I think the speed limits are linked more to the environment than the vehicles. I doubt there will be an 80hp VW Punto that is autonomous. More likely, the autonomous vehicles would be very similar in capabilities if that is the path we are going to.

There is a huge gap between the Faraday FF91 at 1,000hp and the Chrysler Pacifica hybrid vans that Google is using for their Waymo technology.

My point is those limits will be built into the autonomous cars programming based upon its capabilities and government regulations. So if it relies on cameras exclusively it might have to go slower, but if it has other sensors maybe it can proceed faster. It the weather conditions hamper the sensor performance it will slow down. The car should know if it is in congested or rural area. It should also know if there is the potential for cyclists or pedestrians about and adjust accordingly.

I think speeds will be limited as much by sensor capability and car intelligence as engine performance.

Alright, well I stand corrected. I am opposed to the idea of autonomous vehicles, so I haven't had the care to do my research. My mistake.

 
Technologically that makes sense and I have always thought that cars speed should be governed by their ability. My BMW feels rock solid at 120mph, other cars not so much.

I think the government is going to be where the issue lies. I don't see the government being quick to turn cars lose to go whatever speed they are capable of given the conditions. We are a long way off from saying it is okay for one car to bomb down the freeway at 150mph while others are limited to 80mph. Even tech wise that would be quite the feat.

From what I've read, car insurance will still be required but it will be radically different as there will be different perils to insure against. Technical malfunctions and failures will still happen, as well as damage to and theft of or from vehicles.

The most interesting, and telling, thing I read about autonomous cars is the impact they will make on organ donation. Apparently there are people in the medical community who are predicting it will drastically cut the number of donated organs as less people will die from collisions. While they are happy about the potential drop in road deaths, they are very concerned about how to cope with transplant patients.

The article - http://www.businessinsider.com/...-more-scarce-2016-12

People were also opposed to autonomous elevators too. Cars are a lot more complex, but it has been 100 years

Yeah I do still see a need for insurance, as you said theft, vandalism, falling trees etc will all still be factors. I am an independent insurance agent so I don't see a huge role for myself if everyone in the country was using autonomous cars. I can see the leverage for getting people to change may be drastically reduced insurance rates for autonomous cars. Hard to buy a standard car that costs $100 per month to insure if the driverless costs $10 per month. And at $10 per month, there isn't much room for me to make money selling policies.

We are already being challenged by people shopping online for insurance. If the autonomous cars make insurance coverages more simple and easy to understand, there won't be much incentive for most people to have someone else handle their insurance policies for them. I am 31 years old so it could very well have a big impact on my livelihood before I reach retirement age, we shall see. Might have to sell coffee, donuts, t-shirts and insurance in the future. Maybe a neighborhood brewpub and insurance agency.

I've seen people cycling on the shoulder of an interstate. In fact, I've done it, several times.

Okay.. I wouldn't have been opposed to autonomous elevators though. I'm not over here trying to convince people that they shouldn't support the idea, just that I do not support the idea. I don't want everything in my life to be autonomous.

Speed limits aren't set to increase safety but rather to provide an environment that is deemed safe, or define that point where to exceed the speed may become unsafe.

The judgement/ability of the driver is only one part of the equation that sees speed limits associated with safety. There is the terrain - horizontal geometry and friction requirements; vertical geometry and sight distance - vehicle characteristics (think handling of an old truck versus a modern high performance vehicle) and driving environment (built up area with higher number of conflict points versus open road with long straights and no intersections), amongst others. I'd go as far as to say that even on long straights of open road it has more to do with the ability of the vehicle rather than the driver.

Autonomous vehicles aren't for everyone. A lot of people truly just like to drive. I would also think that vehicle manufacturers are not that keen on them either. I mean what would be the point in developing engine technology any further if the performance thrill is removed from the driver? Likewise for safety. There would be less need for engineers and a greater need for interior designers.

It all comes back to the driver and their ability to understand the limitations imposed by the terrain and their vehicle. People are unsafe when they exceed their limits due to improper assessment of their car's abilities, the environment they are operating in or their own abilities.

I am not saying speed limits are going to go away tomorrow. But 50 years from now, which is a long time for software development, maybe they won't be needed. Autonomous cars will know the limitations of their individual vehicles and the likelihood of unanticipated risks based on the road they are on. Why should an autonomous supercar with a full suite of sensors that can stop or turn on a dime be limited to the same speed as a semi truck using a camera?

I like to drive, have fast cars and ride motorbikes but my kids who are 3 and 1, its really unlikely that their relationship to vehicles will be anything like the one that I've had

Driving has literally been a "past time" since the invention of the car, people used to go for sunday drives, the car itself was a / has been / is a status symbol, the pleasure of learning to drive then owning a vehicle have all been part of the experience.

I am not sure that this is going to continue though, there will still obviously be a demand for track cars, track bikes but as cars become more and more automated and the driver input required less and less much of the experience will be removed and for young kids who just view being driven somewhere as a utilitarian experience, learning to drive will be both unnecessary and detract from time which could be spent doing other things

I've a friend who is working on a project in MA on a plan for a small town to remove all on grade parking and to make the infrastructure driverless car friendly - the consultancy is also doing this for a new city in China

Certainly if I lived in a city - and I do - I have no need for a car on a daily basis. I sold both my cars and currently use Uber where I live for everything, and in London I use public transport.

I think we are stuck with the combustion engine for some years to come, but the need to continue driving will diminish and there will be generations that follow me - I'm 42 - that see no need to learn how to, or the need to drive

As someone who has spent nearing 20 years in the design of state highways I am pretty comfortable stating that road safety has little to do with the degree to which individual drivers understand the limitations imposed by the terrain and their vehicle. There is too much for the average driver to comprehend. That decision making is taken out of their hands by governments, by the automotive industry and those in my broader profession. Governments, planners and engineers (and police!) work together to dictate the conditions to which members of the public can drive. It goes well beyond the individual in question. There are the unique decisions made by other road users (commercial, private, cyclists, pedestrians) to consider, economic considerations (congestion etc), pollution, noise and otherwise general amenity amongst many others.



50 years from now our road networks are going to be more built up (adjacent land use wise), more congested and more distracting. The governance of speed is likely to become more critical. Roads are going to have less opportunity to permit unrestricted speeds than they do today. Autonomous vehicles may permit more vehicles per lane per hour (traffic modelling is still just theory remember), yes, but that just means more cars on limited lanes, potentially driving around with no one inside. Bottlenecks will still form. More vehicles on the road will make it harder for public transit to operate efficiently (not everyone can afford autonomous vehicles). The end of freeway ramps enter areas with constraints so all these extra cars still arrive at lights eventually. Shockwaves will still flow back onto the main alignments. Don't believe everything excited traffic modellers proclaim. Here are just a few other reasons free speeds may not work:

• There will be an even larger discrepancy in speeds between the fastest and slowest vehicles. These discrepancies are inherently dangerous and make it much harder to cater / program for. Throw in a mix of human driven cars and it gets more dangerous again.
• Autonomous cars can, and will, still have accidents. Higher speeds increases the consequences.
• Increased speeds bring increased noise and increased pollution. Increased wear and tear on both car and road.
• The best scenario for autonomous vehicles is with roads fitted with intelligent transports systems but this cost money, particularly given the most ideal roads are those covering longer distances.
• In built up environments you assume autonomous vehicles will rapidly accelerate and decelerate.to their limits. Cars may become more advanced but the human body still only tolerates the same forces. Do you really think those wanting to do business while being driven around will want to be thrown about the car. Indeed some speculate that autonomous vehicles will be even slower through intersections to provide additional comfort. Coming back to the speed discrepancies, is accelerating and lane changing going to be appreciated by unsuspecting occupants in the back?

Besides we still don't have full faith in airplane autopilots and the 'roads' they travel are much less complicated. I'm not convinced autonomous vehicles will be able to interpret certain things as well as humans, such as grazing wildlife that might dart out onto the road, or recognising that the cyclist ahead looks like they are considering lane changing. There are many others. As a society are we really prepared to give up our freedom, privacy and even our love of driving (for the enthusiasts)? So many more people on the planet, so many less jobs (transport related). I don't see this becoming reality anytime soon. Do you work for Tesla?

ETA: There also the very real threat of terrorism / hacking.

I guess I'm becoming a luddite, because I'm not as enthusiastic over the continued automation of every part of our lives. There is becoming less and less need for humans to exist. Robots clean our house, they drive us around, they prepare food, they entertain children, they build things and can do most all of what we can. These sci-fi movies don't seem too far fetched these days!

I'm 42 also BTW. When my kids reach our age I wonder if they will be as excited about all the technology or romance over the things dad did.

Terrestrial radio stations as we know them today will go away regardless of autonomous cars.