HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1281  
Old Posted Oct 29, 2020, 11:48 PM
whatnext whatnext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 15,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by canucklehead2 View Post
Bingo. Existing self-drive even if its crude form is ALREADY 5X safer than a human driver... Insurance operators will want people to drive automated cars for this reason... https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtem.../#d3a7c6e5b97c

Want a simple test? Use cruise control on any road that has a smidge of traffic and see how awful humans are at even just keeping speed at a constant...
Who will they be insuring? If I'm not driving and only bought the vehicle, maybe Tesla should be the insured.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1282  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2020, 4:14 PM
jonny24 jonny24 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Hamilton, formerly Norfolk County
Posts: 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy View Post
If anyone tried to put a governor on my car I would more than happily break the law to have it taken out.
Well a lot of cars have them, just at a high enough speed that most wouldn't hit them. I think mostly to protect driveline components taht are only rated to certain speeds.

My truck's cuts off power at 179km/h. I managed to get it to hit 181 on a downhill though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1283  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2020, 4:16 PM
JHikka's Avatar
JHikka JHikka is offline
ハルウララ
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 7,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatnext View Post
Who will they be insuring? If I'm not driving and only bought the vehicle, maybe Tesla should be the insured.
Simple, they'll just change insurable items from 'cars you drive' to 'cars you sit in the driver's seat of but are AV'. You'll essentially be paying insurance on your driving despite never actually driving.

Perhaps under this scenario boys will still pay higher insurance rates than girls regardless of AV or not.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1284  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2020, 4:33 PM
MonctonRad's Avatar
MonctonRad MonctonRad is online now
Wildcats Rule!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Moncton NB
Posts: 22,792
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHikka View Post
Perhaps under this scenario boys will still pay higher insurance rates than girls regardless of AV or not.
Indeed. I imagine the presumption would be that teenage boys would still be more likely than girls to actually grab the wheel, try to drive manually, and do something stupid.

I imagine in the future if you have an accident while under manual control, your insurance rates would go through the roof. If the accident occurs during autonomous control, the rates would likely stay the same. This in itself would likely temper the behaviour of the owner, and make it more likely that they would tend to let the car do the driving...…...
__________________
Go 'Cats Go
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1285  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2020, 4:35 PM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 8,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatnext View Post
Who will they be insuring? If I'm not driving and only bought the vehicle, maybe Tesla should be the insured.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHikka View Post
Simple, they'll just change insurable items from 'cars you drive' to 'cars you sit in the driver's seat of but are AV'. You'll essentially be paying insurance on your driving despite never actually driving.

Perhaps under this scenario boys will still pay higher insurance rates than girls regardless of AV or not.
If I remember right, there has already been word from the manufacturers that they are planning for the liability being on them for insurance. Which would make sense as an accident caused by the self driving system would be their fault. Even today, if you drove a vehicle out of a Ford dealership and the wheels immediately fell off causing an accident, you'd be able to pin the blame on Ford. It's why they are so willing to recall vehicles to fix design flaws - they don't want a class action lawsuit.

But they won't release a true self driving car car into the wild until they are sure it won't cause accidents. Tesla are being pretty reckless IMO but they can probably get away with saying the monkey still has the controls, so any crash is still their fault.

You still might want insurance anyway though as there are other ways your vehicle can get damaged (hail, theft etc). It should be cheaper though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1286  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2020, 4:40 PM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 8,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonctonRad View Post
Indeed. I imagine the presumption would be that teenage boys would still be more likely than girls to actually grab the wheel, try to drive manually, and do something stupid.

I imagine in the future if you have an accident while under manual control, your insurance rates would go through the roof. If the accident occurs during autonomous control, the rates would likely stay the same. This in itself would likely temper the behaviour of the owner, and make it more likely that they would tend to let the car do the driving...…...
Right. It could well be that something as boring as insurance is what truly seals autonomous vehicles' dominance. When it comes to it, would people be willing to spend a few thousand for the privilege of driving less safely? The insurance differential would probably widen further between self driven and non, as human drivers would be causing 100% of accidents on the road, and 100% responsible for the cost of repairing all the very pricy sensors on the computer driven car they damaged.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1287  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2020, 5:14 PM
drew's Avatar
drew drew is offline
the first stamp is free
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hippyville, Winnipeg
Posts: 6,649
I think if anything insurance with a fully autonomous vehicle will cost more than the current system we have.

Instead to determining whether the driver is at fault - the insurance companies would need to determine what system in the respective vehicle is at fault. In order to do that, they would need to engage the manufacturer's and IMO requiring far greater data analysis, time and resources, even to determine the blame of relatively simple collisions.

Last edited by drew; Oct 30, 2020 at 5:48 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1288  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2020, 5:24 PM
MonctonRad's Avatar
MonctonRad MonctonRad is online now
Wildcats Rule!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Moncton NB
Posts: 22,792
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
Right. It could well be that something as boring as insurance is what truly seals autonomous vehicles' dominance. When it comes to it, would people be willing to spend a few thousand for the privilege of driving less safely? The insurance differential would probably widen further between self driven and non, as human drivers would be causing 100% of accidents on the road, and 100% responsible for the cost of repairing all the very pricy sensors on the computer driven car they damaged.
Well at least it wouldn't be a faceless "big brother" government mandarin telling me that I can't drive my car. If it is an insurance issue, then I will be the one making the decision. As I have said, I don't have an issue with autonomous vehicles per se, and can see using this option at times where I am more interested in watching the scenery, or am drowsy or if the driving is mundane. I always want the option however of controlling the vehicle myself.
__________________
Go 'Cats Go
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1289  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2020, 5:59 PM
niwell's Avatar
niwell niwell is offline
sick transit, gloria
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Roncesvalles, Toronto
Posts: 9,073
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
Right. It could well be that something as boring as insurance is what truly seals autonomous vehicles' dominance. When it comes to it, would people be willing to spend a few thousand for the privilege of driving less safely? The insurance differential would probably widen further between self driven and non, as human drivers would be causing 100% of accidents on the road, and 100% responsible for the cost of repairing all the very pricy sensors on the computer driven car they damaged.

That's another good point that I hadn't considered yet - there's just a ton of little things making the rise of AVs prove to be more difficult than (some) expected. I'm sure insurance will find a way though!

One interesting aspect is that if we went full, or even mostly AV, I think car ownership would go down considerably. One of the big pluses to system optimization that it offers is to have constantly operating vehicles that could function in a rideshare type of scenario. Not to say people wouldn't still own their own vehicles as there's an obvious advantage, but it may make a 2 car household reconsider and go to 1. Similarly I don't think it would invalidate public transit as capacity issues come into play in any urban setting.

On a personal level I hate being a passenger on long car trips - I find it incredibly boring if I'm not driving.
__________________
Check out my pics of Johannesburg
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1290  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2020, 6:45 PM
logan5's Avatar
logan5 logan5 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Mt.Pleasant
Posts: 5,485
You can insure a set of tits if you want, so I don’t think that will be a problem.

I think transit will be transformed by driverless cars. Suburban routes, especially in the off peak hours, handle very few passengers. It would make more sense to have small vehicles doing those routes. I predict many bus routes will be eliminated in the next 5 to 10 years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1291  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2020, 7:48 PM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 8,207
^^^ While I think your time frame of 5 to 10 years is a tad optimistic, I agree they will be one of the first things to be automated assuming they can take on the unions.

One has to remember that driver-less buses/streetcars bring with them other concerns that will need to be addressed. First, fare collection. How do you stop people from simply not paying. Fare gates at the doors is a no-go because it would inhibit people with mobility issues. Second, safety. A lot of people will be hesitant to use the buses when there is no driver and especially late night.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1292  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2020, 8:31 PM
niwell's Avatar
niwell niwell is offline
sick transit, gloria
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Roncesvalles, Toronto
Posts: 9,073
I have actually seen the door guard on a TTC subway save someone's life (or at least from serious injury), so there will always be a safety argument. Unless you start putting security guards on transit vehicles, which feels a little dystopian. Or at least South African, from my experience.
__________________
Check out my pics of Johannesburg
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1293  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2020, 9:29 PM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 8,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy View Post
^^^ While I think your time frame of 5 to 10 years is a tad optimistic, I agree they will be one of the first things to be automated assuming they can take on the unions.

One has to remember that driver-less buses/streetcars bring with them other concerns that will need to be addressed. First, fare collection. How do you stop people from simply not paying. Fare gates at the doors is a no-go because it would inhibit people with mobility issues. Second, safety. A lot of people will be hesitant to use the buses when there is no driver and especially late night.
You could eliminate the "problem" of people not paying... by just making buses free.

If we had electric buses of various sizes that had no driver, the marginal cost of increasing capacity would be very low so you could run them at very high frequencies, partially on demand. This would make transit much more useful and attractive, getting more people on public transit and reducing the costs associated with car use, so providing free buses could easily be revenue positive.

We have unattended transit already (Skytrain etc). Non issue. Use the money saved by eliminating the driver to increase the number of police etc, who are more qualified to deal with security.

The usual disclaimer of course; this ain't happening any time soon.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1294  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2020, 9:43 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is online now
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 25,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
If we had electric buses of various sizes that had no driver, the marginal cost of increasing capacity would be very low so you could run them at very high frequencies, partially on demand. This would make transit much more useful and attractive, getting more people on public transit and reducing the costs associated with car use, so providing free buses could easily be revenue positive.
Right now the cost of a driver puts a lower bound on the size of transit vehicles and encourages the adoption of bigger vehicles at scale. Without this effect the economics change a lot. The distinction between transit and ride sharing is going to blur if there are autonomous vehicles. I could see electrics being cheaper than current vehicles in the future too, and in principle the electricity cost can be driven down to near 0.

Traffic throughput on roads could change a lot too. The most important bottleneck today relates to people stopping and starting one after the other and leaving enough time to react and stop. In principle this could be improved dramatically with coordination; a pack of vehicles accelerating and decelerating together. The reaction time problem means that maximum throughput does not scale up at high speeds (i.e. you need N seconds of stopping time so you need more stopping distance at 100 km/h than 50 km/h and so throughput does not necessarily go up much with speed).

I think transportation is going to change a lot during the next 50 years. Contrary to the predictions of others I think flying will also become more important, first for deliveries and then people, and this will change what geography means (e.g. dropping the cost of being on the wrong side of a body of water).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1295  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2020, 6:49 PM
CityTech CityTech is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 2,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister F View Post
Manuals are still more fun to drive, more reliable and cheaper to fix. It's kind of a moot point though, since EVs will make all transmissions obsolete fairly soon.
Subjective opinion. I've never driven a manual, but I have two friends who switched away from manuals because they found driving in urban traffic a huge PITA with a manual.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1296  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2020, 2:29 AM
urbandreamer's Avatar
urbandreamer urbandreamer is offline
recession proof
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,553
A manual is more fun. I wish I'd gotten a manual instead of automatic although I can see why a manual might suck driving on Bloor Street West - since the bike lanes were installed it's been awful stop-and-go from Jane to Jones. Cycling truly is the better way here. It had been 20+ years since I'd driven and my do I regret it: driving is fun! (However driving in the suburbs and most of Toronto isn't much fun. I prefer the twisty roads of Muskoka, Kawartha Lakes and country B roads.)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1297  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2020, 8:25 PM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 8,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
You could eliminate the "problem" of people not paying... by just making buses free.

If we had electric buses of various sizes that had no driver, the marginal cost of increasing capacity would be very low so you could run them at very high frequencies, partially on demand. This would make transit much more useful and attractive, getting more people on public transit and reducing the costs associated with car use, so providing free buses could easily be revenue positive.

We have unattended transit already (Skytrain etc). Non issue. Use the money saved by eliminating the driver to increase the number of police etc, who are more qualified to deal with security.

The usual disclaimer of course; this ain't happening any time soon.
All of what you state is very true except for unattended transit being a "non-issue". Monitoring 30 SkyTrain stations is nothing compared to monitoring a 1,000 moving buses scattered all over the region. Also the chances of having only 2 people on a SkyTrain car are next to zero but it can happen quite often on late night services. This could be a real safety concern especially for women.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1298  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2020, 6:24 AM
theman23's Avatar
theman23 theman23 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Ville de Québec
Posts: 2,992
UK to ban new petrol and diesel car sales by 2030:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54981425

Hybrids allowed until 2035.
__________________
Happy birthday!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1299  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2020, 6:36 AM
Architype's Avatar
Architype Architype is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by theman23 View Post
UK to ban new petrol and diesel car sales by 2030:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54981425

Hybrids allowed until 2035.
Crushing the concept that conservatives are anti science and environment then?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1300  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2020, 11:53 AM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 7,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Architype View Post
Crushing the concept that conservatives are anti science and environment then?
Too bad their conservatives and ours don't have that in common. Ask ours what their Climate plan is and all you'll get is buzzwords about how innovation will solve the problem. And of course an argument to sell more oil and gas to China.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:45 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.