[TheTigerMaster]

Liscensing rates amount young drivers are in a free fall: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/the-decline-of-the-drivers-license/425169/

That data is for the United States. I don't imagine it's young people here in Toronto are any more enthusiastic about driving. I'm curious to see how quickly it plummets here, once young people figure out they can text, sleep and eat while "driving" in an autonomous uber, all while costing a fraction of the price of private car ownership.

The reasons for the licensing drop were examined in another study: http://time.com/money/4185441/millennials-drivers-licenses-gen-x/

"The authors would not speculate as to the reason for the decreases, but a survey they conducted in 2013 of 618 respondents between the ages of 18 and 39 found that the primary reason reported for not having a driver’s license was that people were simply too busy (37%), followed closely by the cost of of owning and maintaining a vehicle (32%), and the ease of getting a ride from someone else (31%). The authors did not, apparently, survey the friends from whom respondents were constantly mooching rides for their own opinions on the matter.

Further down the list of reasons for not getting a license in the 2013 survey were a preference for biking or walking (22%), public transportation (17%), concern for the environment 9%), the ability to do business online (8%), and disability (7%)."

 

[gweed123]

I was at a presentation on the future of self-driving cars the other week, and the presenter brought up a very interesting point: With self-driving cars, is there really a need for a speed limit? Presumably the vehicles will choose the maximum safe operating speed for that roadway at that time. Speed limits are set (theoretically) as the maximum safe speed for human drivers, but is it reasonable to hold machines to the same limited standard?

And as a further trickle-down effect, what does that do to police budgets and manpower when the revenue from speeding tickets no longer exists? Do the police who were doing that job get re-assigned, or does the size of police forces decrease?

 

[PinkLucy]

That would presume 100% self-driving cars on the road, and I think we're a long way off from that -- but yes, an interesting question. Or maybe the police could focus on all of the other things that don't get done.

 

[gweed123]

That would presume 100% self-driving cars on the road, and I think we're a long way off from that -- but yes, an interesting question. Or maybe the police could focus on all of the other things that don't get done.

Yes, that's true. The presenter mentioned specifically that the transition period between a fully human-driven fleet and a fully self-driving fleet would raise a whole host of issues by itself. One of the solutions that was floated was creating "SDV (Self-Driving Vehicle) lanes" on highways, similar to HOV lanes now. This would ensure a relatively separated environment for SDVs to drive at higher speeds.

Some of the other 'trickle down' issues raised were things like insurance (will need to switch from insuring the driver to insuring the vehicle or vehicle manufacturer), to things like organ donation (fatal collisions are the biggest 'supplier' of organ donations, so what happens when fatal collisions decline substantially with SDVs?). Even things like my kids (yet unborn, but expected in the next couple years) will have no reason to ever get a drivers license.

 

[Megaton327]

Some of the other 'trickle down' issues raised were things like insurance (will need to switch from insuring the driver to insuring the vehicle or vehicle manufacturer), to things like organ donation (fatal collisions are the biggest 'supplier' of organ donations, so what happens when fatal collisions decline substantially with SDVs?).

I think it's broadly considered preferable to have people not die in accidents than to have a healthy supply of organ donors. Organ donation is a 'silver lining' to fatal accidents--while it's nice that someone can receive an organ, I don't think it's much consolation to the families of the deceased.

 

[gweed123]

I think it's broadly considered preferable to have people not die in accidents than to have a healthy supply of organ donors. Organ donation is a 'silver lining' to fatal accidents--while it's nice that someone can receive an organ, I don't think it's much consolation to the families of the deceased.

Oh no doubt. I just used it as an example of one of the many things that will be affected by the switch to SDVs. There will be ripple effects in professions and industries that most people wouldn't even think to associate with self-driving vehicles.

 

[MisterF]

...and as shown in the video, certain lanes being faster than others (in Ontario's case, left lanes should be faster than right lanes). The second rightmost lane could be used for trucks and other slow vehicles including novice drivers and funeral processions (the rightmost lane being used for exiting (and preparation for exiting))

That's not how freeways are supposed to operate. The right lane should be the default driving lane, not just for entering and exiting, with the middle and left lanes reserved for passing. Highways would function more efficiently if people used them that way. People cruising in the middle lane while the right lane is empty means that a third of the highway capacity is essentially being wasted, which causes unnecessary congestion. The UK has actually started ticketing middle lane hogs.

That would presume 100% self-driving cars on the road, and I think we're a long way off from that -- but yes, an interesting question. Or maybe the police could focus on all of the other things that don't get done.

I think it'll happen eventually. Driving is far and away the most dangerous thing that most of us do regularly - dangerous to ourselves and anyone we might hit. When autonomous cars are perfected and become affordable to the masses, human driven cars will gradually be banned. In a few decades I'll probably be telling my grandkids about an age when we all used to operate cars manually. I'll tell them stories about idiot drivers, collisions, rubbernecking, speeding tickets, drunk driving, and the intricacies of controlling a vehicle...and they probably won't believe half of it. It'll be my generation's "we walked uphill both ways without a coat". A 2016 dashboard will be as baffling to them as as an airplane cockpit. They'll wonder how we managed to survive the deathtraps we got into every day.

Self driving cars are going to completely transform how we get around. Roads will look much different in the future and everything we take for granted about car transportation will change, probably in ways we can't predict. Human-driven cars will become a niche industry and will likely be limited to race tracks and virtual reality. It'll basically be like riding horses today.

I realize I'm going slightly off topic but I find self driving cars endlessly fascinating.

 

[PinkLucy]

I'm still holding out for those little space pods the Jetsons used.

 

[Leo_Chan]

How would intersections work in a 100% SDV environment. Traffic lights would be unnecessary since all the vehicles will communicate with each other, but what about pedestrians? Would pedestrian over/underpasses be the norm, how about bicycles (or whatever comes in the future)?

 

[gweed123]

I think it'll happen eventually. Driving is far and away the most dangerous thing that most of us do regularly - dangerous to ourselves and anyone we might hit. When autonomous cars are perfected and become affordable to the masses, human driven cars will gradually be banned. In a few decades I'll probably be telling my grandkids about an age when we all used to operate cars manually. I'll tell them stories about idiot drivers, collisions, rubbernecking, speeding tickets, drunk driving, and the intricacies of controlling a vehicle...and they probably won't believe half of it. It'll be my generation's "we walked uphill both ways without a coat". A 2016 dashboard will be as baffling to them as as an airplane cockpit. They'll wonder how we managed to survive the deathtraps we got into every day.

Self driving cars are going to completely transform how we get around. Roads will look much different in the future and everything we take for granted about car transportation will change, probably in ways we can't predict. Human-driven cars will become a niche industry and will likely be limited to race tracks and virtual reality. It'll basically be like riding horses today.

I realize I'm going slightly off topic but I find self driving cars endlessly fascinating.

Agreed, the impact that SDVs will have will be enormous. Another example is the need for parking. If your car can drop you off at the GO station every morning, and then drive back home, only to pick you up again in the evening, are massive GO parking lots even necessary?

From a basic highway design perspective, will we need lanes to be as wide as they are now? Does that mean we can repaint highways to add an extra lane, increasing capacity?

How would intersections work in a 100% SDV environment. Traffic lights would be unnecessary since all the vehicles will communicate with each other, but what about pedestrians? Would pedestrian over/underpasses be the norm, how about bicycles (or whatever comes in the future)?

Traffic signals would still be necessary, although the programming of the lights would probably be dynamic to the number of cars approaching the intersection from each direction in order to maximize flow.

The biggest issue when it comes to SDVs and pedestrians is actually ethical. The programming of SDVs right now stipulates that the life of the vehicle occupant is the most important factor in a collision. In some cases, this could lead the vehicle to make a maneuver that kills the pedestrian in the collision in order to save the life of the occupant. For example, a human may risk a vehicle roll-over in order to avoid striking a pedestrian, whereas an SDV wouldn't.

PS: Moved the thread content into this thread instead of the speed limit thread.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Would a person inside a "self driving vehicle" still be charged for DUI? Even if just parked?

See link.

 

[crs1026]

SDV may change road design. I wonder if it will also change trip design. For instance, suppose I am in Pickering and want to go to Oakville. I hail a SDV. It takes me to a hub at the 401. Instead of adding another single occupant vehicle to the highway volume, a larger multiple-user vehicle (smaller and nicer than a Flyer, maybe something the size of a stretch limo) picks me up and takes me to a hub in Oakville, where I transfer again to a single user SDV for the final mile. With an information system matching users to vehicles and destinations dynamically, traffic is compressed onto a smaller number of larger vehicles, and the transfer time is minimal. This would reduce the number of vehicles on our highways dramatically.

Similarly, in the downtown, perhaps all use of SDV is limited to first and last 'mile'. I can take an SDV from Malvern to STC, but I have to take the subway to Kipling, and then I can take an SDV to Eringate. Thinking SDV's will improve flow in the downtown may be the wrong idea.... the right idea is minimising the use of personal vehicles at all.

- PUl

 

[gweed123]

Would a person inside a "self driving vehicle" still be charged for DUI? Even if just parked?

See link.

This is more of a question for the 'transition period' between current vehicles and fully autonomous with no possibility for human intervention. The 1st Gen publicly available SDVs will still feature a steering wheel and will allow for the possibility of a human assuming control of the vehicle in certain situations. If you drive home drunk in one of these vehicles, but never actually disengaged the autonomous driving feature, did you actually drive drunk? Or is it at that point the equivalent of an uber? I'm sure some one will test the legality of that down the road.

SDV may change road design. I wonder if it will also change trip design. For instance, suppose I am in Pickering and want to go to Oakville. I hail a SDV. It takes me to a hub at the 401. Instead of adding another single occupant vehicle to the highway volume, a larger multiple-user vehicle (smaller and nicer than a Flyer, maybe something the size of a stretch limo) picks me up and takes me to a hub in Oakville, where I transfer again to a single user SDV for the final mile. With an information system matching users to vehicles and destinations dynamically, traffic is compressed onto a smaller number of larger vehicles, and the transfer time is minimal. This would reduce the number of vehicles on our highways dramatically.

Similarly, in the downtown, perhaps all use of SDV is limited to first and last 'mile'. I can take an SDV from Malvern to STC, but I have to take the subway to Kipling, and then I can take an SDV to Eringate. Thinking SDV's will improve flow in the downtown may be the wrong idea.... the right idea is minimising the use of personal vehicles at all.

- PUl

Personally, I see them as the ideal first mile last mile solution in a suburban context. The current rapid transit infrastructure wouldn't change dramatically, but the way that it is fed would. Rather than having acres of parking, each station would feature large pick up/drop off loops. Your car would drop you off at the station, and then drive itself home. You would alert it via mobile app that you are on Train X, and it will do the calculations necessary (travel time + traffic delay) to arrive just as you get off the train.

 

[crs1026]

Personally, I see them as the ideal first mile last mile solution in a suburban context. The current rapid transit infrastructure wouldn't change dramatically, but the way that it is fed would. Rather than having acres of parking, each station would feature large pick up/drop off loops. Your car would drop you off at the station, and then drive itself home. You would alert it via mobile app that you are on Train X, and it will do the calculations necessary (travel time + traffic delay) to arrive just as you get off the train.

I wonder what the economics and practicalities of owning a vehicle will be in this situation. Yes, it eliminates the need for a parking lot, but at the expense of four commuting trips a day versus two. That's doubling the traffic in and out of GO stations, parking lot or not, and double the energy used.

Suppose instead of tying up your capital with a vehicle that sits in the GO parking lot all day (or in your driveway, if it drives itself home) you subscribe to a pool service. The pool will still have to own a hefty number of vehicles, enough to meet the needs of the peak when everyone is travelling at once. Instead of each driver making one trip out of the GO parking lot, the shared vehicles will shuttle back and forth to the depot, meeting each train in turn. and taking someone home. Much of this inventory will sit idle somewhere, perhaps not at the GO lot, but in a parking space all the same. Again, while the parking lot may be smaller, the routes in and out of the GO station, and the pickup/dropoff area, will be that much bigger.

The parking lot can be a lot more compact and the traffic flow smoother, as you can have first in/first out storage lanes (similar to the limo lot at Pearson, if you've ever gone by it).

I can see families in suburbia getting down to a one-car per family format in this scenario - the beater that only goes back and forth to the GO lot today is expensive to insure and maintain and license. But a multi-occupant vehicle is far more efficient than an SDV. I wonder if dynamic intelligent dispatch systems can compress the whole thing - your pool ride takes two other riders, and the route is kept sufficiently direct that it doesn't feel like an inconvenience if you are the last to be let off.

- Paul

 

[gweed123]

I wonder what the economics and practicalities of owning a vehicle will be in this situation. Yes, it eliminates the need for a parking lot, but at the expense of four commuting trips a day versus two. That's doubling the traffic in and out of GO stations, parking lot or not, and double the energy used.

Suppose instead of tying up your capital with a vehicle that sits in the GO parking lot all day (or in your driveway, if it drives itself home) you subscribe to a pool service. The pool will still have to own a hefty number of vehicles, enough to meet the needs of the peak when everyone is travelling at once. Instead of each driver making one trip out of the GO parking lot, the shared vehicles will shuttle back and forth to the depot, meeting each train in turn. and taking someone home. Much of this inventory will sit idle somewhere, perhaps not at the GO lot, but in a parking space all the same. Again, while the parking lot may be smaller, the routes in and out of the GO station, and the pickup/dropoff area, will be that much bigger.

The parking lot can be a lot more compact and the traffic flow smoother, as you can have first in/first out storage lanes (similar to the limo lot at Pearson, if you've ever gone by it).

I can see families in suburbia getting down to a one-car per family format in this scenario - the beater that only goes back and forth to the GO lot today is expensive to insure and maintain and license. But a multi-occupant vehicle is far more efficient than an SDV. I wonder if dynamic intelligent dispatch systems can compress the whole thing - your pool ride takes two other riders, and the route is kept sufficiently direct that it doesn't feel like an inconvenience if you are the last to be let off.

- Paul

I think you're right. I think we're likely to see vehicle miles travelled go up, but the number of vehicles owned go down. Services like Uber & ZipCar are more the way of the future than actual vehicle ownership. I think the model that is most likely to prevail though for most people is the vehicle as a subscription service, much like bike share services operate today. Pick up a vehicle at Point A, drive it (or have it drive you to be more precise) to Point B, and leave it there for someone else.

The other option is to own a car, but rent it to a subscription service when you aren't using it, as an additional source of income. If all you use it for on weekdays is to and from work or the GO station, have it out as part of the 'pool'.