyclists.
>>>
>>> So: Transponders in shoes?
>>
>> I rode past a school and there was a car show on the field consisting of virtually every sports car built before 1960.
>
> Including the foomobile?
>

Probably I was thinking you don't see an Hispano-Suiza, a
Mercedes-Simplex and a Talbot together very often nowadays.

[Joy Beeson‏]

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 22:20:13 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> So: Transponders in shoes?

I don't wear shoes. They give me corns.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

[John B.‏]

On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 12:58:24 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid>
wrote:

But why ever not? After all audible warning devices have been in used
for centuries :-)

--
Cheers,

John B.

[avag...@gmail.com‏]

Last time spotted a big mouth camaro ?

[Frank Krygowski‏]

I wasn't doubting that auto-cars will exist and become popular. I was
doubting that the government will "shove them down our throats."


--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.‏]

I wonder whether they will ever become popular given that they quite
obviously will be more expensive, perhaps much more expensive, I am
reading numbers as large as $75,000 for Google's autonomous driving
vehicle. Didn't SMS recently post something about buying a new car? I
seem to remember numbers in the range of a third of that value.

But what do you get for this money? After all probably everyone
reading this is capable of driving an automobile so what advantage
does this, rather expensive, self-driver provide?

Another problem that might arise. Will a self-driver work if one
visits Canada, or Mexico?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[avag...@gmail.com‏]

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/10/09/business/china-hastens-the-world-toward-an-electric-car-future.html?referer=https://news.google.com/

[cycl...@gmail.com‏]

On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 10:40:44 AM UTC-7, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
> Probably baloney. You can't hear anyone yelling over the noise of a
> big diesel crane motor.

Never been around large motorized operations have you? Though those large scale logging operations mostly used steam cranes. A man's hearing is tuned to hear a man's voice and it's pretty surprising exactly how much noise there can be and you can still hear a man.

Under heavy sail with wind and wave dashing a large sailboat about you can hear men talking in the cockpit from the foredeck.

Around diesel locomotives on the railroad the engineer and fireman can converse almost in a normal tone of voice.

Inside a B52 on take-off with all eight motors on full throttle and no insulating to speak of you could talk to someone 5 feet away.

[cycl...@gmail.com‏]

Some guy was driving a Tesla in self driving mode and was typing on his laptop when a large truck cross an intersection in front of him. The self driving thought it was an overhead and continued under the truck cutting the top of the Tesla off and beheading the non-driving owner.

While this was the sort of thing that any programmer should have foreseen the Tesla programmer didn't.

There is absolutely no way a self driving car can work in all cases.

[Frank Krygowski‏]

On Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 1:19:43 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:

> On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 22:37:43 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> >On 10/9/2017 3:13 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> >> On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 11:30:40 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>
> >I wasn't doubting that auto-cars will exist and become popular. I was
> >doubting that the government will "shove them down our throats."
>
> I wonder whether they will ever become popular given that they quite
> obviously will be more expensive, perhaps much more expensive, I am
> reading numbers as large as $75,000 for Google's autonomous driving
> vehicle. Didn't SMS recently post something about buying a new car? I
> seem to remember numbers in the range of a third of that value.

I imagine you're right, that in the short term these things will be expensive. But I expect that long term the price difference will be greatly reduced. (I imagine the phone in my pocket would have been worth ten thousand dollars 10 years ago, if it existed at all.)

> But what do you get for this money? After all probably everyone
> reading this is capable of driving an automobile so what advantage
> does this, rather expensive, self-driver provide?

Well: To my astonishment, I find that I'm driving long distances much more often
since I retired. It's not just retirement that influenced that (although it
enabled it); there have been family matters that have arisen, new obligations
and avocations, different circles of friends, etc. But driving an hour each way
is now far, far too common. And sitting behind a steering wheel always seems
damned unproductive.

Even if self-driving worked only on limited access freeways, it would ease a lot
of frustration. I think it would make the experience of freeway driving much
more like the experience of riding a train in a private compartment. The couple
times I've done that, I found it to be fairly pleasant.

> Another problem that might arise. Will a self-driver work if one
> visits Canada, or Mexico?

I guess it would depend on whether the system required a two-way communication
network. If so, Canada might achieve that before the U.S. did. (I assume a bunch
of U.S. states would declare this to be a muslim or communist conspiracy and
refuse to buy into it.)

- Frank Krygowski

[DougC‏]

On 10/10/2017 12:19 AM, John B. wrote:
> ....

> But what do you get for this money? After all probably everyone
> reading this is capable of driving an automobile so what advantage
> does this, rather expensive, self-driver provide?
>

> ...
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.
>

I would imagine that your insurance rates would be lower if you used the
self-driving feature a lot.

A computer will drive a lot more consistently than a human will, and
somehow the insurance companies will find a way to tell how much you use
it.

They can already tell how you were operating a newer car when you get in
a collision, and in addition to all the usual contrls, Teslas already
indicate if the autopilot was in use or not.

[Jeff Liebermann‏]

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 22:37:43 -0400, Frank Krygowski

<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>I wasn't doubting that auto-cars will exist and become popular. I was
>doubting that the government will "shove them down our throats."

Well, let's pretend that the "Smart Driverless Highway of the
Future(tm)" is funded with our tax dollars, in order to provide a
suitable arena for testing driverless vehicles. There's little room
in urban areas to build such a highway, so it will likely be carved
out of the existing infrastructure, such a replacing the car pool lane
or ripping up light rail. In order to use this highway, you need a
fully automated and instrumented driverless vehicle, which can be a
car, truck, motorcycle, IoT thingie, eBike, or maybe even a bicycle.
It should be possible to coordinate this mix of speeds and sizes with
proper programming.

The "shove it down our throats" would be at the front end, when the
"Smart Driverless Highway of the Future(tm)" is funded, probably at
the expense of diverting funds for existing highway construction on
the assumption that soon everyone will be driving or riding a
driverless vehicle. "Research" funding will continue in this manner
until the numbers become sufficiently large for a taxpayers revolt.

More simply, "If you want to play in my sand box, you need to follow
my rules".

All this begs the question "Why would the government do this"? Well,
the auto makers have quite a bit of pull in Washington and will not
hesitate to use it to promote their interests. Saving 30,000 lives
per year sounds really good during an election. Promoting the highway
of the future makes normally reactionary politicians sound progressive
which should fit in nicely with "Make America Great Again". More
mundane is that building a highway involves the movement of huge
amounts of public funds, much of which can be diverted for other
purposes. Of course, there's a substantial demand for a driverless
car, initially at the high end, but which will eventually expand to
less sophisticated vehicles, like bicycles. Nothings says "I want it"
more than paying for it in advance:
"Over 35,000 Tesla owners bought ‘fully self-driving’ feature despite
still being unavailable, sources say"
<https://electrek.co/2017/10/10/tesla-autopilot-owners-bought-fully-self-driving-capability/>

Bonus Drivel:
"Disney's Magic Highway - 1958"
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwA7c_rNbJE> (8:47)
The driverless car starts at about 3:30.

[Jeff Liebermann‏]

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 17:45:53 -0500, DougC <dci...@norcom2000.com>
wrote:

>Oddly enough, the wiki page for bicycle bomb has no mention of Israel at
>all, even though it's probably had to diffuse more bombs than any of the
>other locations mentioned (maybe even... all of the other locations
>combined?)
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_bomb
>
>In the Arab/Israeli version I read of, the bicycle frame tubes were
>packed with explosives and a timer and just left somewhere in a public
>place.

Things have really changed in Israel over the years. When I was there
for a short time in the 1970's, there were few bicycle racks. That's
because if you left a bicycle unattended, it was assumed to be a
bicycle bomb. The bomb squad would arrive, attached their own
explosives, and disarm it by blowing it up. Decorating someone else's
bicycle to look like a bicycle bomb seemed to be a popular pastime. As
a bonus, on Saturday, cars were designated targets for rock throwing
Hasidic kids enforcing the orthodox ban on travel on the Sabbath. I
don't recall if they threw rocks at bicycles, but probably not. It
was quite a zoo.

When there was an explosion, the reaction of the crowd was rather odd.
I was in Tel Aviv on Friday evening in the entertainment district when
something blew up nearby. Half the crowd was running away from the
blast, while the other half was running towards the blast to see what
had happened. More people were injured in the ensuing crunch than by
the bomb.

Roll forward about 40 years, and bicycles are now quite popular,
mostly because of high taxes on cars and an extreme shortage of
parking places:
<https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/blocking-the-sidewalk-tel-aviv-s-inspectors-got-your-bike-1.463015>
<https://www.tel-o-fun.co.il/en/>
Even the rock throwing has become more subdued:
"Minister Threatens to Cut Funds From Tel Aviv Bike Project if Allowed
to Run on Yom Kippur"
<https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/minister-threatens-to-cut-funds-from-tel-aviv-bike-project-if-allowed-to-run-on-yom-kippur-1.462288>

[Jeff Liebermann‏]

I didn't say you couldn't ride your bicycle. I said that you couldn't
ride if safely on the highway of the future. At worst, all it would
require is that you carry or attach several thousand(?) dollars in
technology so that the driverless vehicles would be able to detect and
avoid hitting you on your bicycle. Well, maybe a guidance computer
that would control your speed and direction in order to optimize
traffic flow.

[Jeff Liebermann‏]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 08:28:36 -0700 (PDT), cycl...@gmail.com wrote:

>Some guy was driving a Tesla in self driving mode and was typing on his
>laptop when a large truck cross an intersection in front of him. The self
>driving thought it was an overhead and continued under the truck cutting
>the top of the Tesla off and beheading the non-driving owner.

"Man killed in Tesla 'Autopilot' crash got numerous warnings"
<https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/20/man-killed-in-tesla-autopilot-crash-got-numerous-warnings-report.html>

>While this was the sort of thing that any programmer should have
>foreseen the Tesla programmer didn't.

Nothing is totally 100% safe. The only question is what percentage of
safe is considered acceptable? When I get on an airplane, there's a
finite and calculatable risk involved in flying. Fortunately, it's
sufficiently small to accept the risk and continue flying, but
airplane still continue to fall out of the sky occasionally. How much
risk is acceptable for a driverless car? Dunno. The current
assumption is that the risk of a driverless car is LESS than dealing
with drunk, clueless, or stupid drivers. Too soon to tell if that's
true.

>There is absolutely no way a self driving car can work in all cases.

Agreed. Please name me one device or activity that is absolutely
safe. There are none. My Sharpie marker pen is now on the unsafe
list because I stepped on it last night and landed on my butt.

It's fairly easy to prove that something is unsafe. All you need is
one example of an accident or even a hazardous condition. Even of the
odds of something happening are minute, it's deemed unsafe. Similarly,
it's impossible to prove that something is safe. We can design,
tweak, and test the device until it's totally obsolete, and there will
always be some fool that misuses the device and hurts themselves.
Many years ago, I used to collect magazine clipping of stupid product
liability lawsuits. I stopped when the box of clippings became too
large and I couldn't find anything.

So, how safe do you want to be before you'll buy a self-driving
vehicle?

[AMuzi‏]

maybe gawkers, maybe some ZAKA volunteers, maybe both.

http://www.aish.com/jw/id/48894137.html

[Jeff Liebermann‏]

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 14:55:03 -0500, DougC <dci...@norcom2000.com>
wrote:

>I think eventually self-driving cars will be a lot more efficient than

>what we have now...

Maybe. Personally, I see some initial problems where a line of
self-driving vehicles proceed at the speed of the slowest vehicle.
Even if a passing algorithm is perfected, there will still be a
tendency for similar speed vehicles to "clump" together in traffic. My
guess(tm) is that the self-driving vehicle will be the equivalent of
filling the highway with very conservative drivers, that follow every
driving regulations, never go past the speed limit, and are courteous
to other vehicles to the point of paranoia.

[Frank Krygowski‏]

On 10/10/2017 12:16 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 22:37:43 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> I wasn't doubting that auto-cars will exist and become popular. I was
>> doubting that the government will "shove them down our throats."
>
> Well, let's pretend that the "Smart Driverless Highway of the
> Future(tm)" is funded with our tax dollars, in order to provide a
> suitable arena for testing driverless vehicles.

But they're testing these things now on ordinary streets. They're
attempting to make the cars, not the highway, "smart."


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Radey Shouman‏]

With current technology recognition of traffic signs is still very
brittle, see for example:

https://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-that-think/transportation/sensors/slight-street-sign-modifications-can-fool-machine-learning-algorithms

or

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/09/hacking-street-signs-with-stickers-could-confuse-self-driving-cars/

An octagonal red sign may scream "stop" to you and me, even if it
actually says "alto" or "pare", but we're not machine vision programs,
which are "taught" to recognize signs without anything like
understanding of the concepts human beings use. For example, flat
surface, road sign, octagon ...

I suspect that if the powers that be (not all strictly government)
desire widespread autonomous vehicles that some system of transponders
not intelligible to unaided human beings will be required, and
pedestrians and cyclists and drivers of antique vehicles will have to
adapt or be squashed. To many of those powers this is a feature, not a
bug.
--

[Frank Krygowski‏]

On 10/10/2017 12:49 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 11:20:58 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 11:32:54 PM UTC-4, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>> Now, back to my question. How much are you willing to relinquish for
>>> the privilege of riding your bicycle on the driverless highway of the
>>> future? Are you ready for robo-bike?
>
>> I'm not willing to relinquish my right to travel by bicycle.
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
> I didn't say you couldn't ride your bicycle. I said that you couldn't
> ride if safely on the highway of the future. At worst, all it would
> require is that you carry or attach several thousand(?) dollars in
> technology so that the driverless vehicles would be able to detect and
> avoid hitting you on your bicycle.

I just don't expect that situation to arise. Again, I doubt most streets
will see any infrastructure changes at all, simply because the cost
would be almost infinite. There are too many streets to retrofit. So the
capability will almost entirely be built into the cars.

Those working on the cars know that they must detect pedestrians,
including kids on bikes. I can't imagine a social environment that would
allow laws requiring several thousand dollars of equipment on a $99
Wal-mart kids bike. So bikes will have to be detected by other means.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski‏]

On 10/10/2017 1:10 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 14:55:03 -0500, DougC <dci...@norcom2000.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I think eventually self-driving cars will be a lot more efficient than
>> what we have now...
>
> Maybe. Personally, I see some initial problems where a line of
> self-driving vehicles proceed at the speed of the slowest vehicle.
> Even if a passing algorithm is perfected, there will still be a
> tendency for similar speed vehicles to "clump" together in traffic. My
> guess(tm) is that the self-driving vehicle will be the equivalent of
> filling the highway with very conservative drivers, that follow every
> driving regulations, never go past the speed limit, and are courteous
> to other vehicles to the point of paranoia.

Sounds nice! ;-)


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski‏]

On 10/10/2017 1:10 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 14:55:03 -0500, DougC <dci...@norcom2000.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I think eventually self-driving cars will be a lot more efficient than
>> what we have now...
>
> Maybe. Personally, I see some initial problems where a line of
> self-driving vehicles proceed at the speed of the slowest vehicle.
> Even if a passing algorithm is perfected, there will still be a
> tendency for similar speed vehicles to "clump" together in traffic. My
> guess(tm) is that the self-driving vehicle will be the equivalent of
> filling the highway with very conservative drivers, that follow every
> driving regulations, never go past the speed limit, and are courteous
> to other vehicles to the point of paranoia.

Regarding "clumping": That can be beneficial on freeways. Especially if
they communicate, self-driving cars can draft each other, forming a de
facto train on the pavement. Car occupants could relax and read, work,
look at scenery, whatever. Gas mileage (or electricity consumption)
would be reduced.

Yes, travel time might slightly increase, but the difference would be
small. For freeways, it's easy to calculate. Driving 70 miles at 70 mph
saves only about 5 minutes over driving at 65.

And this scheme would remove one of my personal frustrations. I use
cruise control on freeways, but it seems most drivers do not. (I guess a
system with four buttons is just too complex.) Anyway, very frequently
my car on cruise will approach a slower car, so I'll move left to pass.
But as soon as the driver notices me, he's reminded that he can indeed
drive a bit faster. So he speeds up, often matching my speed and keeping
me stuck next to him in the left lane. In some cases, he'll speed up and
pull ahead; then when he loses concentration he slows back down. Rinse
and repeat.

If everybody just locked into a convoy, that annoyance would go away.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Jeff Liebermann‏]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 14:15:30 -0400, Frank Krygowski

<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 10/10/2017 12:16 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 22:37:43 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I wasn't doubting that auto-cars will exist and become popular. I was
>>> doubting that the government will "shove them down our throats."
>>
>> Well, let's pretend that the "Smart Driverless Highway of the
>> Future(tm)" is funded with our tax dollars, in order to provide a
>> suitable arena for testing driverless vehicles.

>But they're testing these things now on ordinary streets. They're
>attempting to make the cars, not the highway, "smart."

That's only temporary. Today's driverless cars need to squeeze into
the existing infrastructure because it would be too expensive to
upgrade the roads. For example, how difficult would it be to bury a
single wire down the middle of every lane so that driverless cars
could follow the wire instead of trying to guess where the lane lines
are located from optical recognition (which fails in the rain) to GPS
(which fails if the DOP (dilution of position) is too large)? After a
few regrettable incidents, such aids to navigation will need to be
done, but not immediately.

I guess I should mention that the first automobiles ran on dirt roads,
full of potholes and ruts, that were originally intended for horse
trails. This video might be enlightening.
"Magic Highway, U.S.A. (1958)"
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7icGIHPOviQ>

It's not just the highway that needs to be "smart". The same can be
done to obvious road hazards, cyclists, and pedestrians. Fast forward
to the vehicular Nirvana of future, where driverless cars will never
crash into another driverless car, because they have transponders. It
would not take much to design a personal transponder for pedestrians,
joggers, skateboarders, and cyclists. If you're cheap, some pattern
that the optical recognition system would recognize as a human, brick
wall, manhole, or telephone pole, would be a big seller if not a
survival requirement. Simply stenciling the word "HUMAN" on your
riding jacket will serve as a talisman to protect you from being
clobbered by a driverless vehicle.

However, these ideas are in the future, where the number of driverless
cars can justify their existence. For right now, the designers are
doing their best with what they currently have to work with.

[Jeff Liebermann‏]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 14:28:13 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 10/10/2017 12:49 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 11:20:58 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 11:32:54 PM UTC-4, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>> Now, back to my question. How much are you willing to relinquish for
>>>> the privilege of riding your bicycle on the driverless highway of the
>>>> future? Are you ready for robo-bike?
>>
>>> I'm not willing to relinquish my right to travel by bicycle.
>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>
>> I didn't say you couldn't ride your bicycle. I said that you couldn't
>> ride if safely on the highway of the future. At worst, all it would
>> require is that you carry or attach several thousand(?) dollars in
>> technology so that the driverless vehicles would be able to detect and
>> avoid hitting you on your bicycle.

>I just don't expect that situation to arise. Again, I doubt most streets
>will see any infrastructure changes at all, simply because the cost
>would be almost infinite. There are too many streets to retrofit. So the
>capability will almost entirely be built into the cars.

It certainly will take a long time to add navigation aids to the
streets, roads, and highways, but the cost is not infinite if spread
over a fairly long period. 40 years ago, when I first moved into the
area, we had one defective traffic light on Hwy 9. Today, we have 5
signal lights and several push button pedestrian crosswalks. The cost
of the added signals were about $150,000 each. However, without
proper justification, none would have been built. Unfortunately, the
only justification that could get the attention of the State was to
kill off a few kids at each intersection, thus justifying the
expenditure in the name of safety. My guess(tm) is that the streets
with the most driverless vehicle accidents and fatalities, will be the
first to be retrofitted with navigation and recognition aids. It may
be 50 years before all the streets are modernized, but like wheel
chair ramps at intersection, pedestrian walk buttons, signal lights
everywhere, computerized traffic management, and emergency vehicle
bypass, upgrades will happen.

>Those working on the cars know that they must detect pedestrians,
>including kids on bikes. I can't imagine a social environment that would
>allow laws requiring several thousand dollars of equipment on a $99
>Wal-mart kids bike. So bikes will have to be detected by other means.

My guess(tm), is I can build a mm wave transponder for about $20.
Retail cost would be about $70. If the design is standardized and the
quantities sufficiently large, it would cost much less. If that's
unacceptable, I mentioned a pattern or word printed on clothes or a
striker that would help the driverless car recognize pedestrians. Last
resort might be an LED flashlight, that transmits a flashing pattern
that the vehicle recognizes as "don't run over me".

[Jeff Liebermann‏]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 14:44:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>If everybody just locked into a convoy, that annoyance would go away.

Way back in college daze, I took a traffic engineering class in which
me ran computah simulations of various traffic patterns. The
tailgaters convoy, where everyone drives very close together and at
the same speed works great as long as nobody enters or leaves the
convoy. When that happens, one part of the convoy will need to speed
up or slow down to accommodate the addition or reduction in length.
The reaction time of each driver or vehicle is different resulting
spacing variations. Eventually, the convoy starts to look and act
like an accordion. I've confirmed this behavior when talking to
friends who regularly attend mobile home and camper trailer rallys.

Please note that it is quite likely that driverless vehicle will be
programmed to rigorously follow traffic laws which are designed to be
more stringent than practical. For example, speed limits are often 10
mph below what would be considered safe, on the assumption that
everyone drives a few mph faster than the speed limit. The problem is
that if everyone actually followed the speed limit, traffic flow would
come to a halt.

[Frank Krygowski‏]

On 10/10/2017 4:42 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 14:44:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> If everybody just locked into a convoy, that annoyance would go away.
>
> Way back in college daze, I took a traffic engineering class in which
> me ran computah simulations of various traffic patterns. The
> tailgaters convoy, where everyone drives very close together and at
> the same speed works great as long as nobody enters or leaves the
> convoy. When that happens, one part of the convoy will need to speed
> up or slow down to accommodate the addition or reduction in length.
> The reaction time of each driver or vehicle is different resulting
> spacing variations. Eventually, the convoy starts to look and act
> like an accordion. I've confirmed this behavior when talking to
> friends who regularly attend mobile home and camper trailer rallys.

That sounds like a problem that a good physics and software team could
solve in a day.

> Please note that it is quite likely that driverless vehicle will be
> programmed to rigorously follow traffic laws which are designed to be
> more stringent than practical. For example, speed limits are often 10
> mph below what would be considered safe, on the assumption that
> everyone drives a few mph faster than the speed limit. The problem is
> that if everyone actually followed the speed limit, traffic flow would
> come to a halt.

???


--
- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi‏]

Fleet drivers in 2017/2018 18-wheelers are already
experiencing troubles such as random panic braking by
computer where no danger exists. The first complaint I heard
was last spring from a driver who came near a lane split sign:
http://www.trafficsignstore.com/merchant2/graphics/00000001/W12-1.jpg

and the truck brakes locked up, followed ten seconds later
by a call from dispatcher, "Why did you brake?"

[AMuzi‏]

What? _five more minutes_? That's just crazy talk!

[AMuzi‏]

Oh, Jeff you are so naive.

A government required unit at $20 mfr base price could
easily be several hundred dollars once you factor in the
usual graft/corruption/inefficiency, maybe more with some
mandated percentage of "free" transponders to targeted groups.

There are very good reasons that in The War On Poverty,
poverty won.

[Doug Landau‏]

Maximum Homerdrive

[cycl...@gmail.com‏]

https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/screenhunter_114-aug-23-10-36.gif

[cycl...@gmail.com‏]

On Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 9:16:40 AM UTC-7, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
> Well, let's pretend that the "Smart Driverless Highway of the
> Future(tm)" is funded with our tax dollars, in order to provide a
> suitable arena for testing driverless vehicles.

I want you to think about that for a minute. They cannot keep our present highway system in even descent repair and you think they are going to be able to built a "smart highway"?

In California by the end of the decade the majority of roads will be unusable.

[Frank Krygowski‏]

Well, I'll admit it's not crazy talk if Oprah is getting ready to start.
For some people, that's a serious priority.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Jeff Liebermann‏]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:15:03 -0700 (PDT), cycl...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 9:16:40 AM UTC-7, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>
>> Well, let's pretend that the "Smart Driverless Highway of the
>> Future(tm)" is funded with our tax dollars, in order to provide a
>> suitable arena for testing driverless vehicles.

>I want you to think about that for a minute.

I did. Nothing happened.

>They cannot keep our present highway system in even descent repair
>and you think they are going to be able to built a "smart highway"?

Yep, that how I believe it will work. It has nothing to do with what
is the right way to spend public money or deal with infrastructure
maintenance questions. It's strictly a budgetary phenomenon. It is
easier to get money for capital expenditures than it is for
maintenance. In most companies where I've worked, and in local
politics, that is the way it works. I can more easily buy a new toy,
than fix the old one.

Building the "Smart Driverless Highway of the Future(tm)" will
probably require voter approval. Assuming the amounts are similar,
which would you suspect the GUM (great unwashed masses) will vote for?
Yet another boring exercise in patching together our crumbling
infrastructure? Or a shiny new Utopian dream of the highway of the
future? I would bet on the latter.

>In California by the end of the decade the majority of roads will be unusable.

That might not be such a bad thing. The government can issue bicycles
to disgruntled drivers instead of fixing the highways.

[Doc O'Leary‏]

For your reference, records indicate that
Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:

> I predict that
> there will be a sufficiently large number of undesirable incidents,
> which will inspire an ad-hoc wireless network scheme to enhance the
> system and take the load off the autonomous computer trying to
> identify various objects.

The problem with “offloading” the identification is that you’re
opening up the vehicles to even worse incidents. What if I just hack
my bike transponder to report itself as a semi?

> You're getting ahead of me a little, but yes, it will shove it down
> our safety conscious throats, exactly like seat belts, crash resistant
> bumpers, dashboard padding, air bags, autie-lock brakes, extra tail
> lights, and other expensive safety features.

The key difference is that all those features where part of the cost
of the car itself. The idea of sticking transmitters on everything
just to accommodate unsafe autonomous vehicles is a technical and
economic non-starter.

> >Do you really think that hot-rodders are about to accept that?
>
> Of course not. But I'm not talking about hot rod motorists. I'm
> talking about bicyclists, although I could lump the e-bike hot rodders
> into a similar class. Will cyclists accept computer control over
> their speed and direction in order to check into the roadway of the
> future?

Your argument makes no sense. What is the reason classic cars would
get a pass but bicycles would not?

--
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly

[John B.‏]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 08:30:52 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 1:19:43 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 22:37:43 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>> >On 10/9/2017 3:13 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 11:30:40 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >>
>> >I wasn't doubting that auto-cars will exist and become popular. I was
>> >doubting that the government will "shove them down our throats."
>>
>> I wonder whether they will ever become popular given that they quite
>> obviously will be more expensive, perhaps much more expensive, I am
>> reading numbers as large as $75,000 for Google's autonomous driving
>> vehicle. Didn't SMS recently post something about buying a new car? I
>> seem to remember numbers in the range of a third of that value.
>
>I imagine you're right, that in the short term these things will be expensive. But I expect that long term the price difference will be greatly reduced. (I imagine the phone in my pocket would have been worth ten thousand dollars 10 years ago, if it existed at all.)
>

Maybe. But the cost of electric cars is still a bit frightening.
However I do read that they qualify for some sort of government pay
back scheme in the U.S. Another point is battery replacement cost,
from what I read an individual that drives everyday may be looking at
a battery change in as little as 5 years.

>> But what do you get for this money? After all probably everyone
>> reading this is capable of driving an automobile so what advantage
>> does this, rather expensive, self-driver provide?
>
>Well: To my astonishment, I find that I'm driving long distances much more often
>since I retired. It's not just retirement that influenced that (although it
>enabled it); there have been family matters that have arisen, new obligations
>and avocations, different circles of friends, etc. But driving an hour each way
>is now far, far too common. And sitting behind a steering wheel always seems
>damned unproductive.

:-) Well, when we are in Phuket it is about a 1.25 - 1.5 hour drive
to town in today's traffic. I find that I can do all sorts of planning
and designing during the drive :-)

>
>Even if self-driving worked only on limited access freeways, it would ease a lot
>of frustration. I think it would make the experience of freeway driving much
>more like the experience of riding a train in a private compartment. The couple
>times I've done that, I found it to be fairly pleasant.

I was thinking about the subject last night before I dozed off and the
question popped up. At the moment (from what I read) people drive as
much as 20 mph faster then the posted speed limit. How is that going
to work in the robot car? Will it be possible to order the robot to
break the law or will traffic move at the legal speed?

And red light drag racing would obviously be right out the door too
:-)

>
>> Another problem that might arise. Will a self-driver work if one
>> visits Canada, or Mexico?
>
>I guess it would depend on whether the system required a two-way communication
>network. If so, Canada might achieve that before the U.S. did. (I assume a bunch
>of U.S. states would declare this to be a muslim or communist conspiracy and
>refuse to buy into it.)
>
>- Frank Krygowski

--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.‏]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 14:15:30 -0400, Frank Krygowski

<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 10/10/2017 12:16 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 22:37:43 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I wasn't doubting that auto-cars will exist and become popular. I was
>>> doubting that the government will "shove them down our throats."
>>
>> Well, let's pretend that the "Smart Driverless Highway of the
>> Future(tm)" is funded with our tax dollars, in order to provide a
>> suitable arena for testing driverless vehicles.
>
>But they're testing these things now on ordinary streets. They're
>attempting to make the cars, not the highway, "smart."

Which brings up the problem of "who do you sue"? After all it the auto
is self controlled you obviously can't sue the bloke sitting there
staring at his hand phone and the car makers are going to have legions
of extremely highly paid legal "consultants".
--
Cheers,

John B.

[cycl...@gmail.com‏]

Let me put it this way - they are putting a ballot measure on to allow the bridge districts to raise all state owned bridge tolls by $3. Do you think that is going to pass?

California is done with the promises of politicians. Most people do not believe that they will EVER be able to own a new self-driving car and they are not going to pay for others to enjoy specialized highways.

[AMuzi‏]

Red light drag racing?
IME you punch it when the light turns green.

[Frank Krygowski‏]

On 10/11/2017 2:40 AM, John B. wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 08:30:52 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 1:19:43 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>>> On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 22:37:43 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/9/2017 3:13 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 11:30:40 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> I wasn't doubting that auto-cars will exist and become popular. I was
>>>> doubting that the government will "shove them down our throats."
>>>
>>> I wonder whether they will ever become popular given that they quite
>>> obviously will be more expensive, perhaps much more expensive, I am
>>> reading numbers as large as $75,000 for Google's autonomous driving
>>> vehicle. Didn't SMS recently post something about buying a new car? I
>>> seem to remember numbers in the range of a third of that value.
>>
>> I imagine you're right, that in the short term these things will be expensive. But I expect that long term the price difference will be greatly reduced. (I imagine the phone in my pocket would have been worth ten thousand dollars 10 years ago, if it existed at all.)
>>
>
> Maybe. But the cost of electric cars is still a bit frightening.
> However I do read that they qualify for some sort of government pay
> back scheme in the U.S. Another point is battery replacement cost,
> from what I read an individual that drives everyday may be looking at
> a battery change in as little as 5 years.

I know several people who own hybrid cars, plus one guy who owns an
all-electric Nissan Leaf. What I've heard:

The dominant model is the Toyota Prius. It seems Prius battery life has
been much better than anticipated; they're going way over 100,000 miles.

One guy I know has a hybrid Honda Civic. He lives in a hot southern
state. After something like seven years, his battery capacity dropped
terribly. IIRC, there was some sort of recall for recalibration of
software, but he's still very dissatisfied.

Another guy, until very recently, owned a Honda Insight, the very first
hybrid I'd ever heard about. It's a tiny, super-aero two seater. He
bought his used, it had some electrical/battery problems, and Honda
astonishingly replaced the entire battery pack and some wiring for free.
However, I wouldn't count on that ever happening again. It didn't with
that Civic owner.

But the battery packs do have limited life, even if that limit is very
long. Replacement is very expensive. So when gauging the long term cost
of these cars, it would be good to know the battery lifetime. It might
be wise to sell it or trade it in before the battery's due to crap out
(if you're that kind of person), and it might be good to research the
battery issue heavily before you buy one that's used.

>> Even if self-driving worked only on limited access freeways, it would ease a lot
>> of frustration. I think it would make the experience of freeway driving much
>> more like the experience of riding a train in a private compartment. The couple
>> times I've done that, I found it to be fairly pleasant.
>
> I was thinking about the subject last night before I dozed off and the
> question popped up. At the moment (from what I read) people drive as
> much as 20 mph faster then the posted speed limit. How is that going
> to work in the robot car? Will it be possible to order the robot to
> break the law or will traffic move at the legal speed?

IME, seeing someone 20 mph over the limit is pretty rare. Lots of people
seem to shoot for 2 to 5 over the limit, though.

I'm sure that the auto-cars will be limited to the limit (duh!). Again,
it really doesn't add much time to a typical drive.

To divert into psychology: Somehow, being in a car triggers urges to
"get to the front" or "get past this guy."

The slightly more practical justification is "I don't want to be slowed
down." But as we all know, it's not unusual to have a motorist race to
pass a bicyclist, then end up sitting at the same red light. The even
more stupid freeway example is when a construction project reduces
everything to one lane. Passing is impossible, traffic might be lined up
for a mile ahead, yet some dolts will tailgate and even honk horns if
you're not near the rear bumper of the car in front of you.

Driving makes many people insane.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski‏]

On 10/11/2017 11:26 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> Another guy, until very recently, owned a Honda Insight, the very first
> hybrid I'd ever heard about. It's a tiny, super-aero two seater. He
> bought his used, it had some electrical/battery problems, and Honda
> astonishingly replaced the entire battery pack and some wiring for free.
> However, I wouldn't count on that ever happening again. It didn't with
> that Civic owner.

Oops. Turns out it wasn't free, but he felt it was very inexpensive and
a real bargain. They did not charge him for the labor, and he felt he
ended up with a car that was very reliable and very inexpensive to run
for a very low price.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Doug Landau‏]

what makes you think that? Obviously you don't read comp.risks

[sms‏]

On 10/11/2017 1:40 AM, John B. wrote:

> I was thinking about the subject last night before I dozed off and the
> question popped up. At the moment (from what I read) people drive as
> much as 20 mph faster then the posted speed limit. How is that going
> to work in the robot car? Will it be possible to order the robot to
> break the law or will traffic move at the legal speed?

Yesterday when I was in SF I was again amazed at the huge number of Uber
& Lyft vehicles. I thought "how could self-driving ever work?" This was
because the Uber & Lyft drivers tend to be notorious law-breakers, but
there's no way that Uber & Lyft could get away with programming the
self-driving cars to break the law in the same way.

What I witnessed:
1. Parking & waiting in bicycle lanes
2. Parking & waiting at bus stops
3. Picking up and dropping off in bicycle lanes
4. Picking up and dropping off at bus stops

Speeding was not an issue in the downtown area.

In San Francisco and other major cities another issue with Uber/Lyft is
that they have made it a nightmare to drive into the downtown area. I
used to drive to downtown SF and park in a public garage and the fee was
not too bad considering the high cost of public transit and the time
that was saved. In the middle of the day the traffic was not bad. But
Uber/Lfyt have greatly increased congestion as people have abandoned
public transit for shorter trips since Uber/Lyft are not appreciably
more when you have a few riders.

Yesterday I parked for free near a Muni metro station and rode downtown
for $2.75 (round-trip because I didn't stay long). But soon that fare
will be $5.50 round-trip because it will be $2.75 for 90 minutes rather
than for 3-4 hours. When I moved to the Bay Area the Muni fare was $0.25
Based on the Consumer Price Index from 1979 to 2017 that fare should now
be $0.89, not $2.75. The fares have increased at 3x the rate of
inflation. At least in SF they issue transfers. The VTA in Silicon
Valley charges per bus so if you go 5 miles and it takes two buses then
you pay twice, but a 20 mile ride on one bus you pay once (a day pass
costs the equivalent of three single rides). The high fares at each end
of the commuter train line (Caltrain) have resulted in a huge increase
in demand for bicycle space on the trains. Each train can now carry
72-80 bikes, and even that is not enough at peak times.

The other issue with self-driving cars in cities is that since parking
is so limited and expensive that the cars will simply drive around while
waiting to pick up the owner or the next fare. You need something
similar to cell phone waiting lots at airports so the cars don't drive
around in circles while waiting.

[Doug Landau‏]

On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 9:37:49 PM UTC-7, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Oct 2017 07:37:01 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 04 Oct 2017 09:52:39 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 07:54:47 -0700 (PDT), avag...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>>OH JOY
> >>>https://www.nytimes.com/video/technology/100000005473373/take-a-test-ride-in-a-driverless-car.html
> >>
> >>"Bikes May Have To Talk To Self-Driving Cars For Safety's Sake"
> >><http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/07/24/537746346/bikes-may-have-to-talk-to-self-driving-cars-for-safetys-sake>
> >>I guess the next step is a semi-self-driving-bicycle that detects road
> >>and vehicle hazards and takes over control of the bicycle if it
> >>detects something dangerous or unsafe.
> >>
> >>Hint:
> >>- Would you fly in an autonomous airplane?
> >>- Would you ride in a self driving bus or train?
> >>- How do you feel in a driverless elevator?
> >>- Would you really want to do the same in an automobile or bicycle?
>
> >I believe that essentially most modern subway trains are computer
> >controlled although they may have a "driver" in the control cab and I
> >can't remember ever being in an elevator that had a driver :-)
>
> I live on the left coast of the USofA. We don't have subways except
> for BART. Subways are an east coast thing.
>
> Trains and subways have various levels of automation:
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_urban_metro_subway_systems#Degrees_of_Automation>
> I think there has been sufficient experience to consider a self
> driving train to be safe. Probably same for an elevator. Airplanes
> have been able to takeoff, fly, and land without a pilot for many
> years. I'm not sure if the airlines actually do that:
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoland>
>
> So, are you ready and willing to have your bicycle do many of the same
> things?
>
> Incidentally, the last time I rode in an elevator with an operator was
> in the late 1950's or early 1960's.

>
> --
> Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
> 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

4th Floor! Shoes and sox, bagels and lox.