Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrcoolbp on Sunday April 05 2015, @10:38PM   Printer-friendly
from the first-law-of-robotics dept.

Could the Tesla factor push the market for self driving cars faster than most anticipate.? Self-driving features may give them the edge on the increasing competition in the emerging electric vehicle market.

“Tech” is an attribute that is authentically a part of the Tesla brand. Self-driving features are essentially tech and in this area Tesla has been pushing out in front; most recently with an announcement that this summer an over-the-air update will enable their “Autopilot” feature on all Model Ss. (Autopilot will allow, as Tesla puts it, on-ramp to off-ramp self-driving.)

This new feature could be Tesla's saving grace, as well as a market force to more quickly push other automakers to use the new technology.

The convenience and safety of self-driving technologies offers Tesla a lifeline; “reasons to buy” for consumers who lack the environmental fervor of their early customers. And these reasons are compelling to a large number of car buyers; enough for many to overlook the limitations on an electric power-train–opening up a vastly larger market for Tesla.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday April 05 2015, @11:41PM

    by kaszz (4211) on Sunday April 05 2015, @11:41PM (#166796) Journal

    Self driving vehicles with really low driver per unit weight of freight. Hmm.. aha! Trains? :P

    Self driving trucks on public roads is rolling accident waiting to crush some ordinary people.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by TrumpetPower! on Monday April 06 2015, @12:03AM

    by TrumpetPower! (590) <ben@trumpetpower.com> on Monday April 06 2015, @12:03AM (#166799) Homepage

    If trains were a good alternative for long-haul trucking, we'd long since have traded trucks for trains.

    And I'd far rather have a robot driving trucks than an human. The robot is always going to be functioning at its peak, which is already guaranteed to be significantly better than the average human (even if it's not as good as, say, Mario Andretti at his best). But the human...the human is going to get tired, hungry, distracted by that cute man / woman walking down the street, bored, texting, speeding because he's behind schedule, upset with her boss over an unfair review, whatever.

    There's no doubt but that somebody will die from something going worng with a robot driver, and certainly no doubt but that it'll make huge headlines the first few times it happens.

    But there's also no doubt but that the percentages of people who die at the hands of robots will be a negligible fraction of those who already die at the hands of humans.

    b&

    --
    All but God can prove this sentence true.
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by deimtee on Monday April 06 2015, @12:27AM

      by deimtee (3272) on Monday April 06 2015, @12:27AM (#166803) Journal

      Trains should be a more economical alternative than trucks for long haul.
      The problem is that trucks have offloaded their costs onto other motorists and governments. The vast majority of road damage is caused by heavy vehicles, yet they pay a minute percentage of road maintenance and repair costs.

      --
      If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @12:28AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @12:28AM (#166804)

      > If trains were a good alternative for long-haul trucking, we'd long since have traded trucks for trains.

      That's argument for rationalizing any and every non-action. It presumes that there aren't external factors and it assumes that technology doesn't change.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Monday April 06 2015, @01:56AM

      by frojack (1554) on Monday April 06 2015, @01:56AM (#166816) Journal

      If trains were a good alternative for long-haul trucking, we'd long since have traded trucks for trains.

      We long since traded trains for trucks.
      And at the time we did it, we had train service to a lot more places than we do now. And it was far more efficient back then, even with hand loaded rail cars.
      With today's containerized freight it makes little economic sense to pay a driver to drive something cross country. They should be picking a container up at a train depot and driving it to a local-ish warehouse.

      Trucks were, and should be again, predominantly used from nearest rail head to the local community. It was a good living, and everyone slept in their own bed each night except the train crew. Eisenhower and his freeway system was the first real boon to long haul trucking. (Most people don't even know that Eisenhower himself was one first transcontinental trucker). Prior to that almost everything was short haul.

      Without a strong trucking lobby, based on the "life style" rather than the economics, we would long since have move BACK to carrying more stuff by rail.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday April 06 2015, @01:23PM

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Monday April 06 2015, @01:23PM (#166957) Homepage
      > If trains were a good alternative for long-haul trucking, we'd long since have traded trucks for trains.

      Demonstrably not.

      And I'd far rather have a robot driving a train than a truck. As already happens on light railways all round the world, and has done for decades.
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves