Just because there is no dedicated driver does not mean it cannot be remotely driven when an alarm sounds in HQ!
The Captain
1 Like
However, good self driving vehicles are extremely less accident prone than hormone charged and easily distracted humans. When all cars are FSD, speed limits could be raised a lot.
1 Like
I argued that Vegas was already doing it you argued that the rules were going to go by the Federal rules. I said the states would make the rules.
Exactly the states are making the rules
And you were wrong at the time. States get to make the rules on the operation of cars, but the feds make the rules on the physical characteristics of the cars. Which is why they had to change the federal rules for the express purpose of allowing cars that lack driver controls.
3 Likes
Seems like you would say that if Albaby argued murder was illegal and against the law and you argued it wasn’t, and now that states/fed changed the rules to make murder legal, that you were right all along.
3 Likes
Of course you would say that but it looks like the states are making the rules to me. Otherwise Texas wouldn’t have passed a law in 2017 making autonomous cars legal. We went round and round on this but you just couldn’t accept the reality.
Not at all. The states already made it legal when we had a discussion about it. Albaby was saying it was illegal because the Feds but Las Vegas was already doing it. He was trying to say that the Feds would not allow it.
My 60 mile FSD trip to the doctor on Monday was regularly was traveling 10-15 mph over the speed limit – but that was just the flow of traffic on the Interstate.
CNBC had a story today on Consumer Reports (CR) ranking of self-driving systems. CR ranked Mercedes-Benz as slightly ahead of Tesla, but said that Mercedes would be the clear winner if the had a driver-monitoring camera like Tesla.
intercst
2 Likes
That’s a tow truck.
intercst
7 Likes
Texas passed a law making it legal to operate cars autonomously. That is different from it being legal under federal law to produce a car without driver controls.
We went round and round on this, but you couldn’t understand the distinction between the states’ role in regulating the operation of cars and the feds’ role in regulating what equipment the cars had to have.
3 Likes
I understood what you were trying to say but you couldn’t understand that the Future was already here. Even when I pointed out the Zoox car that was already operating without a wheel and pedals you couldn’t understand. I think you would rather argue a point because you have become set on your argument than see what is clearly before you. Now you have to accept it because your very last argument has been put to rest.
I did. We talked about it. Zoox rolled out their car, and the NHTSA immediately started an investigation into their violation of the FMVSS:
Edit: Actually, they did more than investigate. The NHTSA made a formal determination that Zoox’ vehicles violated the federal regulations, which wasn’t made public until last month. Which pretty much slams the door on your argument that they would interpret the FMVSS to allow these things.
Again, the point is (or will become) temporarily moot. The NHTSA is apparently going to change their regs to allow cars without driver controls on a limited basis. Probably spurred by the fact that they had determined that the regulations prohibited them. The change should be enough to let Tesla and Waymo get pilot programs of cars without driver controls on the road in states that allow them. But back when we had our discussion, that was still a regulatory hurdle that those companies would have had to overcome in order to operate cars with no driver controls in the U.S. These companies may still have a tiny bit of regulatory risk if they don’t move quickly, though - the announcement on the change suggested that this was a specific program, not a wholesale elimination of the applicable FMVSS provisions. Which means that if driverless cars are something that the Feds want to have a hand in regulating in the future, it remains a hook that they can use if they want to.
3 Likes
They are still on the road and driving all along.
They are still on the road in Las Vegas, no pedals, no steering wheel. The future is here and has been. It’s just like the Marijuana laws. The Feds still have not made it legal but the states are moving ahead.
1 Like
They’re still on the road in LV because NHTSA didn’t issue a recall yet. The finding that the Zoox vehicles violated the FMVSS was causing real problems for their business model:
But Zoox is now in an awkward position. The company was on the verge of launching commercial robotaxi services in the Las Vegas and San Francisco metro areas. Now it may not be able to do so legally.
NHTSA hasn’t formally recalled Zoox’s vehicles, but that could happen in the coming months. And the Washington Post says that officials in California are unlikely to allow local use of a vehicle that’s not compliant with federal regulations.
NHTSA’s statement to the Washington Post was non-commital. “We will continue to support transportation technology innovation while maintaining the safety of America’s roads,” the agency said.
Bezos’ and Musk’s influence in the Administration might have helped them sidestep that issue - but it was very much a real regulatory roadblock that, back when we were having our discussion, was something that these companies needed to navigate.
1 Like
LOL. Still trying to argue your point, yet up stream you already said it was moot. So what is it?
It was only a roadblock because you wanted it to be.
Oh I wasn’t talking about the people in the car that’s driving itself. I mean all the other ones in line behind it.
1 Like
It was a regulatory roadblock at the time we discussed it, and that roadblock is anticipated to be partially removed by NHTSA. Which means it probably won’t be a roadblock for the type of services that Zoox, Waymo, and Tesla Robotaxi are planning to provide. But it might still be an issue if those companies were to move into selling cars to third parties who wouldn’t necessarily be operating them under the pilot program with the NHTSA.
- It is advised to read the entirety of what you respond to.
- I would argue that if you have a fleet of 1,000 cars, you can drive them remotely when necessary. Maybe even a fleet of 10,000 cars. But if you have a fleet of 1,000,000 or 5,000,000 cars it is almost impossible to do so.
- Now you might argue that they can have an AI [remotely] drive the car. Yes, that AI would have to be more perfect than 99.999% as I mentioned above.
- I think remote drivers would be anathema to Musk and his team.
- Back to 1 above, I tried to roughly define “truly autonomous” in what I wrote. I thought it would be hard to miss…
LOL … Drive Pilot (the MB system) just raised their top speed from 60 km/hr (38 mi/hr) to 95 km/hr (59 mi/hr). That would not have been able to do your Monday trip on the highway properly.
I suppose that is one solution. Maybe a custom tow truck that can hook up to the car briefly, pull it into an area that it can handle and then allow it to drive away (drive home) on it’s own.
Time will solve that problem. Eventually most of the people behind it will also be in an autonomous vehicle. And once that happens, average speeds will probably go up somewhat. Especially if they can all talk to each other.
Not in your lifetime. Not in the lifetime of anyone reading this board. Even once self driving cars start being sold in quantity, non-self-driving cars will be selling in much greater quantity, and those cars will be on the road for another 25 years at least.
Self driving will cost, undoubtedly on the front end, probably with subscription ongoing. A lot of the country isn’t going to pay it until it’s mandated, which could happen in approximately never years.
1 Like
I disagree. Strongly. It will be many decades, and I’ll be already dead, but it will surely happen.
1 Like