[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by fbsm

I think we're talking past one another

Clearly you have a fantasy that you would like to find some bridge to

...

Best of luck to you, I'm out of this thread

I'll look past the snub about this being some emotion driven endeavor on my end. No, but I do understand how one could leap to such conclusions incorrectly. These changing times in the industry are polarizing everyone's opinions. Much like the auto v. manual transmission debate, or natural aspiration vs. forced induction.

Healthy debate, anyway. G'day.

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Sharing planes and trains is called public transportation; it's not private ownership of a single vehicle.

Way ahead of you on that. Remember, a network of connected, autonomous vehicles could use a model similar in to today's other forms of public transportation. Of course, unlike a commuter train or subway, they can go anywhere. So people who are not able to use the those types of transportation may be able to participate. As such adoption numbers can extend beyond what we see today, allowing more folks to go "carless". How far does it scale? Well it sure does have a limit, no denying that. Old Joe in rural BFE might be left out. But again, we aren't looking that far out yet. This is just the first round.

A truly accident-free autonomous transportation system means all traffic and vehicles are managed by a central-control system and that the technology is fail-safe. There are privacy rights (at least in the US), implementation affordability, and technical hurdles that in my opinion are not economically surmountable.

Accident free is great, but not necessary. Accidents are anomalies. Traffic is a daily issue, so traffic control is the big win. How much money does it all cost? More than you and I could ever behold, but not more than the hundreds of billions the industry is collectively willing to spend over the next two to three decades and beyond.

[David70]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

The answer to this is, "No". The reason is, a tech company and mobility service provider can still be an automobile manufacturer. In the near term this will be the case.

Looking further out, like other carmakers, BMW will see less and less and revenue coming from automobile sales as technology marches on. The core reason for this is that robotic cars (autonomous vehicles if you prefer) don't need to sit around all day and night waiting for you to come along and pilot them. They can simply pilot themselves. So, that means the world needs a lot less of them to meet its transportation needs. It also means that many people who own a car today won't need to in the future, and some people being born today may never need one at all. As a forward thinking enterprise, you see this eventuality and diversify now to ensure the long term health and success of your company.

No need to make it any more complicated or more sensationalist than that.

Agree completely. Take the driver out of the taxi/Uber and the cost to use it drops like a rock, with the price at half far more people use it, then far more are available. Also, having vehicles ready to go, sitting in different areas of the city are much easier to justify when there isn't a driver sitting in the car that requires a certain amount of pay over x number of hours.

I agree this won't work nearly as well in rural areas but take the percentage of people that live in a decent sized town or city and it is pretty high. The rural population of current BMW drivers is probably pretty small part of the total. Even in the rural areas, families with kids that can drive may consider having fewer cars if the car can drop off one person and then be used by the rest of the family throughout the day. Car drives dad to work at 8:00, car comes back and kids and wife use the car the rest of the day, at least feasible to get rid of the 3rd car.

The idea people don't want to share vehicles - look at taxis/Uber's, ride sharing cars, rental cars, trains, planes, buses - happens everyday. Paying with credit card and having areas for cars to be checked and cleaned would be easy to "police" and kick out people that abuse the system.

An autonomous car will definitely cut down on quantity of cars needed as it's ability to drive itself makes it far more usable. I think the the average car is used about 5% of the time. No reason I can't have it go pick up friends or family whenever I don't need it. Maybe instead of me, wife, kid, father, mother all having a car (5 total cars) we realize that we can easily get rid of one of the cars saving the $400-500 a month (total cost). A small inconvenience to save a lot of money and there is still the Uber/taxi as a backup.

[W///]

I'm all for a fully autonomous car, as long as I can keep my toys for the weekends.

One needs to get home one way or another when your rod bearings or water pump go

[David70]

Originally Posted by W///

I'm all for a fully autonomous car, as long as I can keep my toys for the weekends.

One needs to get home one way or another when your rod bearings or water pump go

X2. Wife and I each have a daily driver and I have the Z4M for fun/weekend. I work out of my house and about 1/2 the time drive a large region, make Uber cheaper and a little quicker and I would rent when driving long distances and Uber or share her autonomous car (when available) the rest of the time. Maybe save enough to get a second fun car.

[W///]

Originally Posted by David70

X2. Wife and I each have a daily driver and I have the Z4M for fun/weekend. I work out of my house and about 1/2 the time drive a large region, make Uber cheaper and a little quicker and I would rent when driving long distances and Uber or share her autonomous car (when available) the rest of the time. Maybe save enough to get a second fun car.

I honestly would be excited for something like that. In your case, you'd easily be able to get rid of at least 1 car, if not 2.

There was a really good discussion on another forum whether an E46 M3 is a good DD, and my argument was that it's not. High running cost, break downs, stiff ride ect ect... these M's shine for weekend drives IMHO, not sitting in stop and go traffic.

There are plenty of times where I wished I could just get in a car and just nap while it takes me to my destination.

And this is coming from a car enthusiast....

[David70]

Originally Posted by W///

I honestly would be excited for something like that. In your case, you'd easily be able to get rid of at least 1 car, if not 2.

There was a really good discussion on another forum whether an E46 M3 is a good DD, and my argument was that it's not. High running cost, break downs, stiff ride ect ect... these M's shine for weekend drives IMHO, not sitting in stop and go traffic.

There are plenty of times where I wished I could just get in a car and just nap while it takes me to my destination.

And this is coming from a car enthusiast....

Yeah, I could see someone dealing with a E46 M3 or Z4M as a daily but it's not a good one, costs are high per mile and at this point you are driving a 10 year old BMW, then as you said much of my driving is only getting from point to point and I see no enjoyment with it.

With my regional drives, much of the time I spend a large portion of the day driving and seeing customers and then spend the evening doing e-mails/quotes and other work. Figure out a way for me to not drive and get the work done during the day and I would do it in a second. Not too hard for me to spend 20 hours in a week driving and getting virtually nothing else done. Free up even 10 hours a week at "work" and I get a lot more done and have a lot more free time and I see nothing exciting or fun about driving down an interstate for 6 hours a day.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

I'll look past the snub about this being some emotion driven endeavor on my end. No, but I do understand how one could leap to such conclusions incorrectly. These changing times in the industry are polarizing everyone's opinions. Much like the auto v. manual transmission debate, or natural aspiration vs. forced induction.

Healthy debate, anyway. G'day.



Way ahead of you on that. Remember, a network of connected, autonomous vehicles could use a model similar in to today's other forms of public transportation. Of course, unlike a commuter train or subway, they can go anywhere. So people who are not able to use the those types of transportation may be able to participate. As such adoption numbers can extend beyond what we see today, allowing more folks to go "carless". How far does it scale? Well it sure does have a limit, no denying that. Old Joe in rural BFE might be left out. But again, we aren't looking that far out yet. This is just the first round.



Accident free is great, but not necessary. Accidents are anomalies. Traffic is a daily issue, so traffic control is the big win. How much money does it all cost? More than you and I could ever behold, but not more than the hundreds of billions the industry is collectively willing to spend over the next two to three decades and beyond.

So just to qualify something... I'm involved with the NextGen air traffic management effort, so I'm no Luddite when it comes to technology and transportation. I understand the costs involved. And I'm fully aware of the "adoption" concept; it is far more difficult than you think.

Statistically accidents are anomalies even now with human drivers. One of the major pushes of autonomous vehicles is to get the human (error) out of the traffic flow and let computers (error-free computers - LOL) take over the driving duties. Eliminating accidents will eliminate deaths is what is touted as the main reason to switch to autonomous driving. The reason public rail transportation is so safe is because the timing of traffic and the location of vehicles relative to each other is highly controlled. I'll say again, to create an accident free autonomous traffic environment means every trip will have to be known, timed, and executed without error. The have-to-be-known part is where I find difficulty; I don't see Americans, even Millennials, accepting a governmental authority knowing every place they are going. Murphy's law dictates execution without error is not possible. It also means that non-autonomous vehicles can't be in the traffic flow since they will be too unpredictable, which means how does the transportation system convert millions of vehicles from driver driven vehicles to autonomous driven basically overnight? The premise that this will all work without a central authority controlling traffic is a misnomer. The premise that it can slowly be adopted because a non-centralized control system where autonomous vehicles control traffic and avoid accidents by talking to each other will be utilized rather than a central control system is a misnomer. I work with DOT government officials every day, they do not and cannot think in terms of letting private industry develop the system on its own; you can hope for it to happen that way, but the DOT will not allow it to happen without government intervention.

The Government wants autonomous driving for control over its citizens in the name of "safety". Engineers want to do it for the technical challenge. Automotive/Tech companies want to make it the future so riders can Google while they drive and increase their profits (I'm all for making profit BTW). I'd rather see a push for better driver training, more refresher training (not just when you get a traffic ticket), and make it far more difficult to get and retain a driver's license. It would be far less expensive and allow continued use of the current transportation system architecture rather than a complete overhaul of it.

Your concept of Old Rural Joe is completely erroneous; there is no technology that can be added to an autonomous vehicle that can avoid deer...

And for those who are willing to give up their daily driving duties to autonomy in trade for weekend use of their non-autonomous car, where exactly will you be able to drive it and how will you get it there?

And lastly, someone tell me how you package the sensor suite, control electronics, and automation hardware on to a motorcycle.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

So just to qualify something... I'm involved with the NextGen air traffic management effort, so I'm no Luddite when it comes to technology and transportation.

Great! I'm sure you're a very sharp guy. Hopefully your contributions to the industry are not going unnoticed.

A little healthy skepticism is needed to develop better solutions, so I have nothing but respect for your position. I for one am looking forward to see how all of these challenges are overcome in the coming years and am eager to see how the advancements in mobility and autonomous machines help make our lives better.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

Great! I'm sure you're a very sharp guy. Hopefully your contributions to the industry are not going unnoticed.

A little healthy skepticism is needed to develop better solutions, so I have nothing but respect your position. I for one am looking forward to see how all of these challenges are overcome in the coming years and am eager to see how the advancements in mobility and autonomous machines help make our lives better.

Going unnoticed is exactly what I want, to be honest.

The reason accidents happen is because people don't take driving seriously, don't practice at it, and ignore the responsibility associated with it. It's the ultimate freedom, but if you want to give up that freedom for some perceived convenience and subrogation of the responsibility, then enjoy the concept and hope it will become a reality. The autonomous future you seek is multiple decades away if at all.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

It's the ultimate freedom, but if you want to give up that freedom for some perceived convenience and subrogation of the responsibility, then enjoy the concept and hope it will become a reality. The autonomous future you hypothesize about is multiple decades away if at all.

Small tweak.

My primary concern is staying relatively informed and, academically or otherwise, drawing my own conclusions. This is fun to speculate about, sure, but the inevitability of the future in these areas is there regardless of whether I were to actively search for a specific path or not. My personal goals are much more modest, much more within my control, and only concern my immediate sphere of influence. I do my best not to interleave my own long term satisfaction with the agendas of big business and big government.

Cheers!

[zx10guy]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Going unnoticed is exactly what I want, to be honest.

The reason accidents happen is because people don't take driving seriously, don't practice at it, and ignore the responsibility associated with it. It's the ultimate freedom, but if you want to give up that freedom for some perceived convenience and subrogation of the responsibility, then enjoy the concept and hope it will become a reality. The autonomous future you seek is multiple decades away if at all.

+100000

Wrecks are not anomalies here in the DC Metro area. They occur on a regular basis even with pristine environmental conditions. It amazes me how the idiot drivers here figure out how to crash their cars. If autonomous vehicles are not available to remove the idiots from the roads, and we all know the gates to getting a driver's license is a joke in this country, I just hope the insurance rates for these inept drivers gets to the point where they're priced out of being able to drive.

On the subject of autonomous cars, it will never work for someone like me. I live on the outer fringes of the suburbs. Even though I'm based out of my home, I sometimes have meetings that get scheduled at the last minute with clients. Or I have meetings on opposite ends of the DC Metro area. I have last minute cancellations of meetings. I also find myself picking up or dropping off large IT equipment and some of the facilities are secure facilities where a random ride share wouldn't be allowed onto the grounds.

[mkoesel]

And since I notice the OP changed the topic slightly

BMW no longer will be a carmaker exclusively?

They haven't been that for years. For one thing, they also sell motorcycles.

But in addition to that, like many other automotive manufacturers, they've experimented with other forms of mobility. For example, they've worked with bicycle manufacturers. They've also rolled out a ride sharing service in a couple major cities (can't remember the details, but you'll find more about it if you search this forum).

[DDD31]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

And since I notice the OP changed the topic slightly

Ummmm I never changed the topic, one of your fellow mods sanitized it. Probably didn't care for the sensationalist headline.

[David70]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Statistically accidents are anomalies even now with human drivers. One of the major pushes of autonomous vehicles is to get the human (error) out of the traffic flow and let computers (error-free computers - LOL) take over the driving duties. Eliminating accidents will eliminate deaths is what is touted as the main reason to switch to autonomous driving. The reason public rail transportation is so safe is because the timing of traffic and the location of vehicles relative to each other is highly controlled. I'll say again, to create an accident free autonomous traffic environment means every trip will have to be known, timed, and executed without error.

There are over 5 million car accidents per year in the U.S., hardly an "anomoly". Not seeing why it has to eliminate all accidents before it still makes sense and I haven't seen anyone touting the elimination of all accidents.

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I'll say again, to create an accident free autonomous traffic environment means every trip will have to be known, timed, and executed without error. The have-to-be-known part is where I find difficulty; I don't see Americans, even Millennials, accepting a governmental authority knowing every place they are going. Murphy's law dictates execution without error is not possible. It also means that non-autonomous vehicles can't be in the traffic flow since they will be too unpredictable, which means how does the transportation system convert millions of vehicles from driver driven vehicles to autonomous driven basically overnight?

Agree that it is unlikely to ever have an accident environment. Not seen one autonomous system manufacturer that is expecting all cars to be tracked before it comes to market. The possibility of all before any is impossible.

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

The Government wants autonomous driving for control over its citizens in the name of "safety". Engineers want to do it for the technical challenge. Automotive/Tech companies want to make it the future so riders can Google while they drive and increase their profits (I'm all for making profit BTW). I'd rather see a push for better driver training, more refresher training (not just when you get a traffic ticket), and make it far more difficult to get and retain a driver's license. It would be far less expensive and allow continued use of the current transportation system architecture rather than a complete overhaul of it.

You are completely missing out on the consumer, the one ultimately paying for it, pushing the market to do it.

The people buying Tesla's and then talking about how great the autonomous systems are (and it is far from perfect) have nothing to do with the above. Vast majority of the money being spent is from companies, not the government. The push is coming from people like me that want to buy it for their day to day driving. Car manufacturers investing billions so I can Google on the way to work? If I am not driving I will be on my laptop, or tablet, probably on a Hotspot, I see very little additional profit here. Engineers doing it for the challenge? Engineers get the funding to do projects because the company they work for thinks there is money to be made, think they have to do it to keep up with the competition, or because it is an industry requirement. Engineers at a company don't get to present new plans for products based on a challenge.

The "driver training" is true but this has been discussed to death with no actual action. We aren't interested in spending the time or money to make it happen and as all of the manufacturers and tech companies develop the autonomous systems they don't have to ask the general public for money or if they think it is a good idea. They already made a business decision on their own to do it.

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Your concept of Old Rural Joe is completely erroneous; there is no technology that can be added to an autonomous vehicle that can avoid deer...

And for those who are willing to give up their daily driving duties to autonomy in trade for weekend use of their non-autonomous car, where exactly will you be able to drive it and how will you get it there?

And lastly, someone tell me how you package the sensor suite, control electronics, and automation hardware on to a motorcycle.

Your idea that all cars have to be able to be tracked and autonomous before any car can be autonomous isn't shared by the many companies developing the systems. Requiring all before one will never happen. Roughly 15 million cars are sold each year, a tiny part of the total on the road, average car is over 10 years old so even if you said all cars had to have the system it would be many years before even the first autonomous car could hit the road.

As for the technological challenges, making it work in stop and go traffic, at low speeds and the chances of a serious accident are close to zero, then, make it work on limited access highways and many would find this a selling feature on a car. I don't see either of these scenarios being impossible and a good first step to making a complete system but still having one that people will pay for.

If MB, and Audi had autonomous systems that worked well and BMW had nothing it would be a huge sales disadvantage to BMW, possibly a killer. Ask any potential BMW owner if they or anyone that drives the car would like to sometimes like the car to drive itself and I think you would find a huge number would say "yes".

Your concept of Old Rural Joe is completely erroneous; there is no technology that can be added to an autonomous vehicle that can avoid deer...

Isn't there currently a TV commercial that has kids running behind the or in front of a moving car and the car automatically braking before it runs the kid over? This technology seems to be seeing a moving body, pretty small, and reacting to it. Impossible?

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

Fully-automated rail cars would be many times easier to engineer than fully-automated road cars. How come we're not there already? We haven't even been able to fully implement Positive Train Control with an Engineer on board!

The next most-obvious use for automated vehicles would be vehicles that follow routes. It would make more economic and technical sense for UPS, FedEx and other logistics companies to implement this concept before personal-use vehicles.

I believe the push for automated personal vehicles is rooted in the wishful-desire (by some) to minimize or eliminate personal ownership of motor vehicles. If the true goal was efficiency we'd start with long-haul trucks and local delivery vehicles.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by David70

There are over 5 million car accidents per year in the U.S., hardly an "anomoly". Not seeing why it has to eliminate all accidents before it still makes sense and I haven't seen anyone touting the elimination of all accidents.



Agree that it is unlikely to ever have an accident environment. Not seen one autonomous system manufacturer that is expecting all cars to be tracked before it comes to market. The possibility of all before any is impossible.




You are completely missing out on the consumer, the one ultimately paying for it, pushing the market to do it.

The people buying Tesla's and then talking about how great the autonomous systems are (and it is far from perfect) have nothing to do with the above. Vast majority of the money being spent is from companies, not the government. The push is coming from people like me that want to buy it for their day to day driving. Car manufacturers investing billions so I can Google on the way to work? If I am not driving I will be on my laptop, or tablet, probably on a Hotspot, I see very little additional profit here. Engineers doing it for the challenge? Engineers get the funding to do projects because the company they work for thinks there is money to be made, think they have to do it to keep up with the competition, or because it is an industry requirement. Engineers at a company don't get to present new plans for products based on a challenge.

The "driver training" is true but this has been discussed to death with no actual action. We aren't interested in spending the time or money to make it happen and as all of the manufacturers and tech companies develop the autonomous systems they don't have to ask the general public for money or if they think it is a good idea. They already made a business decision on their own to do it.



Your idea that all cars have to be able to be tracked and autonomous before any car can be autonomous isn't shared by the many companies developing the systems. Requiring all before one will never happen. Roughly 15 million cars are sold each year, a tiny part of the total on the road, average car is over 10 years old so even if you said all cars had to have the system it would be many years before even the first autonomous car could hit the road.

As for the technological challenges, making it work in stop and go traffic, at low speeds and the chances of a serious accident are close to zero, then, make it work on limited access highways and many would find this a selling feature on a car. I don't see either of these scenarios being impossible and a good first step to making a complete system but still having one that people will pay for.

If MB, and Audi had autonomous systems that worked well and BMW had nothing it would be a huge sales disadvantage to BMW, possibly a killer. Ask any potential BMW owner if they or anyone that drives the car would like to sometimes like the car to drive itself and I think you would find a huge number would say "yes".

Isn't there currently a TV commercial that has kids running behind the or in front of a moving car and the car automatically braking before it runs the kid over? This technology seems to be seeing a moving body, pretty small, and reacting to it. Impossible?

You mean the ones where the car is slowly backing out of the driveway?

Even if there are 5M car accidents a year, it is a pittance compared to the possible accidents that could happen. There are hundreds of millions if not billions of instances where cars could run into each other each year. I'll rely on myself for my safety. I'm not giving it over to a computer.

[NickyC]

We're all going to be dead before robot cars are even a noticeable amount of the total cars on the road. Everybody calm down.

All these folks saying it's it's coming (!!!) are the same types of folks who said we'd have heated streets in the winter time, all the telephone poles would be underground, and cars would fly. Crap like this moves at a glacial pace, it's your great grandkids who might never have the pleasure of driving their own vehicle and be turned into pod people.

[lab_rat]

Originally Posted by DDD31

Interesting quote from Harald Krueger the CEO of BMW at the Geneva International Motor Show:

“We’re transforming BMW from a carmaker into a tech company and a mobility-service provider,” Krueger said in response to questions from Bloomberg. “During this transformation, there’s one constant factor: a rigorous focus on what helps our customers and what they desire.”

Full article:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-lull-persists

A tech company and mobility-service provider????

BMW's new slogan "The ultimate mobility-service provider"

I think all to often we tend to forget BMW's origins. It only makes sense that BMW gets "back in the game" by engineering/diversifying its portfolio.

I welcome the change. Creativity and competition yield innovation and increased quality. It's a win-win for consumers.