# Will driverless cars help remote resorts?



## legalskier (Feb 5, 2019)

Reading the "Ski the East...or not?" thread with the comments about driving to eastern resorts vs. flying to western ones got me thinking about driverless vehicles' potential impact on the east. The idea of driverless vehicles brings to my mind images of Big Brother so I'm leery of them. That said, I have experienced heavy eyelids on long solo drives after an energetic day of skiing- with no one else to take the wheel. There's no doubt they'll be here in not too distant future- maybe renting a driverless for a long ski trip isn't such a bad idea after all. Perhaps I could travel overnight to Sugarloaf. Always wanted to go there. Hmm.....

Thoughts?


----------



## speden (Feb 5, 2019)

They would be a godsend for me. I'd love to be able to skip the motel room and just sleep in the car during the long drive up. Places that are currently out of my day range would suddenly become feasible to day trip.

But I'm not sure how well the first gen cars will be able to handle snowy weather. I like to storm chase and a hairy drive in usually means good skiing. They usually test the driverless cars in perfect weather in places like sunny California. How will they do on some snow covered road with low visibility on some back road in Maine? I would have a hard time trusting them and I'd probably want a five point seatbelt and rollbar before I'd be able to nod off to sleep. 

Apres Ski would be enhanced too. I'd could have another round before hitting the road if I didn't have to worry about driving myself home.


----------



## kingslug (Feb 5, 2019)

By the time it happens I think I'll be long past skiing. But they would be the best. After skiing 2 days at Stowe the 5 hour drive sux. Hell the 5 hour drive up there after working all day Friday sux. 
I do love the ads for BLADE..just fly up to Stowe..only 750.00 each way..piece of cake. Might as well get a pilots licence and buy a small plane..which my friend..did.


----------



## Jully (Feb 5, 2019)

I think it is going to be a long while before driverless cars will be able to go that far from population centers or drive in sketchy conditions, IMO. However, should it happen successfully I think it might. I could easily leave work early on a Friday and go up to someplace like Jay or Sugarloaf if I can work a bit from the car. Right now that isn't really possible.

By the time this is a thing though, so much will probably be different about the ski industry.


----------



## Ol Dirty Noodle (Feb 5, 2019)

speden said:


> They would be a godsend for me. I'd love to be able to skip the motel room and just sleep in the car during the long drive up. Places that are currently out of my day range would suddenly become feasible to day trip.
> 
> But I'm not sure how well the first gen cars will be able to handle snowy weather. I like to storm chase and a hairy drive in usually means good skiing. They usually test the driverless cars in perfect weather in places like sunny California. How will they do on some snow covered road with low visibility on some back road in Maine? I would have a hard time trusting them and I'd probably want a five point seatbelt and rollbar before I'd be able to nod off to sleep.
> 
> Apres Ski would be enhanced too. I'd could have another round before hitting the road if I didn't have to worry about driving myself home.



Or just a high speed train, never understood why there wasn’t a metro north or Amtrak line that serviced the resorts, seems like a no brained to me.


----------



## Jully (Feb 5, 2019)

Ol Dirty Noodle said:


> Or just a high speed train, never understood why there wasn’t a metro north or Amtrak line that serviced the resorts, seems like a no brained to me.



I've wanted this for a LONG time. The Winter Park line is profitable, so I'd love to see someone try it. Freight lines have zero issues with the WP train and its immensely popular.

The Downeaster into Maine is not profitable (I think) along with most Amtrak routes so that is a clear worry.

Active train tracks literally run past the Bear Peak Lodge (though not approved for passenger use obviously). Sunday River ran a ski train for 3 years (all at tremendous financial losses) in the 90s so its feasible up there too.

Most obvious Boston train would be to Loon though, which I sadly would be less excited about.

A train up 93 stopping at a bunch of resorts or even just service to North Conway would be amazing though.


----------



## crazy (Feb 5, 2019)

While it's a long ways away, this is an interesting topic worth discussing. 

As many have already alluded to, this will make longer drive times much more tolerable for a lot of people. As a result, it's very likely that a lot more people would choose to ski in the winters. Resorts would get a lot more crowded, with proportionally greater crowds in places that are hard for many to access such as Sugarloaf, Jay Peak, Stowe, Burke, and more. Anecdotally, drive times are a big reason why I might choose to stay at home when conditions are subpar. If I can sleep or watch a movie while my car drives me, why not take the chance and hit up the slopes? If conditions aren't great, I can watch a movie on the ride home. I also carefully consider which weekends I want to stay over at faraway places like Sugarloaf or Jay Peak. With a driverless car, I would be much more inclined to go further. 

With population growth already huge in places like Denver/Boulder, Salt Lake, Seattle, Portland, Bozeman, and more, driverless cars will make destinations, especially in the West, particularly crowded. Hate I-70 traffic? Sit back and watch a movie, and it's almost like there aren't a bunch of other cars right around you. Hate the slow crawl up into Little Cottonwood Canyon on a powder day? I bet you would hate it a lot less if you could sleep or watch TV during it. 

Environmentally, driverless cars will certainly increase the demand for cars, leading to more emissions. This affects skiing too, but only in the long run. Perhaps electric car technology and the corresponding clean energy that makes it "green" to drive an electric car will catch up and become more widespread? It's hard to tell.

If I was the only person with the driverless car, it would undoubtedly make my life easier and enable me to ski more, and ski further away places. But when everyone has a driverless car, it means we're all driving to the mountain. Will us skiers be better off, or worse off? It's too early to say. 

One thing to add: it's extremely difficult to create new ski resorts, especially out West. Environmental review and regulations are the biggest obstacle, but raising capital isn't far behind. More demand will cause resorts to get overcrowded, the backcountry to keep getting more crowded. Will new resorts be created, or old resorts revived, to meet the new demand?


----------



## mikec142 (Feb 5, 2019)

I would absolutely love a driverless car.  It's a 5.5 hour drive from my house to Sugarbush.  On a Friday, I can usually leave around 1pm-ish so it's not such a bad drive.  Stop in Saratoga for a coffee and I'm good to go.  Ski hard Saturday.  Usually the Sunday plan is ski thru lunch and to be putting the skis in the car around 2pm-ish for the drive home.  I'd love to chill out on that ride home...read a book, take a nap, etc. FWIW, I wouldn't even mind the first two hours of driving and let the auto pilot take over when I hit the highway.

I didn't ski over MLK weekend because I had gone up the weekend before and I didn't feel like making the drive again (in bad weather).  If someone else was driving it would have been a different story.


----------



## mikec142 (Feb 5, 2019)

FWIW, although the idea of a train to the NE resorts sounds good, I highly doubt that it would be economically viable.  Amtrak is losing money hand over fist already in some of the most populated places in the country.  I can't imagine it would make money going to the more remote places in the country.


----------



## Jully (Feb 5, 2019)

mikec142 said:


> FWIW, although the idea of a train to the NE resorts sounds good, I highly doubt that it would be economically viable.  Amtrak is losing money hand over fist already in some of the most populated places in the country.  I can't imagine it would make money going to the more remote places in the country.



I can see a Boston - Laconia line coming into play sometime in the future. Year round demand. As much as I want a ski train, I'm not going to Gunstock on one though sadly.

Laconia isn't all that remote though. Something like the MRV is a different story on literally every front.


----------



## abc (Feb 5, 2019)

Jully said:


> I've wanted this for a LONG time. The Winter Park line is profitable, so I'd love to see someone try it. Freight lines have zero issues with the WP train and its immensely popular..


Was it? So how come it went out of operation a few years back?


----------



## abc (Feb 5, 2019)

kingslug said:


> By the time it happens I think I'll be long past skiing.


I'm a bit younger so I will still be skiing. But I'll likely be past working (9-5 kind of work). So I'm not sure it makes much difference for me. 

So purely theoretical, I would love it. And will go to places I can't do now. Plus go more frequently to places I only go occasionally. But as pointed out, it will likely change skiing. Instead of New Yorkers concentrating on southern VT because that's their 5 hr limit, they will be going to Stowe and Jay! 

So the effect will be a little different than what some of us naively think. 

What may happen, is instead of concentrating right around the mountains, people (I mean 2nd home owners and weekend visitors) may stay a bit further away from the mountain. I can eat my breakfast and have a leisurely coffee while the car drive itself to the mountain for first chair...


----------



## Ol Dirty Noodle (Feb 5, 2019)

Amtrak actually runs a train from Penn NY to Burlington in a mere wait for it... 13 hours, and when I tried to see the times it said no schedule available [emoji19]


----------



## AdironRider (Feb 5, 2019)

It is never going to happen without completely rebuilding every road on the way there from the gravel base on up. You think that is ever going to happen? Me neither. 

Driverless cars use cameras to read the lines on the road. In anything other than perfect conditions, they don't roll. Without embedding cable in the roadway itself to guide these things you will never see driverless cars in areas that receive any adverse weather conditions.


----------



## cdskier (Feb 5, 2019)

mikec142 said:


> I would absolutely love a driverless car.  It's a 5.5 hour drive from my house to Sugarbush.  On a Friday, I can usually leave around 1pm-ish so it's not such a bad drive.  Stop in Saratoga for a coffee and I'm good to go.  Ski hard Saturday.  Usually the Sunday plan is ski thru lunch and to be putting the skis in the car around 2pm-ish for the drive home.  I'd love to chill out on that ride home...read a book, take a nap, etc. FWIW, I wouldn't even mind the first two hours of driving and let the auto pilot take over when I hit the highway.



This is quite similar to me and the way I do things. I would be perfectly content if the auto-pilot only worked on the highway (I-87) as well.


----------



## Jully (Feb 5, 2019)

abc said:


> Was it? So how come it went out of operation a few years back?



It was 2009 and ownership changed. There was a fight with the freight company about useage too. There wasn't enough demand for the ownership to keep it going in that crappy economic climate.

8 years later in 2017 there's a lot more demand than there was previously (though I'm not sure what the ridership in the private train's final years were).

The modern day amtrak route sells out most days it runs (weekends only). Unclear if the hype will keep up season to season, but for now its selling out and is a unequivocal success.


----------



## Domeskier (Feb 5, 2019)

Adaptive cruise control and pilot assist make highway driving less taxing, but really don't change how long I want to be in a car.  Being a passenger doesn't change the equation for me that much either.  So unless driverless cars are substantially more comfortable to be in that what we have now, I doubt they would change my skiing habits much.


----------



## JimG. (Feb 5, 2019)

Domeskier said:


> Adaptive cruise control and pilot assist make highway driving less taxing, but really don't change how long I want to be in a car.  Being a passenger doesn't change the equation for me that much either.  So unless driverless cars are substantially more comfortable to be in that what we have now, I doubt they would change my skiing habits much.



Exactly.


----------



## chuckstah (Feb 5, 2019)

If this tech ever gets approved, will these cars speed?  Or will the trip take even longer?  I don't see many people driving below the speed limit. 

Sent from my moto e5 cruise using Tapatalk


----------



## HowieT2 (Feb 5, 2019)

I think we’re along ways away from driverless vehicles that can make a trip to a remote location in variable weather conditions.  I had a new car up in vt equipped with lane departure correction.  Great feature on the interstate.  On local road, with snow on the sides, it kept stearing out of the clear roadway in the middle and into snow covered roadway on the side.


----------



## abc (Feb 5, 2019)

Why haven't anyone come up with a self-driving snowmobile yet? 

Backyard cat skiing anyone?


----------



## abc (Feb 5, 2019)

HowieT2 said:


> I think we’re along ways away from driverless vehicles that can make a trip to a remote location in variable weather conditions.


How long is a long way away? Years? Decades? How many years? How many decades?


----------



## benski (Feb 5, 2019)

HowieT2 said:


> I think we’re along ways away from driverless vehicles that can make a trip to a remote location in variable weather conditions.  I had a new car up in vt equipped with lane departure correction.  Great feature on the interstate.  On local road, with snow on the sides, it kept stearing out of the clear roadway in the middle and into snow covered roadway on the side.



It also sucks that your car Volvo hides the on off button in the settings menus. I can turn that off as soon as I see something wrong on the road. 

I think we will begin to see some highway capacity improvement pretty quickly from these new features. Adaptive cruise control helps reduce rubbernecking and increase threw-put. 

I think for ski areas busses are more realistic, except for a few ski areas near rail lines. Rail lines are very expensive to build so they don’t make sense if usage is lower. I think ski areas should work harder to push busses as a way to access the resort. Most don’t do anything of the sort.


----------



## SkiingInABlueDream (Feb 5, 2019)

AdironRider said:


> It is never going to happen without completely rebuilding every road on the way there from the gravel base on up. You think that is ever going to happen? Me neither.
> 
> Driverless cars use cameras to read the lines on the road. In anything other than perfect conditions, they don't roll. Without embedding cable in the roadway itself to guide these things you will never see driverless cars in areas that receive any adverse weather conditions.



This is the only post sofar that doesn't sound like pie in the sky fantasy. 

And the ppl who are trying to use current "self driving" features on snowy roads... You folks scare me.


----------



## speden (Feb 6, 2019)

I agree fully self driving cars are still science fiction, but they can use a lot more than just cameras to see where the road is. Most of them have extremely detailed maps of the roads, so if they know their exact position, then they can know where the road is without even seeing it. Who knows what else they can come up with, like snow penetrating radar or something. So technically self driving cars are feasible, it's just going to take a while to make them safe and reliable.

The biggest barrier now is that the current generation of artificial intelligence isn't good at generalizing. It's very good at learning specific things, but if it encounters a variation on what it's learned, then it gets confused. So if you teach it what a pedestrian looks like and what a rabbit looks like, and then a person in a rabbit suit is walking across the street, the car might decide it's just a rabbit. The AI just lacks common sense and depth of experience to say, "hmmm, that's too big to be a rabbit". The last two fatalities from self driving cars happened when the AI thought a big white truck blocking the road was just the sky, and a woman crossing the street with a bicycle was just a bicycle.


----------



## skiur (Feb 6, 2019)

speden said:


> I agree fully self driving cars are still science fiction, but they can use a lot more than just cameras to see where the road is. Most of them have extremely detailed maps of the roads, so if they know their exact position, then they can know where the road is without even seeing it. Who knows what else they can come up with, like snow penetrating radar or something. So technically self driving cars are feasible, it's just going to take a while to make them safe and reliable.
> 
> The biggest barrier now is that the current generation of artificial intelligence isn't good at generalizing. It's very good at learning specific things, but if it encounters a variation on what it's learned, then it gets confused. So if you teach it what a pedestrian looks like and what a rabbit looks like, and then a person in a rabbit suit is walking across the street, the car might decide it's just a rabbit. The AI just lacks common sense and depth of experience to say, "hmmm, that's too big to be a rabbit". The last two fatalities from self driving cars happened when the AI thought a big white truck blocking the road was just the sky, and a woman crossing the street with a bicycle was just a bicycle.



So its ok for the car to hit a bicycle as long as nobody is riding it?


----------



## cdskier (Feb 6, 2019)

skiur said:


> So its ok for the car to hit a bicycle as long as nobody is riding it?



Hah! I was thinking that exact same thing!


----------



## abc (Feb 6, 2019)

benski said:


> It also sucks that your car Volvo hides the on off button in the settings menus. I can turn that off as soon as I see something wrong on the road.
> 
> I think we will begin to see some highway capacity improvement pretty quickly from these new features. Adaptive cruise control helps reduce rubbernecking and increase threw-put.
> 
> I think for ski areas busses are more realistic, except for a few ski areas near rail lines. Rail lines are very expensive to build so they don’t make sense if usage is lower. I think ski areas should work harder to push busses as a way to access the resort. Most don’t do anything of the sort.


Buses are cruising up to ski resorts in large numbers!

But you need to live where the buses are leaving from. Plenty of people do, in Boston and New York city. 

Where else can you run a bus FROM that has enough population to fill it???


----------



## Glenn (Feb 6, 2019)

I love cars and love to drive. But I don't like fighting traffic on a Friday evening going up north. I'd gladly hand the controls over the car and let it drive for me. 

I listen to a bunch of car podcasts and have heard a lot of talk on this subject: 

It would be easy to transition to fully autonomous if it happened quickly. As in on XXXX date, all cars on the road will be autonomous. The conundrum will be the mix of autonomous and human driven cars. 

Weather: Snow messes with sensors. I'm sure having a system where the vehicles talk to each other and the infrastructure would lessen this. The hurdle there would be communication; re the thread near this one that talks about cell service(or lack thereof) in VT. 

The whole ownership model with autonomous vehicles has the potential to change. If you have a vehicle that drives itself, why park it? Let it run around for 18 hours + a day. Who knows, we may not need to own a vehicle years from now. You'd just hail it when you need it...kinda like Uber. 

I think another potential down the road disruption would be autonomous vertical take off vehicles. They look like giant drones. Imagine the time that would cut out of the equation.


----------



## rtjcbrown (Feb 6, 2019)

How about we get reliable cell phone service at all the (not so) remote ski areas first? 

Also, another consideration is getting around once you are there.


----------



## speden (Feb 6, 2019)

skiur said:


> So its ok for the car to hit a bicycle as long as nobody is riding it?



Depends on what kind of bike it is. 

I was kind of glossing over the details on that accident. Apparently they had tuned the software to try to reduce false positives, so that the car wouldn't slam on the brakes over phantom objects that weren't really a threat. The car detected that something was there, but it wasn't sure what it was, and decided to ignore it. I suspect if the woman had been crossing the street without the bicycle, then it would have stopped for her. If the bicycle had been parked in the middle of the road by itself, then the car would have driven around it. It would have also gone around her if she'd been riding the bike. But a woman pushing a bike across the street in the dark wasn't recognizable to the car since it couldn't generalize the different objects that it knew to understand this novel situation it wasn't trained on.


----------



## mikec142 (Feb 6, 2019)

speden said:


> Depends on what kind of bike it is.
> 
> I was kind of glossing over the details on that accident. Apparently they had tuned the software to try to reduce false positives, so that the car wouldn't slam on the brakes over phantom objects that weren't really a threat. The car detected that something was there, but it wasn't sure what it was, and decided to ignore it. I suspect if the woman had been crossing the street without the bicycle, then it would have stopped for her. If the bicycle had been parked in the middle of the road by itself, then the car would have driven around it. It would have also gone around her if she'd been riding the bike. But a woman pushing a bike across the street in the dark wasn't recognizable to the car since it couldn't generalize the different objects that it knew to understand this novel situation it wasn't trained on.



I don't mean to make light about any accidents or injuries caused by driverless technology.  But it does interest me that these accidents become front page news.  The standard by which driverless technology should be judged is that of human driving.  So far, every statistic that I've seen has suggested that while we still have a long way to go, driverless technology tests already outperform humans.  In general, humans are bad drivers.  

I drive all the time (don't have a choice) and I freely admit that I'm an average driver (skillwise).  People tend to want to judge driveless technology against the standard of perfect.  And we all know that human drivers aren't perfect.  My mother-in-law is a sweet, kind, caring person.  And if you asked me, she's such a bad driver, she should have her license revoked.  Consistently drives 10+ mph below the speed limit.  Comes to a stop at most intersections regardless of whether there is a traffic light or stop sign.  Bottom line, she's dangerous on the road.  Give me today's (not even future versions) driverless technology over her any day of the week.


----------



## abc (Feb 6, 2019)

speden said:


> Depends on what kind of bike it is.
> 
> I was kind of glossing over the details on that accident. Apparently they had tuned the software to try to reduce false positives, so that the car wouldn't slam on the brakes over phantom objects that weren't really a threat. The car detected that something was there, but it wasn't sure what it was, and decided to ignore it. I suspect if the woman had been crossing the street without the bicycle, then it would have stopped for her. If the bicycle had been parked in the middle of the road by itself, then the car would have driven around it. It would have also gone around her if she'd been riding the bike. But a woman pushing a bike across the street in the dark wasn't recognizable to the car since it couldn't generalize the different objects that it knew to understand this novel situation it wasn't trained on.


I'm not aware of the part of reducing false positive. 

But if that's true, that's truly disturbing. They're testing their software using general public, real people as guinea pigs! 

They don't allow that in medical research. But I guess that's acceptable for computer software?


----------



## speden (Feb 6, 2019)

abc said:


> I'm not aware of the part of reducing false positive.
> 
> But if that's true, that's truly disturbing. They're testing their software using general public, real people as guinea pigs!
> 
> They don't allow that in medical research. But I guess that's acceptable for computer software?



They are required to have an actual driver at the wheel during these tests, but in this case the driver was looking at her smartphone when the accident happened, which of course they aren't allowed to do, but since the cars hardly ever mess up, that must be a super boring job where your attention would wander.

I think the self-driving cars will be held to a radically higher standard than human drivers. Humans are what they are, but cars are technology, and technology can always be made better with more sensors, more CPU processing power, etc. So unless the gov makes some carve outs to protect the auto manufacturers, they will need a super low accident rate to avoid lawsuits. Also people will not trust the cars if they hear about accidents.


----------



## JimG. (Feb 6, 2019)

SkiingInABlueDream said:


> This is the only post sofar that doesn't sound like pie in the sky fantasy.
> 
> And the ppl who are trying to use current "self driving" features on snowy roads... You folks scare me.



Another exactly.


----------



## JimG. (Feb 6, 2019)

mikec142 said:


> I don't mean to make light about any accidents or injuries caused by driverless technology.  But it does interest me that these accidents become front page news.  The standard by which driverless technology should be judged is that of human driving.  So far, every statistic that I've seen has suggested that while we still have a long way to go, driverless technology tests already outperform humans.  In general, humans are bad drivers.
> 
> I drive all the time (don't have a choice) and I freely admit that I'm an average driver (skillwise).  People tend to want to judge driveless technology against the standard of perfect.  And we all know that human drivers aren't perfect.  My mother-in-law is a sweet, kind, caring person.  And if you asked me, she's such a bad driver, she should have her license revoked.  Consistently drives 10+ mph below the speed limit.  Comes to a stop at most intersections regardless of whether there is a traffic light or stop sign.  Bottom line, she's dangerous on the road.  Give me today's (not even future versions) driverless technology over her any day of the week.



This attitude is what terrifies me.

So driverless cars are preferable to cautious drivers who stay below the speed limit and follow all traffic directions? WOW!


----------



## WWF-VT (Feb 6, 2019)

You guys that are doing these long drives and think a driveress car makes sense should figure out how to make a few friends and share the task of driving on your weekend treks to ski country.  Do you really want to be asleep when your driverless car winds up in a ditch on a snowy backroad ?


----------



## cdskier (Feb 6, 2019)

JimG. said:


> This attitude is what terrifies me.
> 
> So driverless cars are preferable to cautious drivers who stay below the speed limit and follow all traffic directions? WOW!



Stopping at intersections with no stop sign or traffic light where you have the right of way is not a "cautious" driver following traffic directions. That's outright dangerous.

Edit: Don't get me wrong, I also don't think it is acceptable either for a driverless car to have anything less than a near perfect standard of safety and accuracy before they are allowed. Being "as good as humans" is not good enough.


----------



## ThinkSnow (Feb 6, 2019)

cdskier said:


> Stopping at intersections with no stop sign or traffic light where you have the right of way is not a "cautious" driver. That's outright dangerous.


+1  Add to that drivers with the right-of-way who simply decide to stop to let opposing traffic make left turns, for no logical reason.


----------



## JimG. (Feb 6, 2019)

cdskier said:


> Stopping at intersections with no stop sign or traffic light where you have the right of way is not a "cautious" driver following traffic directions. That's outright dangerous.
> 
> Edit: Don't get me wrong, I also don't think it is acceptable either for a driverless car to have anything less than a near perfect standard of safety and accuracy before they are allowed. Being "as good as humans" is not good enough.



That was my point which I expressed poorly, driverless cars that are as "good as humans" are a total waste because that is a horribly low standard.


----------



## cdskier (Feb 6, 2019)

ThinkSnow said:


> +1  Add to that drivers with the right-of-way who simply decide to stop to let opposing traffic make left turns, for no logical reason.



Agreed. I've had people do that in front of me before and I really wish there was a way to communicate with them to say "Are you kidding me? Do you not understand how right of way works?" People that do things that go against the standard right of way just causes additional confusion and makes things worse (even though they may think what they are doing is "nice").


----------



## ThinkSnow (Feb 6, 2019)

cdskier said:


> agreed. I've had people do that in front of me before and i really wish there was a way to communicate with them to say "are you kidding me? Do you not understand how right of way works?" people that do things that go against the standard right of way just causes additional confusion and makes things worse (even though they may think what they are doing is "nice").


  exactly!!!


----------



## kbroderick (Feb 6, 2019)

JimG. said:


> This attitude is what terrifies me.
> 
> So driverless cars are preferable to cautious drivers who stay below the speed limit and follow all traffic directions? WOW!



Yes. If you can't drive at least the speed limit under normal conditions, you shouldn't be driving, and your inability to operate a vehicle at a reasonable rate inhibits normal traffic movement, often creating situations where competent and rational drivers are forced to choose between contributing to the problem you're creating or making questionable passes around your traffic-obstructing vehicle.

Although that might actually be a false dichotomy, because being too cautious is one of the faults of current self-driving vehicles.


----------



## JimG. (Feb 6, 2019)

kbroderick said:


> Yes. If you can't drive at least the speed limit under normal conditions, you shouldn't be driving, and your inability to operate a vehicle at a reasonable rate inhibits normal traffic movement, often creating situations where competent and rational drivers are forced to choose between contributing to the problem you're creating or making questionable passes around your traffic-obstructing vehicle.
> 
> Although that might actually be a false dichotomy, because being too cautious is one of the faults of current self-driving vehicles.



So all you folks who are so hung up about cars going slower than the speed limit are going to be happier in a vehicle that will never exceed the speed limit at all? My experience is that drivers who are impatient with slower drivers are most likely to also be speeders.

I guess the new autonomous cars will have to have steering wheels and dashboards for you road ragers to pound on.


----------



## kbroderick (Feb 6, 2019)

cdskier said:


> Stopping at intersections with no stop sign or traffic light where you have the right of way is not a "cautious" driver following traffic directions. That's outright dangerous.
> 
> Edit: Don't get me wrong, I also don't think it is acceptable either for a driverless car to have anything less than a near perfect standard of safety and accuracy before they are allowed. Being "as good as humans" is not good enough.



"As good as humans" isn't good enough, but 10% better than humans should be acceptable, because you're increasing overall safety. The reality is that—as a society—we like to operate on irrational fears rather than confusing things like data and science, so we're probably going to keep rejecting the widespread acceptance of self-driving vehicles until they are much, much better than human drivers.

As someone who has spent most of his life in areas that regularly see snowy roads, I think that self-driving vehicles with appropriate software and sensors have a good chance to outperform most drivers who don't regularly drive in slippery conditions. It's relatively easy to convince a software program to follow best practices and not brake when encountering "scary" conditions, but convincing a human to do so is a lot harder because you have to override the natural instinct to respond to fear by stomping on the slow-down pedal. With the ability to poll individual wheel traction levels many times a second, I fully expect that an autonomous vehicle could outperform all but the most-accomplished human drivers in the snow, just as modern ABS can.


----------



## kbroderick (Feb 6, 2019)

JimG. said:


> So all you folks who are so hung up about cars going slower than the speed limit are going to be happier in a vehicle that will never exceed the speed limit at all? My experience is that drivers who are impatient with slower drivers are most likely to also be speeders.
> 
> I guess the new autonomous cars will have to have steering wheels and dashboards for you road ragers to pound on.



I'm hoping that one result is speed limits getting set appropriately using the 85th percentile, rather than local politics and general acceptance of speed limits that are too damn low.

Plus, if autonomous rigs are programmed to follow traffic laws, they shouldn't be obstructing traffic, either (most states require that you get out of the way if you get a line of traffic behind you, regardless of how fast you think traffic should be going).


----------



## Glenn (Feb 6, 2019)

JimG. said:


> So all you folks who are so hung up about cars going slower than the speed limit are going to be happier in a vehicle that will never exceed the speed limit at all? My experience is that drivers who are impatient with slower drivers are most likely to also be speeders.
> 
> I guess the new autonomous cars will have to have steering wheels and dashboards for you road ragers to pound on.



Some areas may have pretty high speed limits based on the present conditions. Similar to how trains operate in areas where there aren't any crossings for a number of miles.


----------



## JimG. (Feb 6, 2019)

kbroderick said:


> I'm hoping that one result is speed limits getting set appropriately using the 85th percentile, rather than local politics and general acceptance of speed limits that are too damn low.
> 
> Plus, if autonomous rigs are programmed to follow traffic laws, they shouldn't be obstructing traffic, either (most states require that you get out of the way if you get a line of traffic behind you, regardless of how fast you think traffic should be going).



You use words like "hope" and "politics". Good luck with that.


----------



## JimG. (Feb 6, 2019)

Glenn said:


> Some areas may have pretty high speed limits based on the present conditions. Similar to how trains operate in areas where there aren't any crossings for a number of miles.



You mean like Nevada and Wyoming? 

Are we all finding ourselves driving frequently in these places?


----------



## kbroderick (Feb 6, 2019)

JimG. said:


> You use words like "hope" and "politics". Good luck with that.



Get on I-93 in the Boston metro area and try doing the speed limit, and you'll see pretty quickly that society in general doesn't accept the posted speed limit. The current solution in most places is that cops don't enforce the speed limit as posted (nor can they, if most drivers are above it); they use some arbitrarily higher number, and/or pick targets they think might turn up other issues. If autonomous cars are programmed to operate at the speed limit rather than the speed of traffic (and I'm not sure they will be, as the latter is safer), they might just provide the impetus for enough people to work for rational speed limits.


----------



## JimG. (Feb 6, 2019)

kbroderick said:


> Get on I-93 in the Boston metro area and try doing the speed limit, and you'll see pretty quickly that society in general doesn't accept the posted speed limit. The current solution in most places is that cops don't enforce the speed limit as posted (nor can they, if most drivers are above it); they use some arbitrarily higher number, and/or pick targets they think might turn up other issues. If autonomous cars are programmed to operate at the speed limit rather than the speed of traffic (and I'm not sure they will be, as the latter is safer), they might just provide the impetus for enough people to work for rational speed limits.



No thanks, I have plenty of experience on I-87 out of NYC. Same crap.

I do not deny the fact that most people are dangerous and clueless drivers. IMO the solution to that is re-licensing exams every 5 years for all US drivers. Make it a federal law. Giving someone a license at the age of 16 and then saying good luck you're set to drive for life is irresponsible at best. 

To me, taking dangerous drivers and putting them in an autonomous box only creates dangerous passengers.


----------



## mikec142 (Feb 6, 2019)

kbroderick said:


> "As good as humans" isn't good enough, but 10% better than humans should be acceptable, because you're increasing overall safety. The reality is that—as a society—we like to operate on irrational fears rather than confusing things like data and science, so we're probably going to keep rejecting the widespread acceptance of self-driving vehicles until they are much, much better than human drivers.
> 
> As someone who has spent most of his life in areas that regularly see snowy roads, I think that self-driving vehicles with appropriate software and sensors have a good chance to outperform most drivers who don't regularly drive in slippery conditions. It's relatively easy to convince a software program to follow best practices and not brake when encountering "scary" conditions, but convincing a human to do so is a lot harder because you have to override the natural instinct to respond to fear by stomping on the slow-down pedal. With the ability to poll individual wheel traction levels many times a second, I fully expect that an autonomous vehicle could outperform all but the most-accomplished human drivers in the snow, just as modern ABS can.



You hit the nail on the head.  Irrational fear instead of data and facts are already dominating the conversation.  If autonomous driving is literally 1% safer than today's human standards, it's an improvement.  Now I get that reality is that autonomous driving will be held to a ridiculous standard but even a marginal improvement would save lives.

Just curious...how many of you have driven a Tesla that had the auto drive function?  I get bored easily so for fun (they aren't in my price range) I've test driven the Model S and the Model 3.  I've used the auto drive in both and frankly have been blown away.  I'm not talking about just auto drive on a straight highway.  I'm talking about auto drive on a winding road.  Literally amazing.


----------



## abc (Feb 6, 2019)

mikec142 said:


> You hit the nail on the head.  Irrational fear instead of data and facts are already dominating the conversation.  If autonomous driving is literally 1% safer than today's human standards, it's an improvement.  Now I get that reality is that autonomous driving will be held to a ridiculous standard but even a marginal improvement would save lives.


You miss an important point between machine and human. 

Machine will make the *SAME *mistake E*VERY SINGLE TIME*! Humans? They may make mistake SOMETIMES. Some will even make the same mistake more than once. Most won't. Current licensing and insurance setup kind of help achieve that. 

So yes, machine NEED to be made many times better than AVERAGE human. They need to be AT LEAST as good as the best 10% drivers. 

Now, if the self-driving cars can actually achieve that, then there's reason to argue to TAKE AWAY licenses from those that are at the bottom n%. They will only be allowed to be passengers, in a self-driving car no less.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 6, 2019)

Batteries will need to get better.  

During these recent single digit temps, a news article came out stating vehicles like TSLA only get roughly 70% of their posted miles-per-charge (which is already somewhat uninspiring) in the cold.  Given ski areas are in below freezing areas, that's an issue when discussing the long-distance drives talked about in this thread.  A few areas do have electric charging stations (Vail, etc..) and eventually they'll become commonplace, but you need to get there first.


----------



## mikec142 (Feb 6, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> Batteries will need to get better.
> 
> During these recent single digit temps, a news article came out stating vehicles like TSLA only get roughly 70% of their posted miles-per-charge (which is already somewhat uninspiring) in the cold.  Given ski areas are in below freezing areas, that's an issue when discussing the long-distance drives talked about in this thread.  A few areas do have electric charging stations (Vail, etc..) and eventually they'll become commonplace, but you need to get there first.



Sugarbush has charging stations.  But you are right.  Batteries don't perform as well in temperature extremes.

That said, while it would be environmentally preferred to have self driving cars be electric, it's not required.  It could still be gas powered.


----------



## mikec142 (Feb 6, 2019)

abc said:


> You miss an important point between machine and human.
> 
> Machine will make the *SAME *mistake E*VERY SINGLE TIME*! Humans? They may make mistake SOMETIMES. Some will even make the same mistake more than once. Most won't. Current licensing and insurance setup kind of help achieve that.
> 
> ...



I'm not so sure that I agree with you completely.  Humans and machines will make mistakes.  But humans are already making more mistakes than machines.  And if (thru testing) you can figure out what mistakes the machines make, you can correct them.  No matter what, humans will still drive drunk, distracted, while texting, etc.  My daily commute is about 30 miles round trip.  It's amazing what I witness in the distracted driving department. 

Additionally, machines will maintain a certain standard and maybe even improve with software updates.  The human driving cycle probably goes something like this...terrible, improving, reached peak performance, maintains high performance levels, slow decline over many years, shouldn't be allowed to drive, yet still does.


----------



## cdskier (Feb 6, 2019)

mikec142 said:


> I'm not so sure that I agree with you completely.  Humans and machines will make mistakes.  But humans are already making more mistakes than machines.  And if (thru testing) you can figure out what mistakes the machines make, you can correct them.  No matter what, humans will still drive drunk, distracted, while texting, etc.  My daily commute is about 30 miles round trip.  It's amazing what I witness in the distracted driving department.
> 
> Additionally, machines will maintain a certain standard and maybe even improve with software updates.



Until someone finds a way to hack into them and intentionally cause "mistakes" at least. Actually I think that was a topic of one of the Hardy Boys mystery novels I read as a kid!


----------



## abc (Feb 6, 2019)

mikec142 said:


> Humans and machines will make mistakes.  But humans are already making more mistakes than machines.


No. 

ON AVERAGE, humans are making more mistakes. But half of the human drivers are performing better than average already, and will perform even better with some technology help. 

Some of the technology self-drive car are employing is already help good drivers to be better drivers. So unlike the pessimist view, human drivers are also improving.


----------



## jamesbond006 (Feb 6, 2019)

very interested in driverless technology. i'd take it a step further and hope to see neural simulation technology in my lifetime. this would have limitless possibilities and you'd never have to leave your domicile. netflix has 2017 a movie called 'otherlife' that depicted this idea, was very interesting.


----------



## kbroderick (Feb 6, 2019)

abc said:


> No.
> 
> ON AVERAGE, humans are making more mistakes. But half of the human drivers are performing better than average already, and will perform even better with some technology help.
> 
> Some of the technology self-drive car are employing is already help good drivers to be better drivers. So unlike the pessimist view, human drivers are also improving.



Do you have stats to back that claim up? I understand the theory, but driver-assistance tech is a double-edged sword insofar as tech labeled as "additional help" get used as "how I do things now", e.g. relying on BLIS rather than doing a head check. In that regard, they can reinforce bad driving and encourage less attention to the task at hand, which isn't going to help.

I'm convinced that at least 70% of the problem with drivers in this country is that we've made things too easy. We keep speed limits so low and make vehicles so easy to drive that you can get away with paying minimal attention most of the time. Cars have gotten light-years better in the past five decades, but how many non-interstate speed limits have gone up to match the better ability of vehicles today? As a result, instead of devoting their attention to driving, people treat their cars as appliances and pay as little attention as they think possible.

Related to autonomous vehicles, I think the people who most want to treat their vehicles as appliances are the most likely to get personal autonomous vehicles, and thus there will be a self-selection effect whereby the worst human drivers will remove themselves from the pool first, thus improving the average human performance as well as the overall average performance (human + autonomous).

Anecdotally, the best example of this I've seen was a girl who I went to high-school with. I'd usually get a ride to school with her (private school, no bus available, and I didn't have a car), and on days that she was on time, it was terrifying—she'd be brushing her hair, fiddling with the radio, and what have you, and her brother and I would have to let her know when she was about to hit the ditch. When she was running late (more common), she'd be going at least 10-20 MPH faster and, because of the higher speed, stay focused on driving.


----------



## speden (Feb 6, 2019)

abc said:


> ... Machine will make the *SAME *mistake E*VERY SINGLE TIME*! ...



I don't think it will be quite like that. The self-driving cars are going to be networked. When a car goofs up and crashes, the engineers will get the data, analyze what went wrong, figure out a fix, test the fix in a virtual driving simulator that crams hundreds of years worth of driving into a few hours, and then download the fix to the cars. So the algorithms will generally get better over time.

But I do think you will see significant variations in quality and feel between the different car companies, so people will shop around for the best autonomous systems and features they want. I suspect there will be low end systems that drive like a cautious old lady and others that can be set to drive more aggressively. I for one would not buy a system that didn't let me set speeds above the speed limit or that didn't include a steering wheel.


----------



## abc (Feb 6, 2019)

> Anecdotally, the best example of this I've seen was a girl who I went to high-school with. I'd usually get a ride to school with her (private school, no bus available, and I didn't have a car), and on days that she was on time, it was terrifying—she'd be brushing her hair, fiddling with the radio, and what have you, and her brother and I would have to let her know when she was about to hit the ditch. When she was running late (more common), she'd be going at least 10-20 MPH faster and, because of the higher speed, stay focused on driving.


Very much my point. 

The self-drive car need to perform as well as she does on days she's late.


----------



## JimG. (Feb 6, 2019)

jamesbond006 said:


> very interested in driverless technology. i'd take it a step further and hope to see neural simulation technology in my lifetime. this would have limitless possibilities and you'd never have to leave your domicile. netflix has 2017 a movie called 'otherlife' that depicted this idea, was very interesting.



How will I fit my favorite ski areas into my domicile?


----------



## Not Sure (Feb 6, 2019)

This thread is terrifying to me in many ways . Giving away control of your personal safety for convenience.:-o  I get the Air travel subject is similar but will leave that out for now.

I have no confidence in the technology that is designed to keep the vehicle on the road . GPS relies on a good sat signal , mountainous areas ( around Ski areas) could loose signal ,add in a blinding snow squall and good luck staying on the road. 

I have no doubt AZ ers are good Winter driving veterans and understand what happens when you apply throttle at the right or wrong times,recognize black ice or determine quickly changing road conditions due to elevation. 

Imagine all the problems that occur in a conventional automobile? A few sensors go bad and your on the evening news . I remember Volvos issues years ago with "sudden acceleration syndrome" at least you had steering and some brake control.

They are connected to the Internet so "Hackable" 



Tons of unanswered questions ; If your over the legal limit for DUI? Can you get out of it as you were technically a passenger ? Same goes for speeding or any other traffic infraction . Does the car manufacture bear liability of accidents.

I will never get in a vehicle that does not have a steering wheel.


----------



## abc (Feb 6, 2019)

But you totally misunderstood the self-drive technology! So your fear is entirely misplaced. 

Automated drive car don’t rely on gps to stay on the road!!!

Sure, it uses gps to know WHICH road it’s on, just like us use gps to know which side road to turn. When there’s no signal, we just look at the street signs. That’s how yhe autonomous cars do too. Cameras. 

But to stay on the road, gps are not used because it’s not accurate enough. Instead, it uses cameras and radars, like auto-pilots on planes. Yes, you didn’t want to talk about planes. But when you fly, you’re not just giving up control, you’re giving it up to a computer!!!


----------



## benski (Feb 6, 2019)

I know I am taking an extreme pro self driving car stance here but I think introducing self driving cars that is slightly less safe than the average human will improve highway safety. I think the first people using them will be disproportionately likely to be impaired or generally bad drivers. Also with self driving cars making the same mistakes it will be more predictable, and therefore easier to adapt too. 

I would not be surprised if self driving cars keep the manual controls anyway. It sounds like self driving cars might struggle in situations where there is no defined path, like on a driveway and I would not be surprised if people still want manual controls in there self driving cars like automatic transmissions have a manual mode.


----------



## SkiingInABlueDream (Feb 7, 2019)

Might as well just look forward to teleportation. Heck that'll eliminate the need for lifts too - you'll be able to beam yourself to any mountaintop from your living room. [emoji849]


----------



## Glenn (Feb 7, 2019)

I suppose to get this thread back on track....once all the hurdles are cleared discussed above....

Certainly, I think these vehicles would help areas that are bit more off the beaten path and/or further away from major population centers.


----------



## Not Sure (Feb 7, 2019)

abc said:


> But you totally misunderstood the self-drive technology! So your fear is entirely misplaced.
> 
> Automated drive car don’t rely on gps to stay on the road!!!
> 
> ...



I’m aware that GPS is not the sole aspect of self driving vehicles. I’ve been sent the wrong way many times by my GPS in my phone.Re routed in ways that made no sense. At this time theres  no way a computer can deal with winter driving adaptations. 

I have avoided many Deer in my time as well to add another obstacle in the mix. 

Pilots are still in control of taxiing , takeoff and landings. Plenty of videos on you tube of auto pilot malfunctions too. 

Not going to give up my steering wheel no matter what!


----------



## granite (Feb 7, 2019)

Get your money out.  The government can't wait to start taxing you on these type of vehicles, dollar signs are spinning around in their eyes.  They are already trying to tax you if you own any type of electric or hybrid vehicle that consumes less fuel.  Worse of all, once they start taxing you, the won't be able to control themselves and they will keep raising the tax.


----------



## kbroderick (Feb 7, 2019)

Glenn said:


> I suppose to get this thread back on track....once all the hurdles are cleared discussed above....
> 
> Certainly, I think these vehicles would help areas that are bit more off the beaten path and/or further away from major population centers.



I get one day off a week, and my general tolerance for drivetime on a recreational day trip is 1-2 hours each way, with a strong preference towards the low end of that. (If I lived further south, I'd probably have to increase that tolerance...but that's part of why I live where I do).

 I plan to get over to Mt. Washington at least a few more times this winter/spring, but I'm unlikely to drive over to Vermont to ski, or even Loon, where my pass is valid. If I could roll out of bed and into the car at 4 a.m., tell it to wake me up at Killington, and go back to sleep, I'd be a lot more likely to take a day to ski there.

When I was living in Montana, my Red Lodge pass included a handful of days at Whitefish that I never used, because it's in the neighborhood of six hours driving on a good day. If I could have left the house at midnight (or 11 p.m. or 10 p.m. if the weather wasn't great), slept on the way there, and woken up at Whitefish, skied all day, stayed up there overnight and then had the vehicle drive me back after the second day of skiing (or hell, even day trip it and watch TV shows on my tablet and then sleep on the way home after getting dinner in Whitefish), I'd have used some or all of those days.

So I think it will have an impact. And as a software engineer by trade, I fully recognize that there are risks involved, but those risks are far easier to mitigate than those introduced by putting humans behind the wheel, especially poorly trained, tired, and/or drunk humans.

There are plenty of other examples where we give up control of our transit for convenience (buses, planes, trains, taxis and chairlifts come to mind), and three of those methods are primarily computer-controlled.


----------



## drjeff (Feb 7, 2019)

Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> Tons of unanswered questions ; If your over the legal limit for DUI? Can you get out of it as you were technically a passenger ?



I believe there was a case, I think in California if I recall the article I read about this correctly, that happened not too long after the 1st autonomously driving Tesla hit the road that dealt with this topic.

The driver, after drinking too much, got in his car, and did what ever the procedure is to set the navigation system to get him home. He was basically passed out behind the wheel, while the car was driving him home. The car committed some minor infraction that was noticed by the police, they went to stop the car, that finally happened when it pulled into and stopped in his driveway. The police suspected he was over the legal limit and administered a field sobriety test, which he failed, and was arrested.

He appealed that he wasn't "driving". The legal precedent apparently is that if you're in the car, and the keys are in the ignition, and you're deemed the "operator" that whether or not you were actually driving the car, or say pulled over sleeping/passed out with the keys in the ignition, that you are "operating" the vehicle, and in the eyes of the legal system "operating" and "driving" are one and the same.

So basically, using an autonomously driving vehicle as one's de facto uber if they're under the influence and the only one in the vehicle won't allow them to avoid the legal ramifications if they're stopped for something and found to be over the legal limit....


----------



## cdskier (Feb 7, 2019)

drjeff said:


> So basically, using an autonomously driving vehicle as one's de facto uber if they're under the influence and the only one in the vehicle won't allow them to avoid the legal ramifications if they're stopped for something and found to be over the legal limit....



For now...at least until someone somewhere successfully challenges those laws and gets them overturned/changed. I can see that happening eventually.


----------



## kbroderick (Feb 7, 2019)

drjeff said:


> ...The legal precedent apparently is that if you're in the car, and the keys are in the ignition, and you're deemed the "operator" that whether or not you were actually driving the car, or say pulled over sleeping/passed out with the keys in the ignition, that you are "operating" the vehicle, and in the eyes of the legal system "operating" and "driving" are one and the same.



I'd heard that before, and there are good reasons for that precedent (e.g. someone stumbles out of the bar, to the car, puts the keys in the ignition, better to be able to arrest them *before* they put it in gear), but how does it work with keyless ignitions? If I've got a camper van parked in the bar lot and I climb in the back to sleep it off, with the keyless ignition fob in my pocket, am I operating the vehicle? (clearly not, and I'm sure courts would agree)...but then what if it's two guys sleeping it off in the cab of a pickup, one on each side?

OT, but rather interesting in that context.

And as suggested, I'm sure the legal frameworks will catch up with the tech once it reaches full automation. Heck, you'll probably be able to use your phone to direct your car to come pick you up, at which point you can get in the passenger-side door and never get near the wheel (if it even has one).

I do expect that we'll see steering wheels either go away entirely or fold away into the dash when not in use, given that they create a large protrusion into the passenger compartment.


----------



## abc (Feb 7, 2019)

kbroderick said:


> I do expect that we'll see steering wheels either go away entirely or fold away into the dash when not in use, given that they create a large protrusion into the passenger compartment.


Actually, I don't expect that to happen. There're plenty of people who actually enjoys driving, some of the time. 

But the day will come when an autonomous car will be legal without a driver. How long it takes I don't know. And how exactly the change in law will play out is another interesting topic too.


----------



## abc (Feb 7, 2019)

Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> At this time theres  no way a computer can deal with winter driving adaptations.


In case you forgot, anti-lock brakes had made winter driving considerable safer for the average driver. 

"At this time", the computer hasn't quite up to speed on many conditions. But "they" are learning fast!

In chess (and in Jeopardy), computer had beat the best of the world after years of trying. There will be one day when computer can easily beat the average human driver.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 7, 2019)

abc said:


> *There will be one day when computer can easily beat the average human driver.*



The computer already beats humans in most facets of driving, which is why manual transmission is now obsolete.


EDIT:  Not interested in debating the 2 or 3 people who will surely reply saying that they can shift "better" than any modern computer can.


----------



## kbroderick (Feb 7, 2019)

abc said:


> Actually, I don't expect that to happen. There're plenty of people who actually enjoys driving, some of the time.
> 
> But the day will come when an autonomous car will be legal without a driver. How long it takes I don't know. And how exactly the change in law will play out is another interesting topic too.



a) the number of people who actually enjoy driving seems to be a relatively small as a portion of the population, although it probably has an oversized impact on the auto industry
b) for those people, vehicles that can be operated manually or put in autonomous mode will exist, at least in the near term, and I strongly expect we'll see those vehicles provide a way for controls to fold out of the way when not in use, to provide more room (and better crash safety) for the passenger in the left-front seat

And I do enjoy driving, and relative to the comment on manual transmissions being obsolete, I'll still put my truck in "M" mode at time to control the shift points myself. It's not the same as having a real manual transmission, but it lets me better control descent speed (although the computer will do a pretty damn good job of that on its own—if I provide a little brake at the top of the hill to let it know I want to reduce speed, it will generally downshift), and it also lets me avoid sudden downshifts in slippery conditions when the frontward weight bias and relatively silly power-to-weight ratio of the truck could make a downshift interesting.


----------



## abc (Feb 7, 2019)

kbroderick said:


> a) the number of people who actually enjoy driving seems to be a relatively small as a portion of the population


That remains to be seen. 

I don't consider myself a driving enthusiast. But I enjoy driving, some of the time. It just need to be in small dose. Longer than an hour, fun turns into a chore.


----------



## speden (Feb 7, 2019)

Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> ... I have no confidence in the technology that is designed to keep the vehicle on the road . GPS relies on a good sat signal , mountainous areas ( around Ski areas) could loose signal ,add in a blinding snow squall and good luck staying on the road. ...



They will have redundant systems like GPS, cameras, LIDAR, etc., but there will be situations where they don't know what to do. They will probably deal with this by telling the driver, "I can't function here, you need to take over". And if the driver doesn't respond, then the car would try to pull over and stop in a safe place. The part that scares me are the cases where the car doesn't know there's a problem and just plows into something without even slowing down. I think this has happened to cars that rely on a single sensor system, such as only using a camera to save money. I'd want a car that used multiple sensors and redundant computers.


----------



## abc (Feb 7, 2019)

As we speak, all of those systems are being tested as "driving aid" in cars driven by human!

It won't take very long for each of the systems to get quite a bit better due to the accumulated "experience" they amass in the next couple years.


----------



## kbroderick (Feb 7, 2019)

Thinking about some of the car-rental threads I've seen, this also raises an interesting question about car rentals: will one-way rentals (and their absurd fees) be a thing of the past? Just add six/eight/whatever hours for the car to drive itself back to the point of origin, and you can fly into Jackson, drive to Big Sky and on to Bozeman, and not pay the one-way fee.


----------



## jaytrem (Feb 7, 2019)

kbroderick said:


> Thinking about some of the car-rental threads I've seen, this also raises an interesting question about car rentals: will one-way rentals (and their absurd fees) be a thing of the past? Just add six/eight/whatever hours for the car to drive itself back to the point of origin, and you can fly into Jackson, drive to Big Sky and on to Bozeman, and not pay the one-way fee.



225 miles, better send it with a full tank of gas.

Another interesting thought on rentals would be what about younger people who currently pay the higher rate.  Would be no reason for that anymore.


----------



## Smellytele (Feb 7, 2019)

drjeff said:


> I believe there was a case, I think in California if I recall the article I read about this correctly, that happened not too long after the 1st autonomously driving Tesla hit the road that dealt with this topic.
> 
> The driver, after drinking too much, got in his car, and did what ever the procedure is to set the navigation system to get him home. He was basically passed out behind the wheel, while the car was driving him home. The car committed some minor infraction that was noticed by the police, they went to stop the car, that finally happened when it pulled into and stopped in his driveway. The police suspected he was over the legal limit and administered a field sobriety test, which he failed, and was arrested.
> 
> ...



What if they have driverless taxis? Can I get in one of those drunk? Would I be responsible then if it got in an accident?


----------



## abc (Feb 7, 2019)

jaytrem said:


> 225 miles, better send it with a full tank of gas.


Who needs gas when you have battery?

Wake up to the 21st century!


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 7, 2019)

abc said:


> *Who needs gas when you have battery?  Wake up to the 21st century!*



Wake me up when we have 22nd Century batteries, because 21st century batteries are awful compared to gas.


----------



## mikec142 (Feb 7, 2019)

Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> This thread is terrifying to me in many ways . Giving away control of your personal safety for convenience.:-o  I get the Air travel subject is similar but will leave that out for now.



This kinda gave me a chuckle.  So by this reasoning, you don't ride ski lifts because it gives away control of your personal safety.  I know that earning your turns is an increasingly popular thing, but this is a bit extreme :beer:


----------



## legalskier (Feb 7, 2019)

mikec142 said:


> This kinda gave me a chuckle.  So by this reasoning, you don't ride ski lifts because it gives away control of your personal safety.  I know that earning your turns is an increasingly popular thing, but this is a bit extreme :beer:





 Then again, no one is calling a ski lift "autonomous," the term for these new driverless cars. Let's say someone has a warrant out for him- he gets into an AV & it starts moving- suddenly the doors lock & it transports him to the closest police station- warrant executed. 
He'd much rather be on a ski lift, no?

_"I'm sorry, Dave- I'm afraid I can't do that."_
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qnd-hdmgfk


----------



## abc (Feb 7, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> Wake me up when we have 22nd Century batteries, because 21st century batteries are awful compared to gas.


In what way are batteries "awful" compared to gas?


----------



## cdskier (Feb 7, 2019)

abc said:


> In what way are batteries "awful" compared to gas?



As of today, mileage range.


----------



## abc (Feb 7, 2019)

cdskier said:


> As of today, mileage range.


Not really. A little less but by no means "awful".


----------



## Smellytele (Feb 7, 2019)

abc said:


> Not really. A little less but by no means "awful".



How long does it take to charge a car compared to filling it with gas?


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 7, 2019)

abc said:


> In what way are batteries "awful" compared to gas?



Just off the top of my head, and I'm sure I'm missing plenty.

1) Convenience
2) Mileage distance
3) Operating parameters
4) Potential replacement cost versus nothing
5) Time


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 7, 2019)

abc said:


> Not really. *A little less* but by no means "awful".



A little less?   No, it's a lot less.  

And keep in mind, the "electric vehicle ranges" you see posted are pretty bogus, because they are track tested under optimal temperature, and with NO additional power (no air conditioning, no radio, nothing), and driven at unrealistically low mph speeds versus normal highway driving to conserve battery.   The US EPA which puts out the bogus ranges, is,_ "in on the fix"_, to help sell electric cars.


----------



## abc (Feb 7, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> And keep in mind, the "electric vehicle ranges" you see posted are pretty bogus, because they are track tested under optimal temperature, and with NO additional power (no air conditioning, no radio, nothing), and driven at unrealistically low mph speeds versus normal highway driving to conserve battery.   The US EPA which puts out the bogus ranges, is,_ "in on the fix"_, to help sell electric cars.


I'm not "seeing posted" mileages as you presumed. 

I know a skier who actually owns a Tesla. He's driven it across the country on mini ski safari for the past 2 seasons!

Yes, he shared realistic mileages, total trip time including charging time, on another ski forum as well.


----------



## abc (Feb 7, 2019)

Smellytele said:


> How long does it take to charge a car compared to filling it with gas?


But the context of the question is a one way driver-less rental car return. How does charging time matter? 

So a 5 hr "run" by the driver-less car will actually be 5 1/2 hr, all the while the person is sleeping soundly in his hotel room, or is already on a plane back east!


----------



## benski (Feb 7, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> Just off the top of my head, and I'm sure I'm missing plenty.
> 
> 1) Convenience
> 2) Mileage distance
> ...



I would say Electric cars are more of a commuter thing now. I know someone who got a Chevy Volt, which is really a plug in hybrid and only had to take it to the gas station about 3 times in 6 months, which is a huge pro but they only use it for local driving and have a second car for road trips.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 7, 2019)

abc said:


> I'm not "seeing posted" mileages as you presumed.
> *
> I know a skier who actually owns a Tesla. He's driven it across the country on mini ski safari for the past 2 seasons!*
> 
> Yes, he shared realistic mileages, total trip time including charging time, on another ski forum as well.



Then his stop to recharge time took a whole lot longer than the cumulative stop to gas up time.  And he had to plan out where to stop on this route.  SEE:   #1, #2, and #5


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 7, 2019)

benski said:


> *I would say Electric cars are more of a commuter thing now.*



Bingo.   And therein lies (one of) the problems as a vacation car.


----------



## abc (Feb 7, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> Then his stop to recharge time took a whole lot longer than the cumulative stop to gas up time.  And he had to plan out where to stop on this route.  SEE:   #1, #2, and #5


#2 and 5 is related. One may even say they are one and the same. 

While the "gas up time" is shorter than charging time, that's not counting going to the bathroom and worse, stopping for food and drink. In reality, just about most people found the total trip time is longer than what google map indicates. 

#1 is largely subjective. The "planning" that goes into charging is the same as people plan to stop for gas and food. Still, NOBODY ever mention the "inconvenience" of having to stop for food! Yet it's a HUGE DEAL to plan to stop to charge the battery!!!

Electric vehicle has one and only one real big issue, limited range. That limit is slowly increasing. Still, every mitigating measures are viewed as huge and insurmountable "inconvenience" or worse. 

I've been a foot soldier since the early days of internet commerce. I've observed the exact same reaction back then. I can't help but laugh at the repeat in this new cycle.


----------



## Ol Dirty Noodle (Feb 7, 2019)

I’ll never give up my gas, turbochargers or 3rd pedal [emoji58]


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 7, 2019)

abc said:


> #1 is largely subjective.* The "planning" that goes into charging is the same as people plan to stop for gas and food. Still, NOBODY ever mention the "inconvenience" of having to stop for food! Yet it's a HUGE DEAL to plan to stop to charge the battery!!!*



I'm not following this logic.  When I go on long road trips I never "plan" on food, I pretty much just eat wherever I want (if I even need to stop for food).   

 The same cannot be said of charging an electric vehicle.  Unless you're in California, where the government has spent a ton of taxpayer money on charging stations, you're gonna' be in a world of hurt charging across Nebraska having no idea where the closest charging station is.


----------



## Smellytele (Feb 7, 2019)

abc said:


> #2 and 5 is related. One may even say they are one and the same.
> 
> While the "gas up time" is shorter than charging time, that's not counting going to the bathroom and worse, stopping for food and drink. In reality, just about most people found the total trip time is longer than what google map indicates.
> 
> ...



So how long does it take to recharge fully?


----------



## Smellytele (Feb 7, 2019)

kbroderick said:


> Thinking about some of the car-rental threads I've seen, this also raises an interesting question about car rentals: will one-way rentals (and their absurd fees) be a thing of the past? Just add six/eight/whatever hours for the car to drive itself back to the point of origin, and you can fly into Jackson, drive to Big Sky and on to Bozeman, and not pay the one-way fee.



Would a battery last the 6-8 hours of driving you mention or can it plug itself back in?


----------



## cdskier (Feb 7, 2019)

Smellytele said:


> So how long does it take to recharge fully?



Anywhere from 30 minutes to overnight...depending on the type of charger being used, specific car model, etc.


----------



## abc (Feb 7, 2019)

Smellytele said:


> Would a battery last the 6-8 hours of driving you mention or can it plug itself back in?


It can plug itself back in when needed. 

Keep in mind it’s not yet legal for a car to drive itself without a driver. So I’m not sure if that feature is actually implemented. But the (computer) logic is prety clear to implement. (I’ve actually work on a self driving forklift, which does exactly that)


----------



## abc (Feb 7, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> The same cannot be said of charging an electric vehicle.  Unless you're in California, where the government has spent a ton of taxpayer money on charging stations, you're gonna' be in a world of hurt charging across Nebraska having no idea where the closest charging station is.


Wrong! 

YOU may have “no idea” where the next charge station is. But the car knows!!!


----------



## Not Sure (Feb 7, 2019)

speden said:


> They will have redundant systems like GPS, cameras, LIDAR, etc., but there will be situations where they don't know what to do. They will probably deal with this by telling the driver, "I can't function here, you need to take over". And if the driver doesn't respond, then the car would try to pull over and stop in a safe place. The part that scares me are the cases where the car doesn't know there's a problem and just plows into something without even slowing down. I think this has happened to cars that rely on a single sensor system, such as only using a camera to save money. I'd want a car that used multiple sensors and redundant computers.








Dated video but they blamed the human ....


----------



## Not Sure (Feb 7, 2019)

mikec142 said:


> This kinda gave me a chuckle.  So by this reasoning, you don't ride ski lifts because it gives away control of your personal safety.  I know that earning your turns is an increasingly popular thing, but this is a bit extreme :beer:



LOL . I know the risks of riding a lift I had a friend waiting for the next chair only to watch it fly off the bullwheel :-o  as it swung around . So yeah stuff happens . Lifts are a known and fairly predictable ....you get on ride up ,get off ...repeat . Nobody is coming down 5' away from you in the opposite direction at  50mph . 

I guess my "autonomous" car phobia goes back to my teens . I was skiing with a couple friends and one of their friends suggest we run out to get food when lift shutdown at 4:30 ''Old Doe Mountain" in Pa. Well if any of you are familiar with the old "Opal Manta" Imagine packing 6 people into that compact . On the way back we were stopped at a train crossing . Assshole driver decides to go around the gates, floors it in  4cylinder with 6 people ...#@#$%^&*(........ I was on the train side in the back watching my life pass before me ,train missed us by inches. I felt all my organs liquify and run into my feet I was numb for an hour . I wanted to do serious harm to that asshole but was so weak I sat in the lodge by the fireplace for an hour . 

I don't let anyone drive when I go anywhere unless I know them very well .


----------



## jaytrem (Feb 7, 2019)

Hmmm, I wonder if my self driving electric car goes to the Hermitage, do the chargers still work?

Doesn't matter, just hanging at ms for the next 3 days. Postponed Dartmouth, Tenney, Middlebury due to crap conditions.  Car doesnt need to go far at all, blah!!!


----------



## abc (Feb 7, 2019)

Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> I don't let anyone drive when I go anywhere unless I know them very well .


OK, so no buses. But what about all the other driver around you? 

And how about airplanes? I mean, "pilot error" is not unheard of. 

And if you were the passenger on that plane that landed in the Hudson river, your life is in the hand of someone you don't "know very well". Or do you prefer yourself at the control? 

When I was in Colorado for 3 weeks this past Christmas, I happily rode in the car of my host. She used to be a professional driver, a couple decades of driving vans and buses in the snow of Summit county. On stormy days, I trust her driving more than myself!

Thing is, driving is largely an experience thing. The more you drive in snow, the better you know how to handle it. Computers can absorb "experience" extremely fast. "Experience" encountered by other computers just like "him"! That makes computer pretty decent drivers in very short time.


----------



## Not Sure (Feb 8, 2019)

abc said:


> OK, so no buses. But what about all the other driver around you?
> 
> And how about airplanes? I mean, "pilot error" is not unheard of.
> 
> ...



Haha . Bus's Can't help but think of "Raph Kramden" when I think of bus drivers,no offence to anyone out there. 
I get your passion and you're most likely you are right in the long run . I will take years on convincing for me though. 

I do feel anxious when I fly as a passenger but I personally know a bunch of commercial airline pilots. I never finished my power rating but have 800 hrs in gliders my instructors were airline pilots.


----------



## Smellytele (Feb 8, 2019)

Hmm? How often does my computer freeze up and I have to reboot it? I deal with it because when it does it won't kill me...

Or how many times has a engine light come on and the mechanic tells me "oh it was only a bad sensor"? What if it was a sensor reading the edge of the road or another vehicle?


----------



## MEtoVTSkier (Feb 8, 2019)

jaytrem said:


> 225 miles, better send it with a full tank of gas.
> 
> Another interesting thought on rentals would be what about younger people who currently pay the higher rate.  Would be no reason for that anymore.



Why, can't the thing drive itself to a full-serve gas station and fill itself up? :grin:


----------



## kbroderick (Feb 8, 2019)

Smellytele said:


> Hmm? How often does my computer freeze up and I have to reboot it? I deal with it because when it does it won't kill me...
> 
> Or how many times has a engine light come on and the mechanic tells me "oh it was only a bad sensor"? What if it was a sensor reading the edge of the road or another vehicle?



You realize that just about any car made since the mid-80s is at least partially computer-controlled, right?

And yes, failures can happen. I had a Suburban that would misread the wheelspeed sensors and engage ABS when it shouldn't have at 5 or less MPH while parking. But that's an exception, not the rule, and things have generally gotten better (plus that particular Suburban had been flogged prior to my ownership and was kinda a POS). Just like a ski lift, an autonomous vehicle would presumably detect the fault and require that you address it before further operation (or only operate in manual override/bypass mode).

Yes, recharge time is an issue. It's not a common case, but I've done several vacations where I drove 8+ hours to get to where I was going (and in a couple of cases, drove an average > 2 hrs/day between destinations). The most recent was a trip from Montana to Oregon last April; I did the drive out, and the drive back each in one day (and the drive back involved Hood River -> PDX -> Montana, so it was even longer); with the 36-gallon tank in my F-150, that's a one-stop trip. Even allowing for being able to leave the rig unattended at a charger (versus standing near it while fueling), I'd have been waiting a lot longer than the snack and bathroom break to recharge. But range,  charging tech, and availability of charging stations will improve over time. As noted, you don't generally have to *plan* fuel stops for most vehicles anymore; you can generally assume that you'll have gas stations within fifty miles or so, at least along an interstate corridor. Ride a motorcycle with a small tank or drive a diesel and things get a little more dicey, but still not to the level of looking for a charging station. Honestly, if I could get 600 miles (normal usage, unladen) out of a charge, I could probably live with an hour for a quick, partial charge or an overnight full charge.


----------



## abc (Feb 8, 2019)

Actually, there's no requirement that driver-less cars need to be electric cars. 

It's just the current offering of best driving computers are mostly on the electric vehicles. But I'm not entirely convinced that's the end game.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 8, 2019)

abc said:


> *YOU may have “no idea” where the next charge station is. But the car knows!!!*



How lovely that the car will know precisely where, 14 miles round trip out of my way, to go!


----------



## speden (Feb 8, 2019)

Fixing the long charging time will probably be easier than getting fully autonomous driving. To reduce charging time they can do things like use a higher voltage. Porsche is coming out with an electric car that uses an 800 volt battery pack (double the more typical 400 volt packs), which should cut recharge time in half. Another interesting approach would be to use a supercapacitor to grab a lot of energy from a charging station very fast, and then transfer it to the batteries while you're driving.

I'm waiting to hear stories about home mechanics electrocuting themselves poking around in these electric cars.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 8, 2019)

speden said:


> Another interesting approach would be to* use a supercapacitor to grab a lot of energy from a charging station very fast, and then transfer it to the batteries *while you're driving.



Would speed-charging ultimately decrease the overall life of the battery?


----------



## speden (Feb 8, 2019)

A supercapacitor you can charge and discharge extremely fast without damaging it, since it's not storing energy via a chemical change, but just as static voltage. But they suffer from charge leakage, so aren't great for long term storage of energy.

Charging a lithium ion battery too fast does damage it. They can reduce that effect by slowing down the rate of charging as the battery is getting close to being full. So you can get to 80% full pretty fast, but then have to slow the charge rate way down to get the last 20%. They also have to control heat, so some of the newer battery packs are liquid cooled to keep them in the optimum temperature range to prolong life and give the best performance.


----------



## Glenn (Feb 8, 2019)

Vehicles go through a much more stringent software testing process vs your computer or phone. If you app doesn't open or crash, it's annoying. If a safety feature isn't working correctly on a vehicle, it can have serious consequences.


----------



## Not Sure (Feb 11, 2019)

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019...ghway-driver-reportedly-unable-regain-control

Bump ....er


----------



## Smellytele (Feb 11, 2019)

Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019...ghway-driver-reportedly-unable-regain-control
> 
> Bump ....er


Sorry I can't do that Dave.


----------



## kbroderick (Feb 12, 2019)

Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019...ghway-driver-reportedly-unable-regain-control
> 
> Bump ....er



Interesting that the article changed and the Tesla response disappeared.

I'd be interested in seeing further details—the data logging from the car should indicate what inputs the 'driver' attempted to provide (eg. steering-wheel / pedal) while the car was in autopilot mode. Sometimes the simplest answer is correct, e.g. with the Audi unintended acceleration where the #1 issue was user error and pedal confusion.


----------



## cdskier (Feb 12, 2019)

kbroderick said:


> Interesting that the article changed and the Tesla response disappeared.
> 
> I'd be interested in seeing further details—the data logging from the car should indicate what inputs the 'driver' attempted to provide (eg. steering-wheel / pedal) while the car was in autopilot mode. Sometimes the simplest answer is correct, e.g. with the Audi unintended acceleration where the #1 issue was user error and pedal confusion.



The Tesla statement is still in the nj.com article:
https://www.nj.com/middlesex/2019/0...f-nj-highway-crashes-into-signs-cops-say.html


----------



## Glenn (Feb 12, 2019)

kbroderick said:


> Interesting that the article changed and the Tesla response disappeared.
> 
> I'd be interested in seeing further details—the data logging from the car should indicate what inputs the 'driver' attempted to provide (eg. steering-wheel / pedal) while the car was in autopilot mode. Sometimes the simplest answer is correct, e.g. with the Audi unintended acceleration where the #1 issue was user error and pedal confusion.



And some rigging from 60 Minutes...


----------



## JimG. (Apr 4, 2019)

Hey can anyone say 737 MAX 8?

Turns out it's now been proven that computer software is very efficient when it comes to killing large numbers of humans.

Good luck to those who want to put their lives in the hands of a machine. Guess you forgot that machines are made by humans and as such are subject to abject failure.


----------



## Not Sure (Apr 4, 2019)

JimG. said:


> Hey can anyone say 737 MAX 8?
> 
> Turns out it's now been proven that computer software is very efficient when it comes to killing large numbers of humans.
> 
> Good luck to those who want to put their lives in the hands of a machine. Guess you forgot that machines are made by humans and as such are subject to abject failure.



I knew someone would bring back this thread ....

The person who invented the wheel has helped countless people and killed a lot in the process . I think Orville and Wilbur would be horrified at what their invention has morphed into . Someone should be doing jail time on this one ! They should have issued an AD  and admitted  the fix was more complicated . Make damn sure the  pilots are aware of the problem .


----------



## JimG. (Apr 4, 2019)

Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> I knew someone would bring back this thread ....
> 
> The person who invented the wheel has helped countless people and killed a lot in the process . I think Orville and Wilbur would be horrified at what their invention has morphed into . Someone should be doing jail time on this one ! They should have issued an AD  and admitted  the fix was more complicated . Make damn sure the  pilots are aware of the problem .



I deliberately waited until the preliminary investigation into the Ethiopian crash was completed. 

And I think that all the facts surrounding Boeing's changes to the 737 which were made with nothing but profits in mind will come out...turns out that Ralph Nader's niece was among the passengers killed on the Ethiopian flight. Unsafe at any speed!

I'm sure glad I don't own any Boeing stock.


----------



## AdironRider (Apr 4, 2019)

JimG. said:


> I deliberately waited until the preliminary investigation into the Ethiopian crash was completed.
> 
> And I think that all the facts surrounding Boeing's changes to the 737 which were made with nothing but profits in mind will come out...turns out that Ralph Nader's niece was among the passengers killed on the Ethiopian flight. Unsafe at any speed!
> 
> I'm sure glad I don't own any Boeing stock.




I don't know man, this seems like a damned if you do, damned if you don't type scenario. Just 10 years ago Air France flight 447 crashed into the atlantic solely because the automated systems shut off and the pilots couldn't identify a clear stall. 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/...fety_paradox_of_airline_automation_on_99.html

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/business/2014/10/air-france-flight-447-crash

Both these articles seem to blame the automation, but the pilot error is absurd. A stall and stall recovery is literally day 1, lesson 1 in flight school. You can't just rely on humans all the time either.

That Air France flight was on an Airbus by the way, so it isn't unique to Boeing. 

Also, I'm probably never flying Air France. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_accidents_and_incidents


----------



## JimG. (Apr 4, 2019)

AdironRider said:


> I don't know man, this seems like a damned if you do, damned if you don't type scenario. Just 10 years ago Air France flight 447 crashed into the atlantic solely because the automated systems shut off and the pilots couldn't identify a clear stall.
> 
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/...fety_paradox_of_airline_automation_on_99.html



That sounds more like poor training to me. The autopilot shut off and the pilots had no idea what to do to save the airplane and that type of situation will only get worse as more automation makes pilots less needed. Until they are needed and by then the die is cast. Just another example of the same poor outcome that occurred because of an overdependence on technology.

I believe that poor training is also a large part of the recent crashes. I'm hearing that the training consisted of about an hour on a laptop! No flight simulators because Boeing considered that too expensive. Shall I continue?

You make a good point but to me it's just another reason to never set foot on a commercial airplane which is another topic altogether.


----------



## AdironRider (Apr 4, 2019)

Haha yeah I get that fear. I have my private and it gave me just enough knowledge to be scared up there. Ignorance is bliss sometimes. 

It is most definitely a lack of training, but not being able to identify a stall is more concerning to me than technological dependence. That is pretty basic stuff that most commercial pilots should know forward and backward. 

However, it does illustrate that computers are only as good as the humans that program them, and humans are not infallible. In the Boeing scenario that computer couldn't be overridden easily, in the Air France scenario the pilots actively overruled what the computer was (correctly) telling them. The latter is a big concern to me as I fear that will only become worse now post Max8 stuff.


----------



## JimG. (Apr 4, 2019)

I guess we all have to accept the fact that nothing will ever be perfect.

I would still rather put my faith in a well trained human than in a machine. Just ask the passengers on the flight that Chesley Sullenberger emergency landed on the Hudson river back in 2009. Zero fatalities.


----------



## Not Sure (Apr 4, 2019)

AdironRider said:


> I don't know man, this seems like a damned if you do, damned if you don't type scenario. Just 10 years ago Air France flight 447 crashed into the atlantic solely because the automated systems shut off and the pilots couldn't identify a clear stall.
> 
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/...fety_paradox_of_airline_automation_on_99.html
> 
> ...



Sometimes the air sometimes the airplane . I had a conversation about 20yrs ago with a friend who flew Airbus. He was complaining about control input on aileron . He was on final approach and had a wing dip ,with full control input he needed more opposite aileron to level the wings  . Apparently they limit amount of input to less than he needed for that situation.


----------



## mister moose (Apr 4, 2019)

AdironRider said:


> I don't know man, this seems like a damned if you do, damned if you don't type scenario. Just 10 years ago Air France flight 447 crashed into the atlantic solely because the automated systems shut off and the pilots couldn't identify a clear stall.
> 
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/...fety_paradox_of_airline_automation_on_99.html
> 
> ...



Not quite.

Both accidents are related to cockpit confusion on what the automated system was doing, coupled with sensor failure.  Boeing took it further with a stronger mandatory stall response.

With Air France, the FO's low experience, and almost zero real world non-automated experience hindered his recognition and recovery from a stall. There was no crew coordination.  No one said "My Airplane", which essentially means get your effing hands off the joystick.  And as the Vanity Fair article points out if you read far enough, the inherent danger of non replicated movements for both joysticks, ie they could each provide differing inputs, was an accident waiting to happen.  I fault the FO for 1) over controlling, a sure sign of low experience, 2) not discussing his control inputs, 3) Not understanding the correct assertions of the NFP FO #2, and lack of assimilation of data through other instruments.  I didn't see it in the article, but those sensors are always heated, and I didn't see any discussion of whether the heat was turned on.  Sorta important.

This isn't garden variety training  "Now we're going to do a stall demonstration" stall recovery.  It's in the weeds, confused cockpit, defective instrument, full IFR stall recovery.  Few of you understand the difference, but it's always amazing how many accidents result from ignoring the first rule of aviation:  Fly the damn airplane.  3 thousand hours of autopilot operation does not get you the needed experience to hand fly the damn airplane, and that was the problem on Air France.  The FO simply couldn't fly a partial panel, and he couldn't fly without over controlling.  In fact, there was no real problem at all until the FO pitched the nose up for no good reason.   In addition to all the other snowball factors.

Automation is great, but you still need solid basic aviation skills and a solid background in weather, icing, turbulence, manual instrument flying, instrument failure, engine failure, fire, the list goes on... because stuff breaks.  Because some mechanic, refueler, baggage loader or avionics technician didn't leave things quite right.      In the recent 737 crash, the ability and training to turn off the defective autopilot and fly the damn airplane would have saved that flight.  

Turns out there is such a thing as too much automation, (Together with a false sense of security and woeful lack of needed experience) and it's a real shame so many had to die to make that point.


----------



## abc (Apr 4, 2019)

As a software engineer, my opinion have always been computers should focus on gathering the information and formulates a best guess. But human should always have the final decision. 

Now keep in mind many human are very poor decision makers even with perfect information. So allowing the computer to actually execute the “best guess” may lead to better outcome on average. On that basis, I’m a firm believer of “computer as driver”, which I think will be a reality no matter how many people hate the idea. 

Still, human should have the final say, by overriding the decision proposed by the computer if they so choose. That option must be made available so those few humans who do make above average decisions are allowed to shine over the mediocrity of the computerized decisions. 

Every time I book a flight involving a regional operator, I cringe. Knowing how poorly trained SOME of those pilots are, I wish they make smart computer faster, so that pilotless planes will become a reality. On the major airline? I’d like the planes still allow pilots to fly them the old fashion way. Most of those pilots are often better than the computer. And they are at their best when the computer help without taking over.


----------



## Smellytele (Apr 4, 2019)

abc said:


> As a software engineer, my opinion have always been computers should focus on gathering the information and formulates a best guess. But human should always have the final decision.
> 
> Now keep in mind many human are very poor decision makers even with perfect information. So allowing the computer to actually execute the “best guess” may lead to better outcome on average. On that basis, I’m a firm believer of “computer as driver”, which I think will be a reality no matter how many people hate the idea.
> 
> ...


How do the experienced pilots get their experience?


----------



## JimG. (Apr 4, 2019)

abc said:


> As a software engineer, my opinion have always been computers should focus on gathering the information and formulates a best guess. But human should always have the final decision.
> 
> Now keep in mind many human are very poor decision makers even with perfect information. So allowing the computer to actually execute the “best guess” may lead to better outcome on average. On that basis, I’m a firm believer of “computer as driver”, which I think will be a reality no matter how many people hate the idea.
> 
> ...



To go back to the example of driving instead of flying, "better outcome on average" doesn't work for me personally but you agree that drivers like me should be able to override computer automation. Been driving 45 years with zero accidents. Mostly because I'm attentive and have been able to take corrective action when needed. So to me it would be a big step down in outcomes and this is usually the case when you dumb things down to account for the below average participants. I don't want to be treated that way. Besides, I also enjoy driving so why should I give that enjoyment up because other drivers don't like driving or suck at it?

I do agree with what you have written in general.


----------



## JimG. (Apr 4, 2019)

mister moose said:


> Not quite.
> 
> Both accidents are related to cockpit confusion on what the automated system was doing, coupled with sensor failure.  Boeing took it further with a stronger mandatory stall response.
> 
> ...



This is a great post. And it is a terrible shame.


----------



## abc (Apr 4, 2019)

Smellytele said:


> How do the experienced pilots get their experience?


In the “old days”, which is now but quickly passing, a lot of the commercials pilots came from the air force, where they actually flew planes. But going forward, I don’t know. 

By the way, I’ve seen this in the computer industry itself too. I grew up writing programs interacting with the computer itself. But today’s crops of software engineers often write programs interacting with some intermediate layers (JVM, or worse Websphere for example). Both kind of programs work as intended when everything is running fine. But when shit hits the fan, most of those who only interact with the intermediate layers don’t have a clue how to feal with a system wide melt down!


----------



## abc (Apr 4, 2019)

JimG. said:


> To go back to the example of driving instead of flying, "better outcome on average" doesn't work for me personally but you agree that drivers like me should be able to override computer automation. Been driving 45 years with zero accidents. Mostly because I'm attentive and have been able to take corrective action when needed. So to me it would be a big step down in outcomes and this is usually the case when you dumb things down to account for the below average participants. I don't want to be treated that way. Besides, I also enjoy driving so why should I give that enjoyment up because other drivers don't like driving or suck at it?
> 
> I do agree with what you have written in general.


JimG, your post I’m afraid shows a huge and grave misunderstanding of automation. 

You will always be able to drive. Driverless cars however, will allow those who don’t feel like driving to not drive!

You fear of not being allowed to drive is irrational. The rest of your argument are wrong largely because you started with the wrong assumption. 

That said, over-automation is a legitimate concern, as illustrated in the airplane designs. On the other hand, we had already accepted quite a lot of automotion in cars. We even took them for granted so much most people can’t name some of those automated functions of the cars! I’ll start the list with the obvious: auto-transmission and anti-lock brakes, please add to the list...


----------



## mister moose (Apr 4, 2019)

Smellytele said:


> How do the experienced pilots get their experience?



In the past, most came from the military.  That has slowed, and at the same time (after along period of oversupply) the demand for pilots is increasing.  Civil experience comes from a wide arena; flight instructing, banner towing, charter flying, freight, commuters.

Just like skiing, New England is a great training ground.  We have frequent IFR, icing, fog, some short runways, frequent crosswinds, lots of obstructions and special procedures, and one of the most crowded and pressure cooker environments there is in NYC airspace.  If you learned in sunny Florida (Home to several flight academies) you are lacking in all that.  If you believe some of the forecasts I've read, we're headed for a pilot shortage.  A recession will change that in a hurry.

I believe this is a true story from decades ago - 

A Pan Am 707 landed a little hot and had brake trouble, ended up off the end of the runway in the over-run with some scratches and little else, but still needed a tow.  The Captain got on the intercom and said, "Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you for flying with Pan Am, the world's most experienced airline, and well, we just had another damn experience."


----------



## JimG. (Apr 4, 2019)

abc said:


> JimG, your post I’m afraid shows a huge and grave misunderstanding of automation.
> 
> You will always be able to drive. Driverless cars however, will allow those who don’t feel like driving to not drive!
> 
> ...



I drive a 6 speed. So to me an automatic transmission is over automation.

It is a bit presumptive of you to assume I do not understand automation because I reject it. I am not discussing "automation", I am referring to autonomous driving where there is no human interaction and there is no option for humans to drive. That is the ultimate goal of this whole technology push for driving is it not? A moving box with no steering wheel or control inputs.

My 2 oldest sons are engineers and they talk to me the same way, like I'm too stupid to understand modern tech.


----------



## abc (Apr 4, 2019)

> That is the ultimate goal of this whole technology push for driving is it not?


No, that is not. 

In that, you’re wrong. 



> like I'm too stupid to understand modern tech.


It’s not about your understanding (or the lack of) of technology. It’s you assumption of intent that isn’t there that’s bordering paranoia.


----------



## JimG. (Apr 4, 2019)

abc said:


> No, that is not.
> 
> In that, you’re wrong.
> 
> ...



Check the title of this thread: "Will DRIVERLESS cars help remote resorts?"

Clearly the intent, according to the OP, is to produce cars that are DRIVERLESS.

I have read articles postulating whether Uber and Lyft can survive long enough financially to produce DRIVERLESS cars. Clearly that is the goal.

Maybe you need to look up the definition of "driverless" and "autonomous" before you accuse anyone of paranoia. 

I'm sorry if my distaste of that concept causes you discomfort; how dare I contest the ultimate societal wisdom of computer engineers. Sheesh!


----------



## abc (Apr 4, 2019)

Driverless cars will coexist with drivable cars. 

Are you also against motorcycles and buses? Those are nothing like cars, but you’re obligated to share the road with them. God forbid you have bicycles to deal with. Aren’t you afraid you’ll be forced not to drive but ride a bicycle or motorcycle just because someone dare to invent those? (like they dare to even THINK about inventing driverless cars!)

My “discomfort” isn’t so much caused by your distaste of driverless cars, it’s your distaste of anything other except cars. Did you not profess your distaste of anything YOU don’t personally drive?


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 4, 2019)

abc said:


> Driverless cars will coexist with drivable cars.
> 
> /QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## speden (Apr 5, 2019)

Attitudes may differ based on a person's age. If you grew up in the pre internet/social media era, then driving a car represented freedom to get out of mom and dad's house and to socialize/show off with your friends, so cars were important. A lot of young people now don't really care that much about driving and just see it as transportation. They'll happily summon an uber when they need to go somewhere and wouldn't care if the uber had a human driver or a computer driver.

I've also seen that cars are getting more generic. All the different brands are starting to look alike since the laws of physics dictate the most efficient design. That trend should accelerate as we transition to electric drivetrains. The diehards will hate electrics too and want their loud v8's and stick shifts, but the electrics will be much less expensive and almost maintenance free. When transportation becomes a cheap, generic commodity, many people won't even bother owning a car.

The diehards can become driving hobbyists, just like audioholics still listening to vinyl records. As long as the hobbyists don't cause too many accidents in their dangerous manual drive mode, it will be a long time before they are completely banned. If they are eventually banned, it would probably happen first in the big cities.


----------



## Glenn (Apr 5, 2019)

I can see the 737 analogy, but I'm not sure it's pertinent. First and foremost, people died; I don't want to gloss over that at all. I can't even imagine all the families impacted. 

With the 737, it's a statistically small sample set. I'm sure since this thread was bumped the number of people who died in the 373 incidents was far eclipsed by motor vehicle crashes...caused by humans. 

I don't have the stats, but flying is safer than driving statistically speaking. And from what I know, it's a heavily automated system. Yes, there are still pilots there to take over if needed. 

We can pound on the keyboard and argue the merits of self driving cars. I feel that it's coming. I don't have exact dates, but I'm sure at some point in my life, we'll see vehicles driving themselves.


----------



## kbroderick (Apr 5, 2019)

Relative to the Boeing crashes, this is rather informative (albeit based in part on preliminary findings):

https://leehamnews.com/2019/04/03/et302-used-the-cut-out-switches-to-stop-mcas/

In car terms, it sounds like similar to being required to disable power steering in order to disable lane-keeping assist, while also having a steering rack that was never really intended for use without power assist (with the key difference is that power steering is much less necessary at speed, while the airplane controls in question apparently got harder to use at higher speed). The hypotheses presented is that the pilots couldn't provide enough control input without the assistance of the electronic control motors, and re-enabling those motors allowed the computer to provide the errant inputs to create a large crater and kill everyone on board.

If you want to talk about this in terms of autonomous vehicles, I think there are a few key points that get easily overlooked:
1. statistically, commercial air travel is still one of the safest ways to travel, and these crashes—two in five months—are in the news precisely because of how rare they are
2. yes, it's still horribly tragic for anyone onboard, and for the family and friends of those onboard, but as already noted, there have probably been more human-induced traffic deaths since this thread got bumped
3. if the preliminary reports are correct, this is a combination of a significant engineering muck-up (why the heck didn't the MCAS verify the input from both airspeed sensors and disable itself if they disagreed?), a failure in training, a prioritization of profit over safety (apparently in the certification process for the aircraft, and definitely in the way aircraft were sold with features that could help alleviate this issue as optional add-ons), and quite possibly a side effect of reduced regulation in the aircraft certification process


----------



## AdironRider (Apr 5, 2019)

mister moose said:


> Not quite.
> 
> Both accidents are related to cockpit confusion on what the automated system was doing, coupled with sensor failure.  Boeing took it further with a stronger mandatory stall response.
> 
> ...



We are saying the same thing.


----------



## mister moose (Apr 5, 2019)

Driverless cars are going to drive at or below the speed limit.  I don't know about you guys, but that drives me crazy on some roads.  25mph is painful.  The vast majority of the US drives at +5 to +12, and that is going to cause major rebellion when all the driverless cars are now slow-clogging the roads.  Will the trial lawyers allow automated cars to drive at the _maximum_ speed allowed?   Everyone is a grandma driver all of a sudden.

As for airplanes, it's technically possible now if everyone else stays out of the way, but so far we just don't do it.

Who will take over when something breaks?
Who will do the pre-flight inspection?
Who will be responsible for the flight, compute the take-off weight and CG point, and check the runway charts?
Who will check the weather, the forecasts, decide on an alternate airport, and evaluate the fuel needed?
Who will talk to ATC?
Who will sign off the MEL list?  (Minimum equipment list)  That's a list of all the stuff that doesn't work on an airplane, but still be legal to fly.  That's right folks, everyday hundreds, thousands of flights take off with stuff broken, because, news flash, stuff breaks in airplanes.  There's a huge amount of mechanical gadgets that endure a tough environment and break.  Enough stuff breaks and can't get fixed soon enough that pilots carry around lists of stuff that is broken.  So realize that stuff breaks on a regular basis, and it's because someone is there to deal with it that 99% of the time you never hear about it.

How is a computer going to accept a visual clearance behind a visually identified 2nd aircraft?
How is a computer going to make the decision to go around when a last minute runway incursion happens?
How is a computer going to deal with poor signal strength and stepped on transmissions from ATC?
How is a computer going to deal with an un-programmed emergency, a la Scully?  Or United 232, that required several crew members to control what was left of the airplane?

Why do we not have driverless trains yet?  They even have their own unshared road, they don't have to steer, and they run on a schedule.  (Yeah, there's a few driverless self contained shuttle type trains, for those of you that like to niggle and point out technical flaws in any statement, so lets just get that out of the way)

It seems to me that automation shines when you have repetitious tasks with low risk if something fails.  In an aluminum beer can rocketing through -20F air so thin you'll die of hypoxia, sitting on wings full of jet fuel at 600mph, it might be nice to have someone up front checking on things.  Because while the overall sequence in a flight is repetitious, the real world details never are.  Because weather surprises you.  Because human error is everywhere around you, in ATC, in the cockpit, in the dispatch office, in the control tower, in the cabin, and in the maintenance shop.  Because stuff breaks.



abc said:


> Every time I book a flight involving a regional operator, I cringe. Knowing how poorly trained SOME of those pilots are, I wish they make smart computer faster, so that pilotless planes will become a reality.


Actually, while the average experience level is lower in regionals*, the importance of the pilot is greater.  The workload is higher with more take-offs and landings per day.  They fly lower longer, which means they deal with bad weather far more.  The aircraft has more critical performance, meaning the weight of 1 passenger and CG matters far more, and performance with an engine failure is (generally) lower, more difficult to deal with.  Mainline aircraft are actually easier to fly, but with (usually) more systems to manage and more people on board to be responsible for.

*Because the pay is less.  If pay was detached from aircraft size, that situation would change.


----------



## abc (Apr 5, 2019)

speden said:


> The diehards can become driving hobbyists, just like audioholics still listening to vinyl records. As long as the hobbyists don't cause too many accidents in their dangerous manual drive mode, it will be a long time before they are completely banned. If they are eventually banned, it would probably happen first in the big cities.


Totally. 

A high proportion of air collisions are from small planes flown by hobbyists. Or when small planes without transponder hitting big planes and bringing them down. But small planes are still allowed in most sky except the most congested airports. 

Human driven cars will be on the road for a very long time. But as time goes by, it will be mostly be for hobbyists. Parts (steering wheels, brake pedals etc) will be harder and harder to come by for pre-computerized cars, just like vinyl record players. All manufacturers will probably only make a few performance models for the hobbyists. 

But that's still a long way off. Computer driven cars aren't all that great yet, even in the mundane street driving task in good weather. It'll be a while before they can handle snow and ice as well (or as poorly) as the average drivers.


----------



## mister moose (Apr 5, 2019)

AdironRider said:


> We are saying the same thing.


The problem was way more than just identifying a stall.  It was the inability to fly a partial panel.  It was the automation design team thought-could-never-happen issue of 2 pilots on the controls (shouldn't happen, but did) moving them in opposite direction (shouldn't happen, but did) It was lots of other contributing details, which was why I took the time to write a page instead of a sentence.


----------



## mister moose (Apr 5, 2019)

abc said:


> Totally.
> 
> A high proportion of air collisions are from small planes flown by hobbyists. Or when small planes without transponder hitting big planes and bringing them down. But small planes are still allowed in most sky except the most congested airports.



Source?  None of this fits the data I've seen.  And as far as I know you can still land any properly equipped civilian aircraft at any civilian airport.


----------



## bigbog (Apr 5, 2019)

Autos:
Think they may appear for those grandmas, grandpas and eccentrics who challenge the minimums anyways and who, on occasion, apply the gas pedal by mistake...ending in tragic accidents.  More on the Testing end should be happenning..imho.  The issues are parking....nobody wants to design upwards = we're still in the Ponderosa era where RE wants as many units as physically possible developed = so ugly.  

Aircraft:
Learned, tested up, flew long before I could drive = prehistoric times.  I kind of cringe when the limited, required number of hours, due to automated systems, are mentioned now & then via media...usually in cases of company pressure to get to market...even before the flight schools, much less airlines(ie pilots/near future pilots) get adequate info on the systems...so nobody really has any idea of what they're flying.  These days the excrement is covered up for profit...always seem to learn of these conditions AFTER crashes....not cool.


----------



## Not Sure (Apr 5, 2019)

mister moose said:


> The problem was way more than just identifying a stall.  It was the inability to fly a partial panel.  It was the automation design team thought-could-never-happen issue of 2 pilots on the controls (shouldn't happen, but did) moving them in opposite direction (shouldn't happen, but did) It was lots of other contributing details, which was why I took the time to write a page instead of a sentence.



Actually that scenario happened some time ago and should have some type of warning system built in !!!! https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/11/the-crash-of-egyptair-990/302332/


----------



## bigbog (Apr 5, 2019)

Good stuff *mister moose*....


----------



## JimG. (Apr 5, 2019)

This topic admittedly makes me lose my mind.

Glad to see the discourse continues. I don't get avocado toast either.


----------



## JimG. (Apr 5, 2019)

abc said:


> Driverless cars will coexist with drivable cars.
> 
> Are you also against motorcycles and buses? Those are nothing like cars, but you’re obligated to share the road with them. God forbid you have bicycles to deal with. Aren’t you afraid you’ll be forced not to drive but ride a bicycle or motorcycle just because someone dare to invent those? (like they dare to even THINK about inventing driverless cars!)
> 
> My “discomfort” isn’t so much caused by your distaste of driverless cars, it’s your distaste of anything other except cars. Did you not profess your distaste of anything YOU don’t personally drive?



Hey I'm good with whatever you want to call your wheels be it a bike, motorcycle, roller skates, scooter, or unicycle. Or a driverless car or a flying car for that matter.

Just don't try to take the steering wheel out of my hands, that's all.


----------



## JimG. (Apr 5, 2019)

speden said:


> Attitudes may differ based on a person's age. If you grew up in the pre internet/social media era, then driving a car represented freedom to get out of mom and dad's house and to socialize/show off with your friends, so cars were important. A lot of young people now don't really care that much about driving and just see it as transportation. They'll happily summon an uber when they need to go somewhere and wouldn't care if the uber had a human driver or a computer driver.
> 
> I've also seen that cars are getting more generic. All the different brands are starting to look alike since the laws of physics dictate the most efficient design. That trend should accelerate as we transition to electric drivetrains. The diehards will hate electrics too and want their loud v8's and stick shifts, but the electrics will be much less expensive and almost maintenance free. When transportation becomes a cheap, generic commodity, many people won't even bother owning a car.
> 
> The diehards can become driving hobbyists, just like audioholics still listening to vinyl records. As long as the hobbyists don't cause too many accidents in their dangerous manual drive mode, it will be a long time before they are completely banned. If they are eventually banned, it would probably happen first in the big cities.



All good observations. 

Young folks don't seem to care much about independence which is why so many still live with mom and dad. And you're correct about new cars they all look the same which is funny because the styling sucks. Which doesn't matter to young folks as long as the cars are filled with attention diverting doodads like touch screens and movies. 

Ah to be easily amused and entertained.


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 5, 2019)

Young kids can't afford independent living from their parents today because it's Way more expensive today than when I was in my early 20s (late 90s) which was WAY WAY more expensive than when you were in your early 20s.  

The economic indicators are all very easy to research and correlate why young people today rely on the mom and dad cocoon more than ever before.  Your generation would have struggled just as hard as the current one given similar economic conditions. 

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## JimG. (Apr 5, 2019)

deadheadskier said:


> Young kids can't afford independent living from their parents today because it's Way more expensive today than when I was in my early 20s (late 90s) which was WAY WAY more expensive than when you were in your early 20s.
> 
> The economic indicators are all very easy to research and correlate why young people today rely on the mom and dad cocoon more than ever before.  Your generation would have struggled just as hard as the current one given similar economic conditions.
> 
> Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app



It always seems that way from one generation to the next. At 25 I saw no way I would ever own a house or get married. Children!?  

And it's not always about $ anyway.

I can only speak from my experience with children. My oldest is 25 and has been on his own living and working on the Outer Banks of NC as a field engineer maintaining bridges for a year and a half. My 2nd is 23 and has been working 9 months in Ithaca NY as a sales engineer for a materials testing software company. We're far from rich and there's nothing special about my boys other than they are personally driven to perform and do well at what they do. Their little brother in high school is the same way. They haven't lived at home really since they left for college. I'm not an engineer I worked in sales so no inside networking advantages. I don't pay for anything for them. Zip.

I wish I got to see them more than I do. But I'm not unhappy they are living life.


----------



## Dickc (Apr 7, 2019)

abc said:


> Totally.
> 
> A high proportion of air collisions are from small planes flown by hobbyists. Or when small planes without transponder hitting big planes and bringing them down. But small planes are still allowed in most sky except the most congested airports.


Little planes and big planes only come in close proximity when a small plane goes to land at a big airport.  Most private piston powered airplanes land at smaller airports.  The rules for flying into to class D airspace (Logan, Kennedy, etc) are pretty strict.  Barge into class D by accident and you will most likely get a suspended pilot license.  Finally, the FAA is requiring more and more electronics on private planes for them to even be allowed to fly.


----------



## Not Sure (Apr 8, 2019)

Dickc said:


> Little planes and big planes only come in close proximity when a small plane goes to land at a big airport.  Most private piston powered airplanes land at smaller airports.  The rules for flying into to class D airspace (Logan, Kennedy, etc) are pretty strict.  Barge into class D by accident and you will most likely get a suspended pilot license.  Finally, the FAA is requiring more and more electronics on private planes for them to even be allowed to fly.



I think you meant class B . The big planes are everywhere these days . A cool gadget   https://crewdogelectronics.com/collections/stratux-ads-b-kits-with-ahrs  Even gives you an artificial horizon ,picks up traffic with an app on your phone you can see for around $300.00 including the Foreflight app.


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Apr 8, 2019)

I can't wait for cars to drive me places...   So stoked...


----------



## BenedictGomez (Apr 8, 2019)

Funky_Catskills said:


> I can't wait for cars to drive me places...   So stoked...



The hotel/motel industry isn't nearly as stoked.


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Apr 8, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> The hotel/motel industry isn't nearly as stoked.



Good point!!!  I can save money on hotels!!!

Hotels/motels are getting caught up in the 4th Industrial Revolution too I guess..


----------



## abc (Apr 8, 2019)

Business has to change to deal with societal changes. 

I had a good friend whose business (and his livelihood) got totally destroyed when advertising gone electronic. I told him 2-3 year prior that I was seeing more and more electronic advertisement. He didn't make the connection. Not even after I warned him explicitly that business were toting their "savings" in paper cost! 

Motels will still exist. Hotels will continue to thrive. People still need to get away from their daily routine. Be that a day trip to the beach or mountain, or weekend trip to the beach or mountain, or a week long "get away from it all" trip to some place random! 

But it will probably be a little different pattern, which the motel/hotel need to figure out and follow. Yes, if they're worried the current status quote will not continue to perpetuity, there's good reason they should (worry).


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Apr 8, 2019)

abc said:


> Business has to change to deal with societal changes.



Or they wait to fail and blame the government...  
This industrial revolution is going to hurt many people.  AND make many people rich!


----------

