Must be something in the water...

[Anti Federalist]

Why The Hard-Sell For the “Self-Driving” Car?

by eric • April 27, 2016 • 5 Comments

http://ericpetersautos.com/2016/04/2...f-driving-car/

Why the hard-sell for self-driving cars?

Yesterday, Ford and Volvo announced they are forming a “coaliton” – along with Google – to push not only for the development of self-driving cars, but for federal “action” (their term) to force-feed them to us.

Why?

The reasons are obvious: There’s money – and control – in it.

To understand what’s going on, to grok the tub-thumping for these things, it is first of all necessary to deconstruct the terminology.

The cars are not “self-driving.”

This implies independence.

And “self-driving” cars are all about dependence.

The “self-driving” car does what it has been programmed to do by the people who control it. Which isn’t you or me. Instead of you controlling how fast you go, when to brake – and so on – such things will be programmed in by … programmers. Who will – inevitably- program in parameters they deem appropriate. What do you suppose those parameters will be?

“Safety” will be the byword, of course.

But the point being, you will no longer have any meaningful control over (ahem!) “your” car. You’ll pay for the privilege of “owning” it, of course. But your “ownership” will not come with the right to control what you “own.”

It will be a tag-team of the government and the car companies who control (and thereby, effectively own) “your” car.

And thereby, you.

Not only will how you drive (well, ride) be under their control, they will also know where and when you go. It will be easy to keep track of you in real time, all the time. And if they decide they don’t want you to go anywhere at all, that’s easy, too. Just transmit the code and the car is auto-immobilized.

You only get to go when you have their permission to go. It will be a very effective way of reducing those dangerous “greenhouse gas” emissions, for instance.google control grid

If this all sounds paranoid, consider the times we live in. Reflect upon what we know for a fact they are already doing.

For instance, making the case – in court – that we (the putative “owners” of “our” vehicles) ought to be legally forbidden from making any modifications to them. The argument being that such modifications could potentially affect various “safety” systems and they do not want to be held liable for any resultant problems that may occur.

This argument easily scales when applied to the self-driving car, which we will be forced to trust with our lives at 70 MPH.

For at least 30 years now – since the appearance of anti-lock brakes back in the ‘80s – the focus of the car industry has been to take drivers and driving out of the equation. To idiot-proof cars. This is easier – and more profitable – than merely building cars that are fun to actually drive.

How much profit margin has been added to a new car via (6-8) air bags? We pay more for the car, more to repair the car (and so, more to insure the car).

This also scales.

The technology that will be necessary to achieve the “self-driving” car is very elaborate and very expensive.

Thus, very profitable.

Which by itself would be fine… provided we could choose. But we will be told. Like we’re told we must have 6-8 air bags and all the rest of it.

This is the “action” Ford and Volvo and Google are seeking.

I personally have no doubt that, in time, they will make it illegal to own a car that is not “self-driving.” Well, to actually drive the thing. Static museum displays may still be permitted.

Tesla, the state-subsidized electric car – already has the necessary “self-driving” technology and Elon Musk is pushing it, hard. He says it’s a gotta-have because people cannot be trusted to drive themselves. There’s a clue for you as to the mindset of our masters.

But the current price of the least expensive Tesla is just under $70,000.

This is not economically viable when the average family’s income is in the neighborhood of $50,000. And keep in mind, that means half the people to the left of average make less than $50,000.

They cannot afford to buy $25,000 cars.

But maybe they can afford to rent them.

This appears to be where we are headed. The perpetual rental. It makes sense, too – from an economic point-of-view. Why buy that which you don’t really own because it’s not under your control? It would be absurd to buy the bus that you ride to work in. It is arguably just as absurd to buy the car you are driven to work in, too.

The object of this exercise appears to be perpetual debt-servitude as well as placing almost everyone fully and finally under the complete control of the powers that be. Who are no longer just the powers in government. The distinction between state power and corporate power is so blurry now as to be almost impossible to parse. The two are effectively the same thing, working hand in hand for their mutual benefit.

Remember Il Duce:

All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.

Sadly, there is no push back. Or doesn’t seem to be. The cattle appear to like the idea of being herded. It is depressing.

The passivity and acceptance of it all.

Must be something in the water.

[JK/SEA]

cops need self driving cars.

[Origanalist]

I'm starting to hate this planet.

[CaptUSA]

Tesla does not have full self-driving capabilities, but yeah, they're working on it, too. What they have is more like cruise control that stays in a lane, speeds up and slows down based on conditions, and will change lanes if you tell it to. They don't have navigation tied into it.

But yeah, it's coming.

And the idea for other car companies to get into this business is money. From the consumer's perspective, why buy a car that you only use for a couple of hours a day when you can summon one on-demand whenever you need one and it will take you where you want to go? From the automakers' perspective, now you can "sell" the use of the same car several times a day. It doesn't take a marketing genius to understand how operating a fleet of cars will be far more profitable than selling them to users. Not to mention that if your competitors have fleets of their own, it will become that more difficult to sell cars to drivers - because there will be fewer drivers.

Until Eric understands the full business model at play, he'd be best to quit talking about it. In the new business model, the "ownership" of the vehicle remains with the auto company - you just pay for the transportation. And you wouldn't "rent" the cars in the normal sense. You just pay for what you use. The profit margin is far different from what he's anticipating. If he's concerned about debt-servitude, then he should appreciate getting people out of their car payments. The individual user would save money instead of it costing them more.

But this always happens when you view "tomorrow" with the eyes of "today". Depending on your disposition, you will either anticipate things to be much better or much worse than they will really be.

As with most everything, I side with the market. And if the market demands this technology, then that's a good thing. I do share his concerns about how government may try to misuse or interfere with technology, though. But that is where I aim my fire.

[TheTexan]

cops need self driving cars.

I think it's going to be a while before self driving Cop-cars can safely run red lights and ignore stop signs (only during emergencies obviously).

[jllundqu]

They may come out with self-driving cars and they may, one day, become the norm... but it will be a hard sell to make self-driving cars mandatory thus criminalizing driving your own car.

I happen to love driving. I'd apply the same principles of individual liberty as I do to my firearms were someone to tell me 'it is now prohibited'.

[Ronin Truth]

Much better driving ability than the average drivers has a whole lot of appeal for/to me.

It's really getting much scarier out there folks.

http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-law-of...rating-returns

[Anti Federalist]

Tesla does not have full self-driving capabilities, but yeah, they're working on it, too. What they have is more like cruise control that stays in a lane, speeds up and slows down based on conditions, and will change lanes if you tell it to. They don't have navigation tied into it.

But yeah, it's coming.

And the idea for other car companies to get into this business is money. From the consumer's perspective, why buy a car that you only use for a couple of hours a day when you can summon one on-demand whenever you need one and it will take you where you want to go? From the automakers' perspective, now you can "sell" the use of the same car several times a day. It doesn't take a marketing genius to understand how operating a fleet of cars will be far more profitable than selling them to users. Not to mention that if your competitors have fleets of their own, it will become that more difficult to sell cars to drivers - because there will be fewer drivers.

Until Eric understands the full business model at play, he'd be best to quit talking about it. In the new business model, the "ownership" of the vehicle remains with the auto company - you just pay for the transportation. And you wouldn't "rent" the cars in the normal sense. You just pay for what you use. The profit margin is far different from what he's anticipating. If he's concerned about debt-servitude, then he should appreciate getting people out of their car payments. The individual user would save money instead of it costing them more.

But this always happens when you view "tomorrow" with the eyes of "today". Depending on your disposition, you will either anticipate things to be much better or much worse than they will really be.

As with most everything, I side with the market. And if the market demands this technology, then that's a good thing. I do share his concerns about how government may try to misuse or interfere with technology, though. But that is where I aim my fire.

I'm sure you would not be in favor of this being mandatory.

And I'm no huge fan of "the market" being the final arbitrator in all of this.

"The market" is just idiot democracy, with money to spend.

What does one do when the "market" dictates tyranny.

I cannot function in today's world without a chip enabled credit card.

What about my choices?

Swept away in a flood of market "egalitarianism".

[Anti Federalist]

Tesla does not have full self-driving capabilities, but yeah, they're working on it, too. What they have is more like cruise control that stays in a lane, speeds up and slows down based on conditions, and will change lanes if you tell it to. They don't have navigation tied into it.

But yeah, it's coming.

And the idea for other car companies to get into this business is money. From the consumer's perspective, why buy a car that you only use for a couple of hours a day when you can summon one on-demand whenever you need one and it will take you where you want to go? From the automakers' perspective, now you can "sell" the use of the same car several times a day. It doesn't take a marketing genius to understand how operating a fleet of cars will be far more profitable than selling them to users. Not to mention that if your competitors have fleets of their own, it will become that more difficult to sell cars to drivers - because there will be fewer drivers.

Until Eric understands the full business model at play, he'd be best to quit talking about it. In the new business model, the "ownership" of the vehicle remains with the auto company - you just pay for the transportation. And you wouldn't "rent" the cars in the normal sense. You just pay for what you use. The profit margin is far different from what he's anticipating. If he's concerned about debt-servitude, then he should appreciate getting people out of their car payments. The individual user would save money instead of it costing them more.

But this always happens when you view "tomorrow" with the eyes of "today". Depending on your disposition, you will either anticipate things to be much better or much worse than they will really be.

As with most everything, I side with the market. And if the market demands this technology, then that's a good thing. I do share his concerns about how government may try to misuse or interfere with technology, though. But that is where I aim my fire.

And if your only choice is to "rent" then the owner of the property now has every right to dictate how, when, where and why you use their property, and to monitor you for compliance.

Yeah, sounds like freedom to me.

[Anti Federalist]

Much better driving ability than the average drivers has a whole lot of appeal for/to me.

It's really getting much scarier out there folks.

http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-law-of...rating-returns

Bah, ya old fart...where's your sense of adventure?

"Everybody that drives slower than me is an idiot. Everybody who drives faster than me is a maniac."

LOL

[Anti Federalist]

Much better driving ability than the average drivers has a whole lot of appeal for/to me.

It's really getting much scarier out there folks.

http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-law-of...rating-returns

Bah, ya old fart...where's your sense of adventure?

"Everybody that drives slower than me is an idiot. Everybody who drives faster than me is a maniac."

LOL

[Ronin Truth]

Bah, ya old fart...where's your sense of adventure?

"Everybody that drives slower than me is an idiot. Everybody who drives faster than me is a maniac."

LOL

As a young fart I had plenty of adventure. Then eventually my testosterone poisoning began to subside.

With the wisdom of age, survival became more of a priority.

I assume you know that quote came from the late George Carlin.

I'm thinking drive by wire, like planes now have, may provide a reasonable step to the automated driving process. Maybe that's how they are doing it.

[Anti Federalist]

They may come out with self-driving cars and they may, one day, become the norm... but it will be a hard sell to make self-driving cars mandatory thus criminalizing driving your own car.

I happen to love driving. I'd apply the same principles of individual liberty as I do to my firearms were someone to tell me 'it is now prohibited'.

So do I.

We will be phased out as obsolete and banned because "safety", count on it.

Might not be in our lifetimes, but in our kid's...if we don't get serious and put the brakes on all this nonsense now.

[Ronin Truth]

So do I.

We will be phased out as obsolete and banned because "safety", count on it.

Might not be in our lifetimes, but in our kid's...if we don't get serious and put the brakes on all this nonsense now.

You'd best better hurry, before it stops being nonsense. The clock is ticking faster now. 76 million-ish aging boomers are heading down the pike.

[Anti Federalist]

You'd best better hurry, before it stops being nonsense. The clock is ticking faster now. 76 million-ish aging boomers are heading down the pike.

Oh I know...no way of stopping it now.

Has to be said, if only to be read in the ashes.

[GunnyFreedom]

I prefer driving 1000%, but I admit this would be nice for those 9-hour interstate cruises to job sites. I would buy this, but only under the condition that I have full logical and mechanical access to the kill switch.

[Suzanimal]

I prefer driving 1000%, but I admit this would be nice for those 9-hour interstate cruises to job sites. I would buy this, but only under the condition that I have full logical and mechanical access to the kill switch.

I hate driving and, I admit, I'm a terrible driver but I would still want "full logical and mechanical access to the kill switch." My neighbor and kids would love it if I had a self driving because I keep taking out his mailbox - did it twice in one month. On the up side, my kids know how to install mailboxes.

[Origanalist]

Tesla does not have full self-driving capabilities, but yeah, they're working on it, too. What they have is more like cruise control that stays in a lane, speeds up and slows down based on conditions, and will change lanes if you tell it to. They don't have navigation tied into it.

But yeah, it's coming.

And the idea for other car companies to get into this business is money. From the consumer's perspective, why buy a car that you only use for a couple of hours a day when you can summon one on-demand whenever you need one and it will take you where you want to go? From the automakers' perspective, now you can "sell" the use of the same car several times a day. It doesn't take a marketing genius to understand how operating a fleet of cars will be far more profitable than selling them to users. Not to mention that if your competitors have fleets of their own, it will become that more difficult to sell cars to drivers - because there will be fewer drivers.

Until Eric understands the full business model at play, he'd be best to quit talking about it. In the new business model, the "ownership" of the vehicle remains with the auto company - you just pay for the transportation. And you wouldn't "rent" the cars in the normal sense. You just pay for what you use. The profit margin is far different from what he's anticipating. If he's concerned about debt-servitude, then he should appreciate getting people out of their car payments. The individual user would save money instead of it costing them more.

But this always happens when you view "tomorrow" with the eyes of "today". Depending on your disposition, you will either anticipate things to be much better or much worse than they will really be.

As with most everything, I side with the market. And if the market demands this technology, then that's a good thing. I do share his concerns about how government may try to misuse or interfere with technology, though. But that is where I aim my fire.

Ya, $#@! the "new" business model. As long as it's voluntary and not mandatory I'm fine with it. But that's not really what's being discussed here. I prefer to stay a solitary operator of my business and do my own maintenance. I realize not everyone desires such a situation and that's fine. Just keep the mandatory $#@! under lock and key. But's that's not very likely is it?

[Ronin Truth]

I prefer driving 1000%, but I admit this would be nice for those 9-hour interstate cruises to job sites. I would buy this, but only under the condition that I have full logical and mechanical access to the kill switch.

I would imagine that upgrade modification could be added.

I wonder if the "stairs lobby" railed as vociferously against the future prospect of elevators.

[tod evans]

I'm thinking that for the price of this tech those who desire it could retain the services of which ever sex chauffeur they preferred...

[Ronin Truth]

I'm thinking that for the price of this tech those who desire it could retain the services of which ever sex chauffeur they preferred...

http://wohlersassociates.com/talc2.pdf

[kahless]

No thanks. Too dangerous if something goes wrong like dirty sensors or something like road construction. AI encounters a flag man I could see a head one collision or forever stuck at the road block.

[Anti Federalist]

$#@!'ssake...is she getting ready to drive me to the airport or vigorously inspect my colon?

[Anti Federalist]

As a young fart I had plenty of adventure. Then eventually my testosterone poisoning began to subside.

With the wisdom of age, survival became more of a priority.

I assume you know that quote came from the late George Carlin.

I'm thinking drive by wire, like planes now have, may provide a reasonable step to the automated driving process. Maybe that's how they are doing it.

Yup, stolen from GC without attribution.

Almost all cars are now "drive by wire" in that you actually do not "control" anything, but a sensor that in turn tells the computer how much input to apply to a remote servo.

A critical step in driverless systems.

[Anti Federalist]

From RT's link:

5. Skeptics (a.k.a. laggards)
Never adopting new technology, these individuals are more prone to
criticizing it. They use established legacy systems until the option is no
longer available. Catch phrase: That will never work. The old way is the
best way.

Only fault I find...I'm not saying any of this technological nightmare descending on us will not work.

Oh no, not at all...it will work all to well.

[Ronin Truth]

$#@!'ssake...is she getting ready to drive me to the airport or vigorously inspect my colon?

Your preference and choice. <shrug>

[CaptUSA]

Sorry it took me so long to get back to this thread.

I'm sure you would not be in favor of this being mandatory.

Absolutely not. Which is a good thing on many levels. First, morally. But also, it ensures that any market-driven technology must be able to operate on the same roads as human drivers. That's an important feature which will continue to allow choice.

And I'm no huge fan of "the market" being the final arbitrator in all of this.

"The market" is just idiot democracy, with money to spend.

What does one do when the "market" dictates tyranny.

I cannot function in today's world without a chip enabled credit card.

Yeah, I have faith in the market because people choose based on what is best for themselves instead of what they think other people should do. The former means freedom; the latter, government. So, I'd ask you, if not the market as a final arbiter, then who? The "market" can never dictate tyranny. It's the opposite. It's like saying light dictates darkness. The more light you have, the less darkness.

What about my choices?

Swept away in a flood of market "egalitarianism".

So, what about "your" choices? You are right that in a free market, your choices may get harder to make. But, you will be presented with new choices you didn't even know you were missing. Let me explain...

If/when this business model succeeds, barring any government interference, then your insurance rates to drive a car would most likely go up. At some point, human error would be more of a risk than machine malfunction. And when humans cause property damage to one of the fleet of machines or hurt their passengers, the auto companies are likely to sue. So while you will continue to have the freedom to drive manually, it will be cost-prohibitive. You could still drive without insurance, but you'd be taking a calculated risk. But this is not tyranny. This is just a changing market.

But like I said, if your disposition is to see the negative, it will be exaggerated when you look into the future with today's eyes. If you're optimistic, then technology could provide you with new liberty like you've never imagined.

For example, one of the biggest bugaboos libertarians face is funding for roads. If there were fleets that used these roads, they'd have incentives to keep the roads well-maintained and traffic flowing. Highways could be funded by trucking companies and commuter roads by commuter auto-companies. Those costs would be transferred only to the users of the transportation instead of everyone. People would have more disposable income because they wouldn't have to buy the whole car, pay for insurance, fuel, and maintenance, they could just hail a car at their whim and would ostensibly receive great service. You need a commuter car? It's there. What about a pickup truck, or a bus? You'll have any type of vehicle you need when you need it. The cost of all of your goods would shrink since shipping costs would be cut to a fraction. With all of this extra income and mobility, there will be an infinite amount of new things you could do. And the productivity of humans would also increase. Think of the things most people could do while their car is taking them someplace. These things increase your liberty.

Again, this is contingent upon the removal of government interference with the market. I agree with you that I don't want governments forcing the change, but I also don't want them forcing the status quo. People's wants are ever-changing and the market is the only thing that can keep up with those changes. And when it does, new wants replace the old wants. Interference with this is what cause tyranny. IMO

[Working Poor]

My filtered scalar wave charged water just will not allow me to think about a car that drives itself.

[tod evans]

People would have more disposable income because they wouldn't have to buy the whole car, pay for insurance, fuel, and maintenance, they could just hail a car at their whim and would ostensibly receive great service.

I keep reading about this premise of more disposable income yet I've yet to read a sensible answer to the question "Where does this income come from?"......

I've heard the theory expressed that technology creates jobs and people adapt to changing environments but a simple look at the sheer number of people supported by government would negate both of those theories.

I certainly don't have an answer but the current "solutions" aren't working and they won't continue for long..

[Ronin Truth]

I keep reading about this premise of more disposable income yet I've yet to read a sensible answer to the question "Where does this income come from?"......

I've heard the theory expressed that technology creates jobs and people adapt to changing environments but a simple look at the sheer number of people supported by government would negate both of those theories.

I certainly don't have an answer but the current "solutions" aren't working and they won't continue for long..

Human population is experiencing exponential growth. Exponential growth is not sustainable. Solution: massive global human depopulation, one way or another?