Driveless cars (shuttles) coming to WDW.

[AtlantaDisneyDreamer]

I don't trust them either and won't use them. I remember reading that the biggest problem with Google self driving cars is that it couldn't respond when other drivers didn't obey the rules of the road.

Unfortunately, there are also a whole lot of humans who don't know how to respond when other drivers don't obey the rules of the road.

 

[mshanson3121]

I agree except if all the cars had these controls then no one would be tailgating you...... again the fault is the human. Computers don't get stressed out because they are late.

Except it will be a long time before all cars are driverless. For a long time it will be a mix of old and new, which will very much reduce the benefits of these vehicles.

Just because you can dream up a scenario where something bad could happen, doesn't mean that technology should be given up on, or that it's not still infinitely better than what we have now. The very few deaths that take place when all cars are driverless will be very tragic yes. And one reason is because they will be so rare, like a plane crash.

To your hypothetical situation, there is no reason the car would not be able to do risk assessment or even be able to tell what exactly is in the road. And with all cars being driverless, all cars will be at a safe distance from each other and be able to slam on the brakes without causing a collision. They would also be better at swerving than 99% of human drivers. And the cars would be programmed to protect those inside the car over those outside the car. Or at least they should be and can be. The odds of your kid being killed by a driverless car swerving to miss a cat are much lower than the odds of your kid being killed by a drunk or distracted driver. Or even themselves. You may feel like you are in control, but you're not.

Again. See my reply above. It's going to be a long time before all vehicles are driverless. In fact it will be an almost impossibility to put into effect anytime in the near future due to cost. And while there is a mix of old and new technology, there will be more issues.

Also, thus far, no, they haven't been able to come up with technology that is able to accurately asses the danger on the road. It's one of the current hold ups. The technology is unable to tell a dog from a kid from a piece of debris.

 

[AtlantaDisneyDreamer]

Exactly. People have been comparing it to the advent of progressing to cars from horse and buggy. Except it's nothing like that. As YOU were still in charge, you still made the decisions, not a computer (that can malfunction) without any concious, moral or reasoning - ex. choosing life outside the vehicle over life inside the vehicle. So thank you driverless car for ditching the vehicle and seriously injuring or killing my child, just to avoid some animal on the road, or the guy that jumps in front of it or any other number of scenarios where you the computer feel the object outside was more valuable than my flesh and blood.

Based on my recent experience driving around Atlanta and to and from Orlando, there are a number of human drivers who care little for life in or outside their vehicles.

 

[Roxyfire]

Not wanting to stray too far off topic, but i'm NOT looking forward to those days. When people driving is legislated away or restricted, you can be more easily controlled. Think about it.

I've listened and read up on this topic rather extensively. As long as person is able to choose their pickup and destination, it's not being controlled. The reason people would have to stop driving is that once the technology is reliable enough to use in busy areas, humans are the variable. Humans are just not safe drivers.

How it all works will really depend on the way autonomous vehicles are implemented. If it's the same as it is now where each person or family owns one, I don't see things changing that much. If it's fleets of on demand vehicles running near constantly (let's not fall into the rabbit hole of vandalism here) then yes it could be if someone was able to override the controls. Sounds like a good near-future, thriller crime novel. I think rather than sticking my head in the sand about automation, it's best to be aware and informed.

 

[wareagle57]

Except it will be a long time before all cars are driverless. For a long time it will be a mix of old and new, which will very much reduce the benefits of these vehicles.



Again. See my reply above. It's going to be a long time before all vehicles are driverless. In fact it will be an almost impossibility to put into effect anytime in the near future due to cost. And while there is a mix of old and new technology, there will be more issues.

Also, thus far, no, they haven't been able to come up with technology that is able to accurately asses the danger on the road. It's one of the current hold ups. The technology is unable to tell a dog from a kid from a piece of debris.

We will NEVER make a 100% flip from manual to driverless over night. (In large part as you mentioned the expense, but also because of people resisting it).

What basis do you have to your claim that having a mix is not still a net benefit? Yes there will still Be problems. But those problems will be with the human drivers. Not the computers. It would still be better to have more good "drivers" and less crappy drivers on the road.

You're correct that the technology is not there YET to have a perfect threat assessment. But the less people that resist it and the more backing it has, the more money that can be put into r&d to improve the product quicker.

So what's your point again? That this isn't perfect because humans are the problem? You're right. Let's start working on fixing it by implementing it and showing people how safe they are.

 

[Westcoastwild]

We will NEVER make a 100% flip from manual to driverless over night. (In large part as you mentioned the expense, but also because of people resisting it).

What basis do you have to your claim that having a mix is not still a net benefit? Yes there will still Be problems. But those problems will be with the human drivers. Not the computers. It would still be better to have more good "drivers" and less crappy drivers on the road.

You're correct that the technology is not there YET to have a perfect threat assessment. But the less people that resist it and the more backing it has, the more money that can be put into r&d to improve the product quicker.

So what's your point again? That this isn't perfect because humans are the problem? You're right. Let's start working on fixing it by implementing it and showing people how safe they are.

I can see where you're coming from. And it's not that I think humans are safer than computers on the road.

BUT. It's not just R&D. I mean, that will be hard enough to get people to back simply because how many people will honestly see themselves owning one of those cars. My car is almost 20 years old. I don't consider it antiquated. Yet when I get into a late model luxury car I feel like I'm in the future. Even when this car dies, it won't be replaced by a car like that. It might be replaced by a ten year old car. A great majority of people don't buy a car even second hand- they buy one 3rd or 4th or 5th hand. It's not even just budget, it's what you can buy and have serviced locally. It's depreciation. It's comfort. So sheer practicality wise, maybe smart cars are the way of the future but most people don't even own what today would be considered a smart car.

Anyway, the only place I can see these working is the cities...which in fact is where they wouldn't be all that useful. The technology might be available but US dots cannot even keep up with simple road repairs, let alone install things that could communicate with these cars. And that's just the insterstates. These things could not be trusted on mountain passes and in other remote areas. Google maps- a great system generally- cannot be trusted in rural areas. At some point, human critical thinking is an absolute necessity.

 

[circus4u]

Actually, these cars are already on the road. My son-in-law just bought a Tesla and took me for a ride in it. It pretty much does everything, including steering. Even though the hands don't have to be on the wheel, they must be in close proximity to it. If the driver moves their hands away, the car will pull over and park when it's safe to do so. The car parks itself in the garage, even backing in, without a driver. Besides parallel parking it will also do angle parking in a shopping center by itself. Raining when you come out of the store? Push a button and it will drive to you, all without a driver. All this works in town and on the open highway. So, I would say that they are already here and on the road, whether we like it or not.

 

[beer dave]

Actually, these cars are already on the road. My son-in-law just bought a Tesla and took me for a ride in it. It pretty much does everything, including steering. Even though the hands don't have to be on the wheel, they must be in close proximity to it. If the driver moves their hands away, the car will pull over and park when it's safe to do so. The car parks itself in the garage, even backing in, without a driver. Besides parallel parking it will also do angle parking in a shopping center by itself. Raining when you come out of the store? Push a button and it will drive to you, all without a driver. All this works in town and on the open highway. So, I would say that they are already here and on the road, whether we like it or not.

thank you. that's awesome. No more designated driver..

 

[wareagle57]

I can see where you're coming from. And it's not that I think humans are safer than computers on the road.

BUT. It's not just R&D. I mean, that will be hard enough to get people to back simply because how many people will honestly see themselves owning one of those cars. My car is almost 20 years old. I don't consider it antiquated. Yet when I get into a late model luxury car I feel like I'm in the future. Even when this car dies, it won't be replaced by a car like that. It might be replaced by a ten year old car. A great majority of people don't buy a car even second hand- they buy one 3rd or 4th or 5th hand. It's not even just budget, it's what you can buy and have serviced locally. It's depreciation. It's comfort. So sheer practicality wise, maybe smart cars are the way of the future but most people don't even own what today would be considered a smart car.

Anyway, the only place I can see these working is the cities...which in fact is where they wouldn't be all that useful. The technology might be available but US dots cannot even keep up with simple road repairs, let alone install things that could communicate with these cars. And that's just the insterstates. These things could not be trusted on mountain passes and in other remote areas. Google maps- a great system generally- cannot be trusted in rural areas. At some point, human critical thinking is an absolute necessity.

I agree with you, there a lot of obstacles to overcome, not just R&D. Without government regulation, which I'm normally very strongly against, it will take 30 or so years to be 100% driverless due to the issue you are describing.

UNLESS... there isn't a necessity for anyone to own a car. The more R&D put into them, and the more demand, the cheaper they will be. I think they will actually be MOST useful in the city.

Cities would order fleets of them to service their area, much like WDW.

Parking lots would be no more. People would just order a tesla/uber everyday, or send their personal car out to make money for them
While they are at work.

It would become impractical to own a car, especially a manual car. Then manufacturers would not have incentive to make them anymore. The less resentence, the easier it will be to start designating driverless only roads.

Yes it's going to take time, and there are going to be problems and obstacles. But we can speed it up by getting more people on board with the idea rather than scared or resistant simply because they "like driving."

 

[Westcoastwild]

I agree with you, there a lot of obstacles to overcome, not just R&D. Without government regulation, which I'm normally very strongly against, it will take 30 or so years to be 100% driverless due to the issue you are describing.

UNLESS... there isn't a necessity for anyone to own a car. The more R&D put into them, and the more demand, the cheaper they will be. I think they will actually be MOST useful in the city.

Cities would order fleets of them to service their area, much like WDW.

Parking lots would be no more. People would just order a tesla/uber everyday, or send their personal car out to make money for them
While they are at work.

It would become impractical to own a car, especially a manual car. Then manufacturers would not have incentive to make them anymore. The less resentence, the easier it will be to start designating driverless only roads.

Yes it's going to take time, and there are going to be problems and obstacles. But we can speed it up by getting more people on board with the idea rather than scared or resistant simply because they "like driving."

I do like your vision of ordering a tesla having it show up at your doorstep like a pizza! I personally hate driving, and I don't really like taxis or uber because of the human driver. I guess I just feel like we're looking more like 60-75 year time frame before these get cheap and plentiful enough to be accessible to everyone. Taxis, after all, are still a luxury to most folks. Even if you live somewhere like NYC- rich have a driver, middle class takes the occasional taxi, but mostly people use transit because that truly is cheap, largely in part to government subsidies. And again, rural areas are the problem. I hang out on other travel boards and people spend a great deal of time just trying to explain to foreign tourists the realities of Western US transit. As in, greyhound may be it and no one wants to ride greyhound. The train is actually pretty difficult to use even IF you are lucky enough to live within driving distance of one of the main lines.

 

[tstidm1]

MCO already has Driverless monorails and have for years. They are also bigger than the pictures I've seen especially the Heathrow shuttles. I don't like this idea because people would lose jobs possibly because of it and they aren't any where nearly High Capacity enough thinking the vehicle size is the same as MCO even. The trams at closing can take 100 people everytime to their cars. It seems to have a similar issue to the Gondolas in capacity. Disney World needs to think about systems that can easily take 5K an hour around property to their cars at a peak time.

 

[Roxyfire]

MCO already has Driverless monorails and have for years. They are also bigger than the pictures I've seen especially the Heathrow shuttles. I don't like this idea because people would lose jobs possibly because of it and they aren't any where nearly High Capacity enough thinking the vehicle size is the same as MCO even. The trams at closing can take 100 people everytime to their cars. It seems to have a similar issue to the Gondolas in capacity. Disney World needs to think about systems that can easily take 5K an hour around property to their cars at a peak time.

As discussed in the gondola thread, you do not build mass transit capacity around peak times. There's nothing wrong with people waiting, as long as they have a general sense of how long it will be. That's why people are so annoyed with buses returning to their resort after a long day. I hope they add bus boards at the park locations too, and that would be really helpful for people's peace of mind, knowing there's 1 or 2 buses coming and it'll be between 10 and 15 minutes.

As far as jobs lost, I highly suggest people think about how automation will effect the industrialized world as a whole. There's a fantastic video on youtube called "Humans Need Not Apply" that explains this much better than I ever could.

 

[mshanson3121]

I don't like this idea because people would lose jobs possibly because of it

As far as jobs lost, I highly suggest people think about how automation will effect the industrialized world as a whole. There's a fantastic video on youtube called "Humans Need Not Apply" that explains this much better than I ever could.

Again, there are so, so many issues with these vehicles, and so many obstacles as to why it will be near impossible to fully implement (in the grand scale, obviously far easier to implement just within Disney), at least anytime even remotely soon. But, this is just yet another reason why I am against this sort of technology, and honestly, much of the robotic/AI movement in general. Overall, many of these rapid technological advancements are really not for the betterment of the general population, they're to increase profits for large corporations. Speaking strictly just to the automated vehicles, there will be potentially millions of people in NA that will be out of a job: taxi, limo, shuttle, bus, courier and other transportation drivers. Further down the road, think about the transport industry - all the truck drivers that would be out of a job. At first, sure they'll still be needed for loading/unloading, but let's face it, it's only a matter of time before that's all automated, too. Which ironically, while companies might save money, strain on the government will increase as unemployment rates rise.

I don't disagree that if it was completely automated, accidents would drop significantly. But, perhaps if they had been more proactive all along, this sort of thing wouldn't be necessary. Likewise, there are other ways to increase safety on the road now, which could again prevent the necessity of this, some of which are discussed here. I also think that breathalyzer locks should be on ALL engines. But unfortunately, most companies only care about bottom line, not the people they hurt to reach that bottom line, especially when they can sell it to the relatively naive public as a "Look how many people we'll help" thing.

 

[Roxyfire]

I don't disagree that if it was completely automated, accidents would drop significantly. But, perhaps if they had been more proactive all along, this sort of thing wouldn't be necessary. Likewise, there are other ways to increase safety on the road now, which could again prevent the necessity of this, some of which are discussed here. But unfortunately, most companies only care about bottom line, not the people they hurt to reach that bottom line, especially when they can sell it to the relatively naive public as a "Look how many people we'll help" thing.

I know we're getting astoundingly off-topic here, but I think it's important for people to understand the scale of automation. In the video, Grey (the content creator) emphasizes that we are not ready as a society for this change. He estimates 45% of the workforce in the United States would be no longer necessary if vehicles, production, and the service industry become largely automated. This is a proof of concept and it will be astoundingly good for business if it works well. I do think there are benefits to it as a person who drives and finds many drivers to be reckless and selfish. But I do want to point out that we may see full vehicle automation in the next 50 years. That's probably optimistic because of how long it will take to get legislation and regulation on board.

 

[OKW Lover]

Just had a horrible thought: who will spread unfounded rumors if there are no more bus drivers?

 

[rteetz]

Just had a horrible thought: who will spread unfounded rumors if there are no more bus drivers?

Wait you mean Marvel land isn't coming to DHS?

That was the first bus driver rumor I was told in 2012.

 

[OKW Lover]

Wait you mean Marvel land isn't coming to DHS?

Exactly! We may need to step up our game here.

 

[BuckeyeBama]

So, will this be Disney's "Uber" fleet? Makes more sense than hiring a bunch of drivers.

 

[OKW Lover]

So, will this be Disney's "Uber" fleet? Makes more sense than hiring a bunch of drivers.

I don't think this is the same thing. These are driverless, but the news story about Disney's Uber-like transportation said they were hiring drivers.

 

[disneynutz]

A few months ago on local news a company was putting their driver-less electric shuttle on display. It held 8 passengers and followed a marked route, made stops along the way to let people on and off. I could see these used between Kidani and Jambo and between those resorts and AK. Disney could also make paths just for the shuttles only, not having to use public roads.

Bill