By on March 18, 2015

elon-musk-model-s

His hand may be on a steering wheel now, but Tesla CEO Elon Musk foresees a future where autonomous vehicles lead to a total ban on human intervention.

Automotive News reports Musk said as much during a conference held by graphics chipmaker Nvidia at its headquarters in San Jose, Calif.:

In the distant future, I think people may outlaw driving cars because it’s too dangerous. You can’t have a person driving a two-ton death machine.

He later clarified on Twitter his own position on the matter, stating his company “is strongly in favor of people being allowed to drive their cars and always will be,” hoping that the statement was obvious to those following along.

As for his appearance at Nvidia, the chipmaker is working to sell a purpose-built autonomous-vehicle computer called Drive PX, based upon its Tegra X1 mobile processor. The system will have 12 inputs for high-res cameras — like the kind Tesla is putting into its Model S right now — and is due to go on sale in May.

Musk added that his engineers are hard at work on improving autonomous technology, believing the tech will take greater control of the wheel on the highway “in a few years.”

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

112 Comments on “Musk: Autonomous Vehicles Mean Future Where Driving Is Illegal...”


  • avatar
    Vulpine

    Deceptive headline. While I agree implicitly that such may happen, we all pray it doesn’t. However, all you have to do is look at how many nanny systems are already required for automobiles and trucks in the US to see where things are headed.

    The interesting thing is that the vast majority of drivers would probably appreciate it; no more stress as the car drives itself through rush-hour traffic right to a parking place at your place of work. With inter-vehicular communications, it will even know where the nearest parking spot is to the door and park itself there. All the operator has to do is just sit there and read a book, watch TV, chat on the phone, pretty much whatever they want to do and commonly already do even now.

    • 0 avatar

      I’m all in favor of autonomy in traffic: keeping me a 5 foot distance from the next car while plodding through Holland tunnel traffic – which can take an hour or more to get through depending where you are in lower Manhattan – while I read a book, play on a tablet or text…

      …I’d also be in favor of the self-parking Audi has.

      Here’s the problem though: the road conditions are horrible and only in well-controlled (empty) parking lots would I ever trust the self-park feature.

      Will the robot know when a shopping cart is being blown towards it?

      Will the robot be able to “choose” between avoiding an accident, slamming into a tree or flattening some child on the street?

      Who gets sued when the bodies start to pile up.

      • 0 avatar
        mkirk

        There are robotic aircraft flying around that already make fare more difficult decisions than what you describe.

        • 0 avatar

          It is also true that “Auto Pilot” as applied to aircraft has been available for decades. However manual override is always available because automation isn’t 100% accurate 100% of the time. Where a human life is at stake, manual control has to be available.

          I can forsee a time when manual control is actively discouraged, but illegal. I don’ think so.

          Insurance companies will up your rates if they see too many manual driving events in your record. That will be reason enough for people to let a car drive itself; most of the time….

          • 0 avatar
            bikegoesbaa

            Do you contend that human control is 100% accurate 100% of the time?

            If not, then why is it inherently preferable to an automated system? Better to accept that neither is perfect and then rely on the one that performs better overall.

          • 0 avatar
            redrum

            Car and plane automation are not quite equivalent. Planes cede control back to the pilot as a fail safe because there is no practical way to abort a flight in mid-air. There is no such limitation with cars; if there is a major system breakdown, the car should be able to simply pull to the side of the road and call for assistance (even an instantaneous catastrophic failure that leaves one stranded in the middle of the road wouldn’t be any more common than it is now; if anything it’d be less so with better on-board diagnostics). Obviously it’s going to take time to refine the technology and deal with various edge cases, but I have no doubt there will come a time when self-driving cars reach an efficiency rate so far beyond any human that it will make no rational sense to let people drive on their own anymore.

        • 0 avatar
          carguy67

          Not an apt comparison. Aircraft traffic, at least IFR, is arbitrated by a third party (ATC). The Victor Airway system is well-established, rarely if ever changes–never without significant advance warning by the AIRMET system–and most navigation is straight line point-to-point; departures and arrivals are dictated by SIDs and STARs respectively. Separation is guaranteed by ATC–the occasional cock-up notwithstanding–both linearly and by altitude. The avionics have been developed and perfected since Jimmy Doolittle made the first flight solely by reference to instruments back in the 1930s. There are virtually no unexpected obstructions in the air, the occasional NORDO VFR pilot notwithstanding (kids don’t chase soccer balls in Positive Control Class A airspace–18,000 feet MSL and above).

          And, last but not least, there is at least one presumably competent, highly-trained pilot to monitor and back up the instrumentation at all times (Air France 447 and some Asian airlines excepted).

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          “There are robotic aircraft flying around that already make fare more difficult decisions than what you describe.”

          Other than some specific prototypes, that’s not QUITE true, although it should be. Human error has caused more crashes of those so-called ‘robotic aircraft’ than the robots themselves. This stands true even as far back as 50 years ago with the first TFR systems.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          mkirk – robotic aircraft with the command “kill or kill later” is relevant to cars how?

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        Hmmm… In order:
        * the road conditions are horrible and only in well-controlled (empty) parking lots would I ever trust the self-park feature. — Why?

        * Will the robot know when a shopping cart is being blown towards it? — It should. However, it’s unlikely it would do anything about it as typically the cart wouldn’t be moving fast enough to do any notable damage. But by then, shopping carts themselves may be somewhat autonomous, returning themselves to the store once the customer is finished with it.

        * Will the robot be able to “choose” between avoiding an accident, slamming into a tree or flattening some child on the street? — If all cars are mandated autonomous, the likelihood of of an accident is minimized, eliminating the need to make such a choice. However, Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics would have the car sacrifice itself to protect occupants and pedestrians.

        Again, this is far more likely to be fifty years or more into our future than any time soon. By then, again, most people won’t care.

      • 0 avatar
        Xeranar

        This is the argument I constantly see: In a choice between a toddler who wonders into the street or the concrete wall what will the car choose, killing them or you. The cold hard reality is that scenario won’t exist. All streets as we know them will become cordoned off, moderately high barriers will be put in place (mostly just simple railings) mixed with super-HD cameras, high speed processors that can work faster than the human reflex, and a woven network of interconnected cars.

        The places where children or animals would cross in urban areas will be protected, rural zones would be of moderate speed and cars would increase their broadcast range. If anything, eliminating the NEED to drive my vehicle to work or school or the grocery store so I can enjoy my existence more would be great. Then we could build more race tracks for people to enjoy vehicles on a managed course and have fun driving as a hobby.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          Autonomous cars will work only in highly regulated and controlled environments.

          If that is the area one lives then that begs the questions:

          1. Why even own a car?

          2. Why would one want to live in such an environment?

          • 0 avatar
            InterstateNomad

            I agree with you. I would not want to live in that world. I’d go back and ride horses to work (or a donkey, as I can only afford so much).

  • avatar

    We’ve had autonomous vehicles for a long time – it’s just that the LAW (revue generating limitations on personal freedom)and the stupidity of the average human coupled with the unpredictability of dynamic driving conditions create a situation where autonomous vehicles can’t be the norm.

    SCENARIO #1

    I’m a terrorist.
    I load my Tesla Model S with 1000 pounds of SEMTEX, C4 and self-lighting charcoal briquettes.
    I then program my car to DRIVE TO THE POLICE PRECINCT.

    SCENARIO #2

    Small ball rolls from between two cars.
    Car’s sensors don’t see the kid running between the cars to get it.
    Child is flattened.
    Who can you sue? Tesla or the driver who wasn’t driving?
    How bout we sue the idiots who made driving illegal?

    SCENARIO #3

    Hacker hacks Model S and sends occupants towards brickwall at 150 miles per hour!

    In summation:

    You’ll pry my steering wheel from my cold dead hands.

    • 0 avatar
      Landcrusher

      1. Like a suicide bomber we have today. What’s the difference?
      2. Like today, the unseen kid gets squished based on action time. The whole human processes child behind ball faster than car thing is a lark. Human and car try to stop before hitting ball. Now all we have to add to the program are some if-then statements. Done and done.
      3, Like they can hack an Airbus, tanker, or train today and you wanna worry about a car?

      Lighten up, Francis. No one is trying to take away your steering wheel.

      • 0 avatar
        mcs

        There are people working on intuitive ai systems that could recognize the ball and know to slow down. Also, there are techniques like femto photography that might be able to pick up on the reflections and shadows in the parked vehicles. That tech isn’t here yet, but it’s being worked on. Btw, the child-chasing-the-ball is a well recognized scenario among intuitive ai researchers.

    • 0 avatar
      319583076

      Bravo, BTSR. Given your ample insight, creativity, and fundamental ability to create scenarios which you are helpless to imagine resolving – I hereby declare you sovereign ruler of the known universe for the duration of your life. Post-death, all subsequent humans shall rigidly abide by your rules until the death of the species or the planet, whichever comes first.

      If BTSR can’t solve it – it cain’t be solved. ;)

    • 0 avatar
      CoreyDL

      Don’t worry, Chrysler would be the last company to get autonomous tech in their cars. Well maybe ahead of Mitsubishi, but that’s about it.

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        “Don’t worry, Chrysler would be the last company to get autonomous tech in their cars. Well maybe ahead of Mitsubishi, but that’s about it.”

        What makes you say this? They practically already are. Between active cruise control, lane keep assist and stop and go collision mitigation, the driver doesn’t have to do much if they don’t want to.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      SCENARIO #1: Unlikely, albeit not impossible. Vehicle would easily be able to sense the weight of the load and would very likely NOT travel without a living, responsive person on board. Such a load would represent a ‘cargo circumstance’ where the vehicle’s programming would expect the individual available to unload at its destination. Even if capable of traveling unoccupied, the vehicle would likely park in a lot too far away from the stationhouse itself to cause significant damage when detonated. Additionally, by then said police station would probably become aware of an unoccupied vehicle approaching and parking and alert responders to investigate possible health emergency or security hazard, meaning detection would likely occur long before planned detonation.

      SCENARIO #2: Invalid for the same reasons as described by Landcrusher. Simple programming would stop the car at least long enough to determine no person or animal is following the ball. Very likely one of the first programmed scenarios in the car’s memory banks.

      SCENARIO #3: Again Landcrusher has it right. Odds would be against any malicious mischief maker doing so, though imminently possible that a professional could do so. However, even a pro wouldn’t run a car into a tree unless the intent is to kill the occupants. It would more likely become an ‘uncontrolled’ joyride otherwise that manual controls would likely still be able to override.

      Your hands will likely already be dead and cold by the time such vehicles are mandatory.

      • 0 avatar
        APaGttH

        …SCENARIO #2: Invalid for the same reasons as described by Landcrusher. Simple programming would stop the car at least long enough to determine no person or animal is following the ball. Very likely one of the first programmed scenarios in the car’s memory banks…

        Here I’m going to disagree. If a child runs out in front of a car with no room to stop, the laws of physics will take over.

        Here is the add on question, if the choices given are crush the child or steer into an oncoming 18 wheeler going 45 MPH – what decision will the COMPUTER make on my behalf?

        Drivers are faced with “no win” scenarios behind the wheel every single day – the scary part becomes when a computer runs a computation and goes, hmmm, if I hit child going 45 MPH they have a 5% chance of survival based on my algorithm – if I steer to avoid child and drive into an 18 wheeler going 45 MPH and head on collide, my occupants have an 8% chance of survival…so I’m going to…

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          @APaGttH: Read the discussion again. Based on the original premise, if the car detects the ball bouncing into its path, programming very likely would have already applied the brakes proportional to the need long before the child itself appears, mitigating that worst case circumstance appreciably if not completely. Your argument assumes the car ignores the ball as a non-hazard.

          Additionally, since the kid is running between cars to pop out into the street, the odds are high that the cars said child is running between will both detect and report its presence–assuming this 50-year-future timeline when almost all cars are autonomous. I’m going to extend this assumption to include a strong likelihood that these standing cars are either BEVs or PHEVs plugged in for recharge/maintenance charge–at which point their systems are likely live in at least a standby/location-aware condition. The oncoming car may even know about the ball and the child long before the incident even becomes noticeable by humans and react to prevent the incident from becoming a tragedy

          Yes, I do agree that drivers are faced with no-win situations, but not every day. Yes, every day SOME drivers are faced with it, but not all and not every day for most. With autonomy and inter-vehicle communications, those no-win situations will be drastically reduced to the point that an auto accident will actually become newsworthy that it even occurred rather than an everyday occurrence.

    • 0 avatar
      Xeranar

      1.) All protected high-priority zones would have limited sensors and just because the car is autonomous doesn’t mean it will drive without you in it. Rather, the car wouldn’t get close to the police precinct or the school because they would be ‘no go’ zones that would have to be overridden. Not to mention that really those scenarios would be ultra rare never mind that your finger prints would be all over the vehicle and since it’s still interconnected if the vehicle was reported stolen it would be shut down. Mesh networks ftw!

      2.) I pointed this out previously, 90% of urban zones would have barriers put up to stop such activity and with advanced technology of Super-HD (4K+) mixed with even faster processors the chance of a child being rundown diminishes, not to mention that actual 25 MPH zones would be enforced and thus limit the chance of that accident.

      Also you would always be liable in a driver-less car because it’s still your property. But again, the chance is greatly diminished to the point of such rarity as to be practically impossible. But that’s why we would still have auto insurance and pay far less for it because accidents would be so rare.

      3.) This is the ONE serious issue. Mesh networks are more worrisome than somebody ‘hacking’ your Model S than somebody using their own to project a false speed or false stop. Imagine you’re cruising on the highway at 70 MPH and a hacked (by the driver) car in front of you puts out a fake stop, all cars around you and that car will stop safely, each car stopping within a safe distance but the initial car will keep going.

      But again, in this all autonomous driving world nobody is going to be driving 20 feet away from each other, each car will be programmed to keep a minimum of 50-100 feet between units and because of the mesh network they’ll know where everybody else is and where they’re going so they can move at a much higher rate of speed on highways in sequence with each other. The only major issues left would be unforeseen mechanical failures.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      SCENARIO #1

      I’m a terrorist.

      That would explain the multitude of BTSR bombs planted on this site ;)

  • avatar
    ClutchCarGo

    Why is this causing such a stir? The first four words of his statement are “In the distant future”. Many things may happen in the distant future, and of concern only to those who are still around.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    In ten years of IT I have learned two things: (1) Technology will inevitably fail. This may only occur 0.1-0.001% of the time depending on the technology, but it will. (2) Any technology can be hacked, even if the chances are again 0.1-0.001% of the time it is still always feasible.

    • 0 avatar
      jmo

      And? How is that worse than the current system of traffic jams and 35,000 deaths a year?

    • 0 avatar
      bikegoesbaa

      So what? Perfection is not the goal here.

      A technology with a reasonably low failure rate and a reasonably robust security setup beats a Neolithic monkey brain; especially one that has a not significant chance of being drunk/tired/distracted while driving.

      I would encourage you to research the results of integrating automatic safety systems into industrial and aviation applications.

      Yes, sometimes they goof and make things worse. We continue to use them because this is the exception, and overall the positive contributions of automatic controls greatly outweigh the costs.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        The consequences of failure are high. With the severity of the worst-case scenario, it is unlikely that cars will ever be fully automated; there needs to be a Plan B in place to override the system when it fails, and that means having a human at the ready.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          I hope Plan B doesn’t involve having to keep weight off of your keychain…

        • 0 avatar

          I agree that manual override is necessary to take control when the automatic systems err.

          The question has to be asked, if we depend upon automation almost exclusively, how effective will the human driver be at operating the car?

          Someone may buy a new car, operate it in autonomous mode for months on end, then when something bad happens that requires them to take control, will they be any good at controlling a car in emergency circumstances that they have literally never driven before? Its a scary thought for sure.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            JPWhite – agreed. If the mind numb biological interface isn’t skilled at driving (and that occurs through experience) or isn’t paying attention to the surroundings (the whole point and end result of fully autonomous)then having manual over-ride is a complete waste of time.

            I’d rather have safety systems as adjuvants or enhancements to my skills and/or senses not replacements for them.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          “Having a human at the ready” has caused quite a few plane crashes where the automated system would have been sufficient for the task.

          50+ years ago, a number of F-111 with TFR crashed into mountainsides because the pilot panicked and grabbed the controls. The TFR had to be reprogrammed to perform a specific maneuver before relinquishing control to the pilot.

          By the way, this doesn’t even consider many far more recent events where airliners have crashed due to pilot error when the automated systems would have saved the plane and passengers.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Could you cite a civilian aviation example of where manual backup caused an accident?

          • 0 avatar

            “Could you cite a civilian aviation example of where manual backup caused an accident?”

            Child’s Play.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_Flight_593

            All 63 passengers and 12 crew perished in the accident.

            Rather than challenge us, why not type in google.com to find the answer to your questions?

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “Could you cite a civilian aviation example of where manual backup caused an accident?”

            Air France? At least one piece of technology on board was indicating a valid ground speed, if not the air speed. This alone could have saved the plane but the pilots ignored it and more than once complained, “What do we do?”

            How about that airliner that landed short in California where the one passenger got run over by a rescue vehicle? I admit I don’t remember the airline or the specific location, but the air crew panicked on landing approach when the auto pilot could have still made a safe landing.

            There are several such instances, these are just two of the most visible.

          • 0 avatar
            319583076

            Colgan 3407 is a prime example. Read the NTSB report – especially the FDR and CVR analysis.

            When automation defaults to humans without situational awareness, accidents result.

          • 0 avatar
            jrmason

            “How about that airliner that landed short in California where the one passenger got run over by a rescue vehicle?”

            Yes, and that was the very airline with the botched news report where a disgruntled employee changed the names of the pilots to reflect some rather immoral names. It was played on live TV and the news anchor had no clue what she was even saying. It made quite the stink.

            This type of news just upsets me regardless of whether or not I see it in my life. Why must we need this tech? Because people die behind the wheel? Great, might as well invent auto feeders so we can’t over eat. Or how about outlaw swimming while were at it because a lot of people drown every year. Driving gives me a sense of freedom. I enjoy it immensely. I dont need a stupid computer driving me around.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            There are four basic scenarios:

            a. Technology is working, and human allows technology to do its job

            b. Technology is working, but a human improperly overrode the technology, leading to failure

            c. Technology fails, but human intervention can’t do anything about it

            d. Technology fails, and human intervention can correct for it

            The reason for having a human behind the wheel is (d). Hopefully, (d) > (b)

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            @JPWhite

            Thanks but in this instance the details mattered:

            “The children apparently had unknowingly disabled the A310 autopilot’s control of the aircraft’s ailerons while seated at the controls. The aircraft had then rolled into a steep bank and near-vertical dive from which the pilots were unable to regain control.[7] Unlike Soviet planes, with which the crew had been familiar, no audible alarm accompanied the autopilot’s partial disconnection, and consequently the crew remained unaware of what was happening.”

            So children on the flight deck accidentally disabled autopilot and the pilots were unable to regain control of the plane. The pilots did not consciously disable the autopilot choosing to fly manually and then crash the plane themselves due to their human mistake. If you argue well if the autopilot had remained enabled the plane would not have crashed, I agree, but the other factor here is the autopilot evidently did not have an alarm alerting the pilot when it was disabled/ partially disabled (or presumably one for when it was enabled as well). I personally would characterize as a design flaw on the part of Airbus. I argue due to this flaw the automated safety system on the aircraft did in fact fail because it did not alert the human pilot when the autopilot was disabled regardless of the children’s actions.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_Flight_593

            @vulpine

            Which Air France disaster?

            @319

            This is a good example of human intervention ultimately failing.

            “Instead of following the established stall recovery procedure of adding full power and lowering the nose to prevent the stall, the captain only added about 75% power and continued applying nose-up inputs. As the aircraft came even closer to stalling the stick pusher activated (“The Q400 stick pusher applies an airplane-nose-down control column input to decrease the wing angle-of-attack [AOA] after an aerodynamic stall”).[23] The captain overrode the pusher and continued pulling on the control yoke causing the aircraft upset and later loss of control.[24] The Q400 went into a yaw (moved off course) and pitched up at an angle of 31 degrees in its final moments, before pitching down at 25 degrees.”

            However…

            “During the flight and continuing through the plane’s landing approach, the crew had been flying on autopilot. During final approach, the pilots extended the aircraft’s flaps and landing gear for landing. After the landing gear and flaps had been extended, the flight data recorder (FDR) indicated that the airspeed had decayed to 145 knots (269 km/h).[23] The captain, who was the pilot flying, then called for the flaps to be set at the 15 degree position. As the flaps transitioned past the 10 degree mark, the FDR indicated that the airspeed had further slowed to 135 knots (250 km/h). Six seconds later, the aircraft’s stick shaker, a device intended to provide aural and tactile awareness of a low speed condition, sounded. At that time, the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) recorded the autopilot disengaging.”

            So on autopilot, the aircraft began to drop speed and triggered the “stick shaker” which I presume is some sort of alarm and then the autopilot was apparently disengaged.

            But then:

            “On February 15, more information on the crash was released by the NTSB saying *it appeared the plane had been on autopilot when it went down*. The investigators did not find evidence of the severe icing conditions that would have required the pilots to fly manually”

            “Without flying manually, pilots may be unable to feel changes in the handling characteristics of the airplane, which is a warning sign of ice buildup. The NTSB also revealed that the plane crashed 26 seconds after trouble was first registered on the flight data recorder”

            “More details emerged on February 18. It was reported that a re-creation of events leading up to the crash indicated that the stick pusher had activated, which pushes the nose down when it determines a stall is imminent in order to maintain airspeed so the wings continue to generate lift and keep the aircraft aloft. The crew, concerned about a nose-down attitude so close to the ground, may have responded by pulling the nose upward and increasing power, but over-corrected, causing a stall or even a spin.[57] Bill Voss, president of Flight Safety Foundation, told USA Today that it sounded like the plane was in “a deep stall situation””

            But then they conclude:

            “On February 2, 2010, the NTSB adopted its final report into the accident. It concluded that the cause of the accident was pilot error. They determined that both Renslow and Shaw responded inconsistently with company stall recovery procedures, which led to the stall. The NTSB was unable to determine why they retracted the flaps and also suggested that the landing gear should be retracted.[23] The method by which civil aircraft pilots can obtain their licenses was also criticized by the NTSB. The report was published on February 25.[2]

            The NTSB determined that in addition to Renslow’s inadequate response to the stick shaker activation, there were key contributing factors. Primary among these were the flight crew’s failure to monitor airspeed in relation to the rising position of the low speed cue and adhere to sterile cockpit procedures, Renslow’s failure to effectively manage the flight, and Colgan Air’s inadequate airspeed selection and management procedures for approaches in icing conditions”

            So despite conflicting information on whether the autopilot was on or off during the actual crash, and stating by not flying manually on the trip the pilots would not have been able to get used to the handling characteristics of the airplane in conditions, the NTSB evidently concluded the crash was pilot error without sufficiently explaining the loss of airspeed in the first place. My take is despite whatever protocols the crew failed to adhere to, the unexpected drop in airspeed combined with the pilot’s use of autopilot -during the trip- put the pilot into a situation where he had limited chance of success.

            I would invite anyone with a greater understanding of aircraft to correct my analysis as I may have misinterpreted.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colgan_Air_Flight_3407

          • 0 avatar

            Its an unfortunate fact that discussion threads go in this direction.

            Someone asks a simple question like

            “Could you cite a civilian aviation example of where manual backup caused an accident?”

            and several people chime in with examples.

            Automatically the answers are not good enough, now the questioner gets picky and qualifies the original question to only include examples that support his/her position.

            and so it goes on.

            It’s been a fun thread thus far.

            You guys have fun…..

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Pch101 sums it up nicely, I was looking for examples of category “B”. Both instances seem to fall under category “C”.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “Driving gives me a sense of freedom. I enjoy it immensely. I dont need a stupid computer driving me around.”

            * Do you get a sense of freedom when you’re stuck in downtown traffic during rush hour?
            * Do you get a sense of freedom when you’re stuck on the freeway with one or both lanes closed due to accident or construction?
            * Do you get a sense of freedom when the cop pulls you over for reckless driving or using your cell phone?

            I agree there are times when driving IS enjoyable, but heavy traffic–especially when you have stupid idiots trying to bypass the laws to move ahead, causing more issues than they’re avoiding, is not one of them. Too many times in forced-merge circumstances a few idiots feel they HAVE to run right up to that merge point hoping to pass the congestion–actually causing more congestion than they’re avoiding. This is one reason why some truckers actively block the merging lane long before the forced merge; traffic tends to merge much more smoothly as a result and traffic moves through the zone much more quickly.

            When it comes to congested city driving, the same situation occurs; some idiot simply has to do the stupid and block an intersection because they want to make their turn or get through it before the light turns red–despite the fact that traffic is backed right up to the verge of the intersection on the other side.

            If all drivers drove intelligently, there simply wouldn’t be the issues we see. But we have some drivers who act like they’re afraid to drive on the same roads as drivers who act as if it’s their personal playground. We all see the results of this every single time we drive.

          • 0 avatar
            jrmason

            Vulpine, I dont live anywhere near a city so I dont have to contend with any of that garbage. The most I have to worry about is wild game, loose livestock and the occasional tractor during planting and harvest season. The nearest Walmart is over 30 miles away, the nearest mall is closer to 45 miles. So yes I very much enjoy the open road that I see everyday. I truly feel for those that live like little ants in enclosed little antfarms trudging back and forth between their high rise condo and their cubicle in bumper to bumper traffic everyday. They have no clue what they are missing. Urbanites think we are “behind in the times”, all I can say is keep thinking that! More space for me and my family.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @28-cars:

            I’ve worked on the earlier variant of the DeHavilland Dash-8 and mostly its a pretty solid aircraft; they can handle flight conditions many other types would struggle in. But that’s beside the point.

            I do have to question a number of events because it appears that the pilots were in manual control of several aspects of the landing approach, even if directional control was still on autopilot. Any pilot will know that lowering the flaps to ‘approach’ and ‘landing’ positions increases drag, slowing the plane. Logically, either the autopilot OR the human pilot would subsequently increase throttle and adjust prop pitch to maintain safe airspeed. What we don’t know by the incident you list is who was in actual control of the throttles. True, raising the flaps somewhat would allow for the existing throttle setting to accelerate the plane slightly, but again, we don’t know whether the throttle was under manual or autopilot control. All we know is that rather than accelerating, the plane slowed even more. If nothing else the pilots should have realized this and shoved the throttles forward manually.

            However, let’s not forget that modern commercial and military aircraft (with exceptions) have thrust reversers. On a plane like the Dash-8, this means reversing the pitch on the propellors. This control is on the throttle quadrant and typically attached to the actual throttle levers. There is a lockout to prevent going into reverse while still in the air, but it is possible (meaning unknown) that they might have somehow pushed the controls beyond those lockouts.

            Any way you look at it, the pilots ended up at fault by not following the correct stall-recovery procedures, whether through ignorance or situational stress doesn’t matter.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            @Vulpine.

            Thank you for the detailed explanation.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            And what you have done, jrmason, is proven that there is an exception to every rule–that proves the rule. Just as not everybody lives in the Big City, not everybody lives in the boondocks, either. I could envy your residential location for its isolation and relative freedom; but even you have to ‘go to town’ on occasion and I’m sure you’ve had more than one occasion in your life where you were stuck behind the wheel in driving conditions far from ideal.

          • 0 avatar
            319583076

            @28
            RE: Colgan 3407

            Synopsis – Flight was approaching Buffalo airport, descending and slowing down as it prepared to land. The loss of airspeed was a natural function of this process. The last “normal” command was to extend the wing flaps from 5 degrees to 10 degrees.

            Simultaneously, the speed tape (think speedometer) on the primary flight display was already visually indicating the plane was slowing to a speed too close to stall speed. A stall occurs when the airflow over the wings is insufficient to maintain positive lift. The autopilot is engaged at this point in the flight.

            Extending the flaps increases aerodynamic drag, further slowing the plane. The speed indication is now red (warning) and the stick shaker activates simultaneously with automatically disengaging the autopilot. The stick shaker does just what it says – it shakes the control column as a haptic cue to the pilots that the plane is too slow. The corrective action is to add power, drop the nose, or both.

            The Captain pulled back on the column and maintained this back pressure through the remainder of the flight – ensuring the aerodynamic stall. The First Officer retracted the flaps (uncommanded) which didn’t help their situation.

            As the plane continued to slow because of the control column backpressure – it activated a second stall prevention mechanism, the stick pusher. The stick pusher physically forces the stick forward, commanding the nose down, and increasing airspeed. The Captain continued to pull back – all the way into the ground.

            Contributing factors include – crew fatigue, a history of training and proficiency failures on the Captain’s part, violation of the sterile cockpit, and lack of situational awareness.

            The crew were discussing their jobs, the company, their trip, the First Officer’s illness, etc…they were not monitoring the airplane’s speed. They were caught off guard by the stick shaker activation and the automation “handing” control back to them. Given their lack of situational awareness, when the plane asked them to fly – they were unprepared, resulting in a sequence of action that terminated in a fatal crash.

            Air France 447 has many similarities. In both cases, automation self-terminated due to violation of the limits of autopilot control, reverting control to the humans. In both cases, humans managed to fly themselves into the earth.

            It is a current problem in aviation to bridge the automation/human control gap. When the autopilot turns off and the humans aren’t prepared to actually fly the plane – for whatever reason – sometimes they crash.

            EDIT – I didn’t see Vulpine’s response. The Dash 8 doesn’t have autothrottles, so the pilots are always responsible for power setting. The Captain did increase power at the stick shaker, but the FDR shows that power was not increased to maximum.

            The situation was recoverable, but the Captain pulled back instead of pushing forward, all the way into the ground. The FDR from Air France 447 shows the same thing – one of those pilots commanded full nose up elevator all the way into the ocean.

            Colgan 3407 and Air France 447 are both solidly in PCH’s category “B”. The technology worked precisely as it was designed to. In both cases, automation was doing it’s job up to the point where conditions arose which terminated the autopilot and compelled the humans to fly perfectly serviceable planes. In both these cases, the humans failed to do so and many lives were lost as a result.

        • 0 avatar

          yes, and having a human at the ready means that the human has to be a competent driver whose mind isn’t somewhere else at the critical moment.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Driver talent is overrated. Risk aversion is where it’s at. (Unfortunately, that isn’t something that can be readily taught.)

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Nice post. Such technology also further erodes civil liberties but that’s a whole other argument.

    • 0 avatar
      Xeranar

      Managed risk assessment.

      If the current system has a failure rate of 11 per 100,000 and the new system would have a failure rate of between .1 and 1 per 100,000 you use the new system. Failure is inevitable, managed risk is how we deal with that issue with society. You’re arguing that you don’t want to be that 1 in 100,000 but already you’re statistically 1100% more likely to die today in the current system. I would much rather roll those dice with 1 than 11 (though both are statistically so small as to be insignificant).

      EDIT: Rather, they are statistically insignificant as a whole, to each other the autonomous system is statistically significant towards safety. Just that both are so small as to be splitting hairs in the greater scheme of society. If we looked at the model using cost of repair/cost to economics vs. insurance and include non-fatal accidents we would probably see a statistically significant number in our current system vs. the new model presented.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        It isn’t just about the likelihood of failure, but the consequences of failure.

        If the worst-case scenario of a car crash was a bruised knee, then Plan B wouldn’t matter. But the worse-case scenario is death, so Plan B matters quite a bit.

        • 0 avatar
          Xeranar

          The consequences of failure would actually be lower in the autonomous car scenario given that each vehicle would adhere to safe operating distances and levels. It wouldn’t operate in an unsafe manner. I did point out the issue of non-fatal accidents but again, in an autonomous driving world there would be a dramatic decrease. What people have is anxiety over their perceived control over the accident.

  • avatar
    TrailerTrash

    Silly futuristic claim.
    Perhaps true, but again meaningless without an attempt to give time.
    There might be peace on earth as well…if decisions and actions were taken away from individuals.
    So what?
    Useless opinion. Why doesn’t he give us something we can use…like investment clues and where his stock will be in a week.

  • avatar
    mikedt

    It does beg the question as to what happens when infallible always obeying the rules automated cars wipe out traffic fines. I’m guessing the cost of registering a vehicle will raise to cover the loss in ticket revenue much like some places are trying to charge electric cars extra for circumventing the gas tax.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      Look at it this way, mike: The police will be able to go back to what they’re supposed to do–protect law-abiding citizens from criminal activities. We have traffic cops because we NEED traffic cops. They didn’t exist before the car and they won’t need to exist once cars ‘police’ themselves.

  • avatar
    bikegoesbaa

    Sounds about right.

    Much of the technology for autonomous vehicles already exists, the rest will be coming along shortly.

    The tech certainly won’t be perfect. Sometimes it will even kill people due to a fault, a failure, or a situation that exceeds its capabilities.

    But that’s OK.

    Autonomous cars don’t need to be perfect. They just need to be better in aggregate than human drivers, who are actually not very good.

    Barring some catastrophe that sets the clock on civilization and technology way back, I don’t see how the eventual banishment of human-operated cars from public roads is anything but inevitable.

  • avatar
    thegamper

    I think this trend has to be particularly worrisome for most automakers. I am sure it is a ways off still, but I see this trend of autonomous vehicles as the end of the auto industry as we know it.

    Think of this, if vehicles can drive themselves, why own your own? Why not just click a button and have a service send a vehicle to pick you up at your desired time. In larger cities there is no worry about parking, cuts individual costs down because the vehicle cost can be spread among multiple people, perhaps cut even further with carpooling. I see the autonomous vehicle as transforming transportation into a true commodity, where personal ownership is just not necessary or even desired. The hundreds of models on sale now will be pared down significantly. Personal ownership will be come a luxury, not the norm as it is now.

    Companies that run the autonomous vehicle pools will demand extreme length of service, perhaps modular vehicles that can be used almost indefinitely, the sales rate for new vehicles will crater as personal transport is transformed into what is essentially a public utility.

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      I’m not so sure. Car sharing services are already available and haven’t really threatened to make personal car ownership a thing of the past.

      • 0 avatar

        “I’m not so sure. Car sharing services are already available and haven’t really threatened to make personal car ownership a thing of the past.”

        The combination of ride share and full automation could well be a game changer.

        Once folks drive less and simply ride a car they own, they will start to question owning vs ride share.

        The guy who drives 50,000 miles/year, will probably own the car.
        Retired pensioners who ‘rack up’ 8,000 miles/yr, not so much.

        • 0 avatar
          danio3834

          It’s still a matter of convenience. It’s the reason old people aren’t ditching their cars for car sharing services now. The fact that the car is there and ready often outweighs the inconvenience of the costs of owning it.

          If they can’t or don’t want to drive, they hire a driver, cab, car service etc. Automation could theoretically increase personal car ownership among the old in that regard. The difference between now and in a future of greater automation will be who’s in control, not who owns the car.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      The problem with your argument, Gamper, is that when people want to go someplace, they want to go NOW, not wait even five minutes for a ‘taxi’ to arrive. The only locale where your idea might be valid is in a densely urban environment where the convenience of owning a car is exacerbated by the cost and inconvenience of parking and maintaining said car. As the urban density decreases towards the suburbs and rural areas, there would be no guarantee that a vehicle would be on site in less than ten minutes from the time it was summoned. Ten minutes for which too few people are willing to wait.

      • 0 avatar

        “people want to go someplace, they want to go NOW, not wait even five minutes for a ‘taxi’ to arrive”

        With technology such as Google Now that knows your habits and schedule (thanks to Google calendar) a car could be automatically summoned and arrive a few minutes before you are due to leave for somewhere. The transaction doesn’t have to start with someone manually booking a car.

        Google Now tells me how long it will take to get to work each day. I don’t ask it, it knows I go to work most Monday thru Fridays and offers the information. I didn’t program the functionality or request it, it just happens through its learning algorithms. Given the necessary technology a car could be waiting for me at 6am each morning, warm, de-iced and ready to go.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          Even if I used it, JPWhite, Google Now would have no concept of when I would want to go out. With literally two exceptions, I almost never drive at the same time or go to the same place when I need to drive.

          Yes, there are places I go fairly frequently, but WHEN I go is highly variable on any week or in any month. Even those two specific exceptions will change every few months on time and place.

          Again, such a ‘taxi’ system is effectively useless for me and most in less-urban environments.

      • 0 avatar
        thegamper

        I am probably talking to myself a day after this posted, but its an interesting conversation so I will reply anyway lol. I agree, but I think your reasoning is based on the world as it is now. The technology is still a ways off for this to even start to happen, but once it does, I think there is a critical mass where you see people just accepting the public utility of an automated car sharing service. I may be wrong but you are envisioning a world where summoning a car is like calling for a cab now where they are not particularly prevalent as in the suburbs. But as the service grows, and grows large, there is literally a car around every corner. Summon from your smart phone and by the time you have your shoes and coat on a car will be coming down the street for you. Program regular travel so the car is waiting for you. The inconvenience of not owning your own car could be cut considerably to the point where it just really isn’t an issue. This of course would require mass adoption by large portions of the population. Just sayin, this seems to be a logical direction of the technology being discussed, the consequences of which would not be good for automakers volume me thinks.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          As I said before, I can see this working in City Center, but not in a rural town of 7.000 people. Where I live is a “bedroom community” serving two different major cities. What you envision wouldn’t work in this kind of circumstance.

    • 0 avatar
      Mr. Orange

      There will still be at least for another 40+ years of population growth in America. There will be more car buyers. Even with a decline in the percentage of car owners the increase in population size would offset those who leave the car market.

  • avatar
    ajla

    No one is going to ban manual driving while anyone reading this is still alive and the adoption scenarios engineers dream up for their stuff remains ridiculous.

    • 0 avatar
      Xeranar

      OR we would just go to tracks to get our kicks, like you know…normal hobbyists/enthusiasts do for their preferred past time. If you enjoy bowling you don’t go buy a lane and return system. Small hobbies make sense to be home constrained, large hobbies do not. We would see a precipitous rise in the value of developing small to medium race courses without grand stands and basically just tracks in areas for people to enjoy driving once more.

      It’s a paradise for me to not drive in traffic so I can read the NYT or play Destiny on my in-dash PS4 and then go to the track to lead foot my old XJS around.

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        “go to the track to lead foot my old XJS around”

        Hey at least you wouldn’t have to be there long, and you could go back to playing more Destiny!

        • 0 avatar
          Xeranar

          Pfft, you’ve never seen my XJS!

          I’m actually mulling over buying an old XJS (yes, problems and all…but they’re decently fast for their size) or take a mid-2000s 350Z that would be infinitely more reliable. I’m leaning more towards the Z to be honest.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            Ok, but what about a compromise. Older than one, younger than the other, more style than one, less than the other. And reliable.

            Late model 300ZX TT. :D

          • 0 avatar
            Xeranar

            Interesting choice, I would end up stripping off all the references to it being a 300ZX and order in Fairlady Z decals/ID badges just because that name sounds far more interesting. Actually some of the older Z/ZX cars are vintage grand prix eligible now which makes them an interesting threat to the 2002/Z3s/M3s/3’s coming into the same class.

            But then you can bring in the Mitsu 3000GT which is a serious competitor….

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            Make the Fairlady! Pearl white with the t-tops is the way to go!

  • avatar
    STRATOS

    Why bother owning a car? Take public transit or a taxi if you want to be driven.Can’t silly con valley find other ways to make money and improve our lives instead of enslaving us to their toys.Its really funny how these characters worship technology as a God.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      “Why bother owning a car? Take public transit or a taxi if you want to be driven”

      You know I never believed it until now, but the jitney cab services offered by Uber and Lyft are real “game changers” in this regard. Public transit is largely a fail (from a cost perspective) outside of dense urban areas and isn’t available in many locations. Taxi companies suffer from the same limitations, but the jitney services will probably continue to spread and thrive to pickup the slack where transit/taxi services stop.

      “Its really funny how these characters worship technology as a God.”

      This is much more widespread than I would have believed if I didn’t witness it. I believe technology exists to serve me, but too many believe they exist to serve technology.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        “I believe technology exists to serve me, but too many believe they exist to serve technology.”

        Some people do exist to serve technology. Without them, that technology could fail at any instant. Until technology becomes completely self-repairing, there will always be need for technicians.

        But even those technicians will have technology serving them to give them the information, access and deliver the parts to perform the repairs.

    • 0 avatar
      CoreyDL

      It’s not the “too lazy to drive” argument that these tech people and lawmakers will make – it’s the reduction in accidents and mortality.

  • avatar
    PeterKK

    Ban all the things! No fun for anyone!!!

  • avatar
    Windy

    We who love to drive may not like it but the day will come when 2015 cars are say 100 years old and as antiquated as pre WW1 cars are today. In that far future the folks who love and want to drive these antique autos will have to do it in special areas much like those that have track only cars today. I would hope that the future will provide lots of these places perhaps run in a similar way to the long ring is at Nuremberg.

    If you take a very long view that is the way of progress. Try to take your curved dash Oldsmobile on to an interstate for example. It may have a valid antique registration plate but if it can’t go at the speeds required( 40mph in many. Areas is the minimum ) it won’t be allowed. I have a 1948 CJ2A, that my dad bought new the year I was born, and while it is technically able to cruse at 45 mph and I (when I was a dumb teenager) have had it past 60 (down hill with a tailwind and the windshield folded flat) but given its some what primitive brakes and its general lack of safety equipment, these days I seldom exceed 25 mph when I use it to fetch the spring supply of mulch or take my trash to the transfer station.

    I would not be surprised to see the use of auto drive cars phased in over time. Perhaps the first place will be on limited access lanes on the turnpikes and then the interstates after the last manual drive cars sold are say 25 years old then they will be relegated to surface streets with 40 of 40 mph limits…. After more time they will only be allowed to be driven in special preservation areas or with special permits issued for things like creating period entertainment….

    Sadly the time will come, not in 10 or 20 years I think, but it will happen one day

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      In a century I will have likely already been dead for 35 years so I’m not too worried about it.

    • 0 avatar
      Mr. Orange

      Are you sure the cars of today could last that long?

      We know the cars before 1970ish are still here because their made of mostly metal, glass and and easy to repair, replace and substitute analog switches. Can the same be said of todays cars made with some of the same metal and glass but also large amounts of plastics that break down much easier and quicker than metal over time. We know Bakelite can last for decades but can the polymers and plastics we use today last.

      Also can the same be said of the cpu’s that control the car, the digital switches or digital sensors. An example for today would be to rebuild a Subaru SVX, a 1985 Dodge Charger or a Maserati Biturbo. I’m not saying that its impossible just that you would have to jump something of a high bar to complete it and that would just be for today. Can you imagine the difficulty it would be 20 years from now nevertheless 100.

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        “Are you sure the cars of today could last that long?”

        Yes, cars of today are significantly outliving their predecessors from the 70’s on an age adjusted basis. The average car on the road today is 11 years old when in 1980 it was about 6 years. The average age continues to trend upward, even as more complex technology and the use of new non ferrous materials has been increasing.

        • 0 avatar
          Mr. Orange

          I don’t mean to sound condescending but 100 years is much longer than 11 years. We know the reasons why cars from a century ago are still around is due the fact their made of long lasting metals and glass and relatively simple to replace or substitute switchs and parts.

          A 1995 Chevrolet Suburban won’t be as simple to restore in 100 years compared to a Model T from 1910. Largely due to degradable plastic component, the computers and digital switches and sensors. Can you imagine the difficulty or cost it would take to replace the main computer for a proprietary piece of hardware such as that when it hasn’t been made in 80 years unless a company exist that would create such components. We know GM will be long gone by then.

          As a comparison it would take a person some work if they found an old floppy disc (the actual floppy not hard disc) and try to read it today. It will not be easy. First you would need to find a floppy disc reader. Then find a means for your computer to communicate with it. The plug on the back of the drive won’t work with each other. Once you get over that hurdle you would have to find software capable of reading the information in format that is decades old.

          Cars today are without question more reliable than cars from the seventies. But reliability does not mean that same car will be capable of operating 100 years today. Especially with all original equipment.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Actually, MO, you’re wrong on some aspects; there are technologies today that weren’t available when many of those century-old cars were built. As a result, data is available today that wasn’t available for those old cars. But your complaint was as much about that data technology as it was about the quality of the construction, and here you’re at a slight disadvantage.

            * Floppy disk: True, it would take some work. The odds are against, but not impossible, finding a disk reader. However, the internet has become quite the repository of information especially of things created in the ‘computer Age (or rather, Information Age). Not only are there pictures available of the disks and disk players, there is readily available data on how they worked, which means that building a floppy disk reader, if necessary, would be possible and by then pretty likely that it could just be ‘printed’ from raw materials.

            * Data connections. Again true, but again the data is readily available to show what data connections are needed to read that disk, subsequently making an adapter cable eminently possible.

            Finally, an automobile restorer 100 years from now is probably going to be used to far more integrated technologies; a 2015 car will be as primitive to them as a Model T is to us. Repairing the computer systems is likely to be far easier with little need to replace a sick computer; they’ll probably be able to go in and repair even the main processor chip, especially if they’re able to determine by the chip’s printed-on code what the circuit is supposed to be. Technology is a wonderful thing.

          • 0 avatar
            Mr. Orange

            It isn’t a question of the quality of construction but of what it is constructed with. We at present lack the knowledge of how durable and long lasting the plastics and polymers we use in cars can stand the stress of multiple decades of use, abuse or just holding up. The plastics and synthetic material we make cars out of today simply didn’t exist a century ago. So the question of can these components still due what they were designed for. Can those polymers and composites under the hood still work within their original design parameters. The same question for the components inside and under the car. Those are open questions because it has not been seen in the real world yet. We have only been using these materials since the 1960s.

            We know for a fact the durability and life span of steel, iron and glass. Is it known for all the polymers and plastics today? And since cars today are made of so many of those components it would take a large change in restoration and fabrication practices to replicate them. I’m not saying a 2012 Camaro won’t be on the road in 2115 but their would be as much of a sample size available as you would find a Ford Model A or a Chevrolet Standard. And a giant reason for that is the components the cars are made of today will not last as long as a cars from 60, 70, years ago. They were never engineered in the first place to do so, partly due to the unknown lifespan of plastic components.

  • avatar
    wmba

    Make that man come to Halifax, NS. I’ve been out digging twice today already, with two feet of snow and high winds, it’s a losing battle. We had 10 inches Sunday/ Monday as well on top pf the 24 inch icebanks left from previous storms.

    Yeah, make an autonomous car that happily runs with no errors in this stuff, and I’ll buy one!

  • avatar
    Drzhivago138

    This was on Reddit two days ago and the discussion was much more rational.

  • avatar
    cmus

    Everyone Sing Along!

    My uncle has a country place, that no one knows about. He says it used to be a farm, before the motor law…

    Yep. I went there.

  • avatar
    OneAlpha

    Humans! That’s the problem!

    We need to outlaw human beings because they’re not safe!

    Safety Uber Alles!

    Think of the children!

    No price too high to pay for the safe, clean, orderly society of the future!

  • avatar
    doublechili

    I don’t get the controversy. Outlawing human drivers is the natural conclusion of the technology. It will just take a long time to reach that point. But when programmed cars eventually become the norm, insurance costs will skyrocket on people who want to drive themselves. And then it will be the wealthy who are driving themselves, and every time one of them causes injury/death, it will be news and op-ed worthy. So eventually it will be outlawed.

    So-called autonomous cars will really just be transport pods in a de-facto mass transit system. And “rogue vehicles” don’t really fit within that scenario.

    • 0 avatar
      stuki

      Extrapolating from recent developments in Dystopia, driving will be outlawed as soon as autonomous cars are cheap enough to be affordable by those who are politically connected. Donors, which are wealthy, but also upper middle class apparatchiks, public union drones etc. After all, everyone else really ought to be grateful that the above provides them with a place to wait for the bus anyway.

      And besides, the above can just go to a track if they want to drive anyway, so what’s the problem? If universal public indoctrination is to serve it’s intended purpose, the guys spending their lives at the bus stop cheering for demoooocracciii sure won’t realize there is one.

  • avatar
    cartunez

    Embrace the future no need to fear it although when he uses terms like illegal and legal I sense the clumsy hand of government. As long as it remains a choice (free) I can’t see any issues with it.

  • avatar
    peeryog

    Don’t worry, in the future adding to this thread by humans will be illegal and all further input will be by autonomous contributors. This will reduce the wildly vacillating emotional and incorrect content of the messages and ensure that the contributions contain only certified facts and present a uniformly pleasant user experience.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Lokki: +1 What’s the valid business reason for making us click a link to read more than two comments? It should be a...
  • slavuta: Don’t be dramatic – what you see it Chevy Niva
  • -Nate: Used up but not thrashed to death . Gaping rust holes in the tail gate ! . -Nate
  • slavuta: This is a great point. Auto VAZ is part of Renault. And whatever they did together with GM was small thing....
  • -Nate: I closed my kitchen window because it was getting too cold inside after mid night…. I hate the snow,...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States