Comment Re:How Much? (Score 1) 389
Easy. Everyone with an auto-car gets a HUGE insurance discount,
So... a subsidy, then.
Couldn't you have at least tried?
Easy. Everyone with an auto-car gets a HUGE insurance discount,
So... a subsidy, then.
Couldn't you have at least tried?
Are you kidding? Walk into just about any new car dealership in the country and they will take your trade-in and pay off your loan. Any balance over the trade-in value of your car gets rolled into the new loan.
A smart financial move for the customer? Only if your new loan is considerably cheaper (percentage wise) than your old one, but people do this hundreds (maybe thousands) of times a day, every damn day.
I appreciate the admission that while possible, that might not be a wise financial move, universally.
Another issue at hand, are there any plans for an automated pickup truck? I have large things to haul on a regular basis.
Yea, sadly I don't see the "full automation that doesn't even allow, let alone require at any point, human control" coming along until today's pre-teens are my own age.
For me, I won't care for 'em until those bad-boys can fly.
So really, by "the elderly would participate more" what you're really saying is that elderly people who are, currently, mostly homebound due to reasonable travel restraints, would be less hindered thanks to auto-cars.
That makes sense now. Also, when you swap the term "elderly" for "homebound," you realize that the invention would actually help open up the world for a far greater portion of the population.
If your ride gets crunched because you were operating it improperly, you don't deserve to "get paid."
Right now I have about $50K invested in human-controlled automobiles. These automobiles, with proper maintenance, will last me another 10-20 years.
The real question is, if you want to make auto-cars mandatory, how are you going to get the millions of Americans who are currently paying for non-auto-cars out of their loans? If non-auto-cars become unusable on public streets, how the hell am I supposed to get enough value out of the ones I already own, to be able to afford to replace them with 2 auto-cars?
FYI, if your answer involves a government subsidy, then you're already admitting to failure.
who charge build roads
How about people who proofread their edits before hitting Submit? Sheesh...
Insurance regulations only apply to vehicles driven on public streets.
That said, one has to wonder if this concept could give rise to a cottage industry of "private road" providers, who charge build roads on their property for human-controlled vehicles and charge a premium for their use...
Also have to wonder if this will mean an end to toll roads. My guess is, not likely.
Bars would thrive.
Police in small towns would lose a ton of money - much fewer speeding and traffic tickets.
This I see happening. I also see municipalities scrambling to find new ways to bilk residents out of their money, since speed traps will be defunct.
Similarly, the elderly would participate more in life - go out, party, and socialize a lot more.
Not sure where you're coming from on this; how? Do you think the automated cars are going to be free/cheaper than existing taxi cabs and public transit? Or are you basing this claim on some rationale I have yet to consider?
If I can pile into one drunk and it will drive me home, sign me up. My hunch is that the our current nanny-state way of thinking will never allow this. We will be required to be sober and attentive even if not driving. You'd probably get a ticket for merely reading a book or sending a text message.
We already have this. It's called taxi cabs
FTFY
If I can pile into one drunk and it will drive me home, sign me up.
Too bad there's not some sort of existing service that has guys in cars waiting for drunk people to call, then the guys in the cars could go pick the drunks up and take them wherever...
Is that the same kind of years that are used by a lot of other technological advances? Because if it is, we won't have commercially available self-driving cars before 2040.
Not really. From a technical standpoint the problem is solved (for good weather).
So then, not solved.
Personally, I drive a larger vehicle than I would like. I do so because I feel that I need to ability to haul things around occasionally. If I could have a smaller vehicle without the double hit on liability insurance I would also have a small two seat vehicle (or maybe even one, or a motorcycle). The insurance company would win because statistically I could do less damage when I drove the smaller lighter vehicle, but they have their hooks into the lawmakers and they insist that they deserve the insurance payment on each vehicle even when there are more vehicles than drivers in a household.
Plus, as you already stated, they get to hit you twice, even though you can only drive one vehicle at a time.
I'm in a similar boat - I drive a pickup because I need one often enough to justify having it, but would really like to get an additional, smaller vehicle so I can get decent mileage when not hauling a load. Insurance cost is one of the prohibiting factors.
We must demand no-fault insurance... It is the only correct solution
Shitty driver?
You realize that "no-fault" really translates to "everyone pays," right? Why should I have to pay because some dumbass was texting and crunched my ride?
It would take more social unity than most Americans can muster to level that playing field.
Hence the reason it's been sitting at such a sharp angle for so long.
Function reject.
