The Coming Zombie Robot Driving Apocalypse of You

cells

michaels wrote: »

Currently my insurance costs are a negligible part of car ownership costs and with more automated cars presumably I will also be slightly less likely to crash (as the zombies are better able to get out of my way than regualr drivers) so if anything my premium should fall. There would have to be very few human drivers for the insurance risk to become too lumpy to be insurable.

depreciation is the major cost of a car. most popular cars sold in the UK are in the £15k price region and if you scrap it at age 12 and 100,000 miles thats 15p a mile

robo-taxis might get 1,000,000 miles but over a 3 year period. The depreciation is then 1.5p a mile

That saving alone is larger than the cost of fuel ~8p a mile and insurance ~4p a mile

so long life robo cars are more of an economic benefit than perpetual motion no energy cars

michaels

1m miles in 3 years = av 38mpg 24/7....

I get your point though but it is not quite as good as you suggest, maintenance will be needed to reach 1m miles and there will be wear and tear to the interior too.

cells

long life robo cars also make electric cars maybe feasible

a battery pack costing £10k is a non starter in a human car as it works out to 10p a mile (over a 100,000 mile life) whereas a diesel cars fuel is less than 10p a mile

but if the electric robo car is able to do 1 million miles, its £10k battery then costs just 1p a mile which would be competitive.


also this is the reason why you should expect HGVs buses and coaches to go battery powered well before cars

globalds

michaels wrote: »

Currently my insurance costs are a negligible part of car ownership costs and with more automated cars presumably I will also be slightly less likely to crash (as the zombies are better able to get out of my way than regualr drivers) so if anything my premium should fall. There would have to be very few human drivers for the insurance risk to become too lumpy to be insurable.

This is a bit of naive thinking ..

I think it won't be long after Robo cars hit the road that they will start doing things normally not allowed on roads with humans on ..No road signs for a start ..looking at the amount of it on our roads I would say it represents a sizeable portion of highways budget..Imagine no traffic lights ?..You just became uninsurable...or all those expensive managed traffic lanes on lots of motorways ..that bill essentially becomes one for the minority once robo cars reach a certain mass.

Once people realise they can rely on robo cars to do the right thing so if for example you overtake onto traffic knowing it will stop to avoid a collision ..That will be the point they will want people driving off the roads ..someone will take advantage ..I know what people are like.

Generali

cells wrote: »

but the insurance cost for humans is affordable at the moment and I don't see how it would get less affordable with robo cars?

the insurance industry is not one big fixed cost that needs to be shared amongst a given pool of drivers. less human driver equals less accidents equals less cost

if anything I suspect robo cars will also make human insurance cheaper, few cars equals fewer accidents. and also importantly there will be a lot more data and video to more quickly settle insurance claims rather than inflate the cost with solicitors fees and exaggeration and crash for cash claims etc


Personally I think if its a choice between 20p a mile insta-robo-taxis vs spending £5k to learn to drive buy a car and insure it in the first year then a lot of youngsters will forgo getting a costly licence and first car.

Maybe. I'm still trying to get my head around it myself.

I guess my theory is that the straight person takes the zombie car and the fraudster takes the regular car so the fraud is shared amongst fewer people. I'm not always fixed in my views when I post stuff: it helps me think things through.

cells

michaels wrote: »

1m miles in 3 years = av 38mpg 24/7....

I get your point though but it is not quite as good as you suggest, maintenance will be needed to reach 1m miles and there will be wear and tear to the interior too.

I was thinking of a robo taxi doing intercity travail, eg replacing the coaches or trains or even domestic flights

Virtually all motorway miles at 70 mph for 14 hours a day


Within cities it might be just 22mph average but working for 18 hours a day and for 3 years would get you 430,000 miles. That still takes the depreciation cost from 15p a mile to 3.5p a mile a 75% saving.

cells

globalds wrote: »

Once people realise they can rely on robo cars to do the right thing so if for example you overtake onto traffic knowing it will stop to avoid a collision ..That will be the point they will want people driving off the roads ..someone will take advantage ..I know what people are like.

such stupid people will be sent a nice invoice for £1000 and 3 points on their licence for dangerous driving with HD video for proof and that will be the last time they do that...

globalds

cells wrote: »

such stupid people will be sent a nice invoice for £1000 and 3 points on their licence for dangerous driving with HD video for proof and that will be the last time they do that...

Systems don't like random variables ..Robo cars are the beginning of a road transport system ..People will really not be on the robo roads for long as it will be almost impossible to progress beyong doing what human drivers do ..Roads and vehicles can be much more efficient and cost effective ..It is that gain that will force the pace ..trucks driving within feet of each other can't happen with some old dear blindly pulling onto the motorway at 45 mph

michaels

globalds wrote: »

Systems don't like random variables ..Robo cars are the beginning of a road transport system ..People will really not be on the robo roads for long as it will be almost impossible to progress beyong doing what human drivers do ..Roads and vehicles can be much more efficient and cost effective ..It is that gain that will force the pace ..trucks driving within feet of each other can't happen with some old dear blindly pulling onto the motorway at 45 mph

That makes sense but I don't think there would ever be a 'switchover day' where suddenly all cars become autonomous so robocars will have to be designed to coexist with driven cars so then there will be less pressure for driver driven cars to be removed from the roads, I can imagine that it will happen but probably not until 10 years after the majority of new cars are automatic...

N1AK

globalds wrote: »

Systems don't like random variables ..Robo cars are the beginning of a road transport system ..People will really not be on the robo roads for long as it will be almost impossible to progress beyong doing what human drivers do ..Roads and vehicles can be much more efficient and cost effective ..It is that gain that will force the pace ..trucks driving within feet of each other can't happen with some old dear blindly pulling onto the motorway at 45 mph

The reason why we don't already drive automatic cars is because they will have to be able to handle random variables before they are sold. There's nothing more random about a human driver than there is in a crash caused by a major mechanical/electronically failure.

Besides which, the main reason that 'old dear' is still allowed to drive is because it would be political suicide, and tough on a lot of the elderly, to force old drivers off the road while there is no viable alternative. Once automatic cars are common you could bring in rigorous testing every 5 years for manual driving, because anyone who can't manage it can use a self-driven vehicle instead.

We'll have self-driving vehicles sharing the roads with fleshbag drivers for some time. Then perhaps we'll see some roads go self-driving only some years later.