And electric cars do absolutely noting to curb sprawl -- in fact they might end up enabling it.

And electric cars do absolutely noting to curb sprawl -- in fact they might end up enabling it.

 

There might be some interesting unintended consequences if the electric cars become very popular but their range does not significantly improve. People's daily commute will be limited to a certain distance because they need to make a round trip from home to work before recharging. Also the popularity of road trips might fall off significantly because fewer people will own gas cars that they can quickly refuel along the trip. Or maybe the popularity of people renting gas cars for a weekend getaway or roadtrip will vastly increase.

Many Americans don't get that though. They daily drive vehicles with capacity that they only use once a year. The possibility of a $25 kitchen table score from the thrift store puts them on the hook for an extra $1000 a year in car expenses every year.

Many Americans don't get that though. They daily drive vehicles with capacity that they only use once a year. The possibility of a $25 kitchen table score from the thrift store puts them on the hook for an extra $1000 a year in car expenses every year.

 

Yeah that motivates tons of minivan and pickup truck purchases.  It's quite rare to actually see something big in somebody's truck bed. 

 

I wouldn't get your hopes up for a significantly longer useful life for an electric car versus an internal combustion vehicle.  Engines aren't typically the life limiting component in a vehicle.  It's all the other stuff that adds up and makes replacement a more attractive option.  Sure, on paper the motors that they use in electric vehicles may last 1,000,000 miles, but most of the components on that car won't make it a quarter of that.  You're still going to have issues with shocks, the brake system, air conditioner, body corrosion,  etc.  Just like a normal ICE vehicle. 

 

I traded in a 2001 Altima with 175,000 miles on it for nominal value when I got my LEAF.  It had had a lot of things go wrong with it and more was starting to happen.  But the A/C had only died on my once in those 175,000 miles (though it already had 103k on it when I bought it, so it might have died once before I owned it).  The body was holding up well.  With the exception of the struts (which are generally rated for 120,000 miles and I did in fact have to replace them around 125,000), every other major repair I needed was something that an electric car doesn't have.  Transmission.  Alternator.  Distributor.

 

The 20% number is a ballpark figure. Of course it depends on how your utility generates their electricity, etc. I was just trying to make the point that electric cars are only slightly more efficient than gas-powered cars. Anyone who drives an electric car thinking they're "saving the planet" and not polluting the environment is wrong. At the end of the day people driving an electric car to work are harming the planet a lot more than people who take transit, walk, or bike to work.

 

I don't pitch electric cars as planet-savers.  I'm a global warming skeptic.  I'd be hypocritical if that were my pitch.  But you're making two separate arguments when you say that they're "saving the planet" and that they're only a little bit more efficient than gasoline cars.  From a financial standpoint, in terms of dollars per mile, they are considerably more efficient than gasoline cars, with the exception of course of the energy storage issue, simply because gasoline is inherently efficient at storing energy (very energy dense).  But in terms of cost of energy, electric cars remain considerably more efficient even with the price of gasoline greatly moderated in recent years by the fracking boom.  I estimate that my cost of going 30 miles (my rough benchmark for comparison against a gallon of gas) is about $1.33, and I in no way drive to maximize efficiency.  The diplomatic way to put it is that I drive to minimize travel time.  That's without counting any savings from reduced maintenance, no need for oil changes, no belts, no transmission fluid.  Obviously I still will need replacement tires, shocks/struts, etc. at some point, but there's almost no category of expenses in which electric cars are more expensive than similarly sized ICE cars.

 

^Fuel and emissions are only one part of the problem. How do you dispose of used car tires? What happens to the seats and non-metal parts when the car is eventually scrapped? How many square feet of asphalt pavement does the car require? How many people are injured or die in car crashes?

 

An electric car is still a car.

 

Sure, it's not presented as an alternative to a car.  It's clearly a car.  Though among those categories you noted, it's worth noting that electric cars, largely because of the influence of Tesla, have outstanding crash safety ratings.

 

And electric cars do absolutely noting to curb sprawl -- in fact they might end up enabling it.

 

I gather that this was the underlying motive of 8&S' comment, too.  The electric car may well be the savior of sprawl, absolutely.  Combining sustainable, distributed energy generation if solar panels can be made grid-competitive residential options (still a little ways off but progressing rapidly) with the ability to use that energy for both home and transportation needs would absolutely change the energy economics of sprawl, even though there would still be issues with impermeable surfaces and other things that are less directly related to energy consumption.  But the fact that electric cars might make sprawl more sustainable in the realms of economics and energy is neither a bug nor a feature of the electric car.  I certainly would prefer a more urban, walkable lifestyle, but a great deal of sprawl is already built and unlikely to go anywhere.  The choice is not between those people living in the burbs driving gas guzzlers vs. demolishing their homes and moving to urban townhomes and biking everywhere.  The choice is between those people living in their suburban homes and driving gas guzzlers everywhere vs. living there while driving something more sustainable vs. selling their home to someone who will fall into one of the former camps.

 

And electric cars do absolutely noting to curb sprawl -- in fact they might end up enabling it.

 

There might be some interesting unintended consequences if the electric cars become very popular but their range does not significantly improve. People's daily commute will be limited to a certain distance because they need to make a round trip from home to work before recharging. Also the popularity of road trips might fall off significantly because fewer people will own gas cars that they can quickly refuel along the trip. Or maybe the popularity of people renting gas cars for a weekend getaway or roadtrip will vastly increase.

 

The next generation of electric cars will have sufficient range to let people commute two ways and charge at home.  My LEAF does dramatically limit my range because of its 24kWh battery, which maxes out around 90 miles, less on the highway.  That won't even get me to Cleveland and back from Akron.  But the 60kWh+ batteries of the Teslas and the newer EV offerings from other manufacturers will do that.  Comparatively few people, especially in Ohio, commute the length of multiple counties for work, or even routinely need to do so for business travel.  There definitely are some (a couple of the attorneys in my old firm had to routinely go from Akron to Toledo and even Cincinnati, at least a few times a month, and one of my friends who works in medical device sales has territory stretching from Erie to south of Columbus).  Those will be the last people to switch.  But your average person commuting from Medina or Twinsburg to Akron will not need to face any range anxiety with the latest generation vehicles.

If they own a garage. I wasn't able to get a decent garage of my own until I was 37.

Battery technology isn't improving very fast, though. Our best hope is to have more charging stations and faster charging technology. If we get to the point where rural hotels and fast food restaurants have quick-charge stations, it might be possible to do a coast to coast roadtrip in an electric car without having to worry too much about running out of juice.

Magnets in the electric motors get weaker by the second.

 

Wait what?  Magnets don't wear out, and do traction motors even have any permanent magnets at all?  Electromagnets don't wear out either.  The most common problem is that the brushes wear out, and those are pretty simple to replace so long as there's not too much damage to the commutator.  Excessive current draw due to control failure/overdriving, overheating, or excessive dirt and moisture can damage the windings.  The RC car anecdote is probably from better insulation between the windings and overall better winding done by hand versus a cheap mass-production facility for toy-level components.  The only other problem I can think of is bearing failure, which can then lead to rotor damage and possible shorting out of the windings because of it.  That's the more likely source of motors "slowing down" over time than anything else.

Both hand-wound and machine-wound motors were available in hobby grade R/C back in the brushed days. Most brushes and commutators were soft in the applications in order to increase power and RPM, but these motors were not cheap... up to $80 in early '90s dollars. I can't imagine any full-sized car sold today comes with a brushed motor. And magnets indeed don't wear out... but they do lose magnetism. Most hand-wound R/C motors from that time came with dyno sheets, with the hot ones of the time (12 turn and under) making over 500 watts. You'd be lucky to get 250 watts out of them today even with a freshly turned commutator and new brushes.

 

So basically I'm reiterateing that it doesn't matter how much the motor is used or not used. What matters is how much time passes. If you see an old car on the road, you can safely bet it has a newer starter even if it has 10,000 miles.

From a financial standpoint, in terms of dollars per mile, they are considerably more efficient than gasoline cars.

 

Did you count the initial purchase price?

 

 

Magnets in the electric motors get weaker by the second.

 

Wait what?  Magnets don't wear out, and do traction motors even have any permanent magnets at all?  Electromagnets don't wear out either.  The most common problem is that the brushes wear out, and those are pretty simple to replace so long as there's not too much damage to the commutator.  Excessive current draw due to control failure/overdriving, overheating, or excessive dirt and moisture can damage the windings.  The RC car anecdote is probably from better insulation between the windings and overall better winding done by hand versus a cheap mass-production facility for toy-level components.  The only other problem I can think of is bearing failure, which can then lead to rotor damage and possible shorting out of the windings because of it.  That's the more likely source of motors "slowing down" over time than anything else.

 

I'd just like to point out that brushes, commutators, and permanent magnets have no place in the Electric Car discussion at least as it relates to Tesla.  Tesla uses AC induction motors which don't require any of these components to function.  It's interesting to me that they felt it was worth it to include an inverter in the vehicle so that they could eliminate the brushes, commutators, and/or permanent magnet rotors.

Magnets in the electric motors get weaker by the second.

 

Wait what?  Magnets don't wear out, and do traction motors even have any permanent magnets at all?  Electromagnets don't wear out either.  The most common problem is that the brushes wear out, and those are pretty simple to replace so long as there's not too much damage to the commutator.  Excessive current draw due to control failure/overdriving, overheating, or excessive dirt and moisture can damage the windings.  The RC car anecdote is probably from better insulation between the windings and overall better winding done by hand versus a cheap mass-production facility for toy-level components.  The only other problem I can think of is bearing failure, which can then lead to rotor damage and possible shorting out of the windings because of it.  That's the more likely source of motors "slowing down" over time than anything else.

 

I'd just like to point out that brushes, commutators, and permanent magnets have no place in the Electric Car discussion at least as it relates to Tesla.  Tesla uses AC induction motors which don't require any of these components to function.  It's interesting to me that they felt it was worth it to include an inverter in the vehicle so that they could eliminate the brushes, commutators, and/or permanent magnet rotors.

 

Some serious RC hobbyists here (or electricians ...) ... ELI5?

In the logistics world, propane-powered fork lifts seem to have an edge in popularity over electric primarily because the same lift can operate for multiple shifts.  To my knowledge they haven't invented an electric fork lift with switchable batteries (some of them are old-school with a bunch of water in them), so an electric lift has to sit there all night recharging. 

 

Anecdotally, however, it seems that the electric lifts require less ongoing maintenance than propane lifts.  The electric lifts definitely accelerate much faster and more quietly than propane. 

Some serious RC hobbyists here (or electricians ...) ... ELI5?

 

Not a hobbyist or an electrician, but I am an engineer with some experience with electric motors.  I'll give you the really quick explanation of the differences between the three basic motor types; DC, brushless DC, and AC induction. 

 

DC motors have a fixed magnetic field induced in the stator by the continuous DC current.  Brushes connect the rotor to the commutator on the stator and switch the electric field within the rotor to counteract the stator's magnetic field.  By timing this at the proper phase angle you achieve torque which spins the motor.  Essentially they work by switching the DC current in the rotor.

 

Brushless DC motors (BLDC) use permanent magnet rotors and switch the magnetic field induced in the stator through a controller which also converts the power from DC to AC.  Hall effect sensors detect the rotation of the rotor and switch the current automatically to induce torque.  Essentially they work by switching the current in the stator.

 

AC induction motors generate magnetic waves in the stator by means of the sinusoidal nature of AC current.  This also induces a magnetic field in the rotor which, when coupled with the stator magnetic field creates torque.  Essentially you have a "rotating" magnetic field on the stator which induces a magnetic field in the rotor and creates torque.  The design is made simpler by the very nature of alternating current which causes the stator's magnetic field to "rotate" in sync with the AC oscillations (frequency).  You avoid the need for a permanent magnet rotor because a magnetic field can be induced in the rotor (hence AC induction motor) through magnetic flux.

 

EDIT - This may be more of an ELI17... sorry.

It seems the sporty nature of Tesla's electric cars is causing them to be involved in accidents at a much higher rate than the average vehicle. :

 

AAA raising insurance rates for Tesla owners

 

http://www.leftlanenews.com/aaa-raising-insurance-costs-for-tesla-owners-96345.html

 

AAA is making it more expensive to insure a Tesla Model S or a Model X.

 

After examining a report from the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI), AAA concluded Tesla cars crash more often than comparable models, and they're considerably more expensive to repair. The data covered cars from the 2014, 2015, and 2016 model years.

 

The report suggests the rear-wheel drive Model S is involved in 46 percent more accidents than average, while repair costs are over 50 percent higher than the industry average. Those percentages check in at 41 and 89, respectively, for the Model X. As a result, Tesla owners insured through AAA will soon see a 30-percent hike in insurance rates.

They crash a lot because techies are bad drivers that are also distracted a lot by the tech all over the place. Of course the company's huge mouth opens and cries foul about other cars.

Automakers like adding tech to cars so that the gee-gaws get people excited in the showroom. But the automakers don't like the cost of making the tech secure against hackers. Many of these features are only used for the first couple of weeks of car ownership then they lie dormant for the next 15-20 years of the car's existence. That means that the car can become vulnerable at any time much in the same way you have to update the ton of apps that your phone comes with that you never use but can't remove. Since people keep cars much longer than phones, this means that the car companies will have to keep spending money to secure old cars as exploits get revealed.

 

Since electric cars rely much more on 1s and 0s than ICE cars hacking is a giant concern. Notorious for penny-pinching, American automakers might find themselves cutting back on tech rather than committing to perpetual updates.

 

 

Your Car Could Be the Next Ransomware Target

 

Cybersecurity experts say there are plenty of vulnerabilities for enterprising ransom-seeking hackers, unless automakers act

 

 

The reason cars are such inviting targets for ransomware hackers is that they’re increasingly computerized. And as automakers have transferred more and more functions to processors, they've neglected to install the same levels of security found in other modern devices—such as phones and laptops.

 

“Once you connect the car to the internet, the entire vehicle becomes a threat surface. If the auto industry doesn’t adapt, we’ll continue to see mistakes and potential vulnerabilities for things like ransomware to take place,”

 

“We don’t really like to put fear in consumers’ minds," says Lance from Argus Security in Tel Aviv, "but maybe that’s what it will take to get the manufacturers to act."

 

http://www.consumerreports.org/hacking/your-car-could-be-the-next-ransomware-target/

 

^I admit that I had never thought of that.  Just think about how a car maker might decide to stop "supporting" a 10 year-old car just like they stop making parts for it.  The hacking will immobilize it much more quickly than an inability to replace some fuses or some "module". 

Which is very wasteful and environmentally destructive

I still think this sounds like a solvable problem, and also one that probably won't be extraordinarily widespread--probably similar to its level in the regular IT industry today, which is definitely annoying (and of course criminal) but doesn't impact the viability of the sector.

^I admit that I had never thought of that.  Just think about how a car maker might decide to stop "supporting" a 10 year-old car just like they stop making parts for it.  The hacking will immobilize it much more quickly than an inability to replace some fuses or "module". 

 

This reminds me of the issue that farmers have with John Deere equipment. Modern farm equipment are basically computers and it is against John Deere's Terms of Service for farmers to do their own repair work or take them to be repaired anywhere other than John Deere licensed shops.

It's the worst. Having to take a piece of equipment anywhere but your own shop (as in the one at your main farm where you work on the equipment yourself) is miserable. And flying a guy out to work on it is almost as bad. Your hands are tied if the thing breaks anytime you actually NEED it. Luckily, Russian hackers are on the case to help you jailbreak your combine. It's illegal but at least you won't starve.

https://futurism.com/these-leaked-tesla-model-3-photos-offer-you-views-of-this-decades-most-anticipated-ev/

 

Some "leaked" photos of Tesla's Model 3 (it was just some random Reddit user who saw one and took pictures) in the link above.  The production on the battery cells has begun.

They couldn't help but fluff Musk. 

So the latest Tesla self-driving software restricts the cars to "speed limits of 90 mph on highways and [...] 5 mph over the limit when off highways."

 

Why in the world wouldn't states (if not the federal government) pass laws requiring self-driving cars to obey posted speed limits, 100% of the time? The idea that we would allow self driving cars to exceed the speed limits at all is ridiculous.

Why in the world wouldn't states (if not the federal government) pass laws requiring self-driving cars to obey posted speed limits, 100% of the time?

 

Because the state and local government LOVES speeding. Seriously. Public safety isn't their main concern, because if it was we could eliminate speeding tomorrow.

 

Ticketing speeding cars is a billion dollar industry in this country.

Also, in Ohio the speed limit when you are passing someone on a 2-lane is 80 or 85.

So the latest Tesla self-driving software restricts the cars to "speed limits of 90 mph on highways and [...] 5 mph over the limit when off highways."

 

Why in the world wouldn't states (if not the federal government) pass laws requiring self-driving cars to obey posted speed limits, 100% of the time? The idea that we would allow self driving cars to exceed the speed limits at all is ridiculous.

 

Within reason, keeping pace with traffic all around you is the safest speed regardless of the speed limit.  By driving only the speed limit when everyone around you is going 10 mph over, or faster, it is much less safe to be driving the speed limit assuming you are in either the passing or middle lane.  My assumption is people that would use this auto pilot function will generally be slow to change lanes and will likely camp out in the middle or passing lanes.  Now if their cars were limited to the speed limit, this would create an unsafe situation.     

In that case, adding all these Autobots to the road essentially puts a bunch more old ladies on the road... by far the safest category of driver there is...

So the latest Tesla self-driving software restricts the cars to "speed limits of 90 mph on highways and [...] 5 mph over the limit when off highways."

 

Why in the world wouldn't states (if not the federal government) pass laws requiring self-driving cars to obey posted speed limits, 100% of the time? The idea that we would allow self driving cars to exceed the speed limits at all is ridiculous.

 

Within reason, keeping pace with traffic all around you is the safest speed regardless of the speed limit.  By driving only the speed limit when everyone around you is going 10 mph over, or faster, it is much less safe to be driving the speed limit assuming you are in either the passing or middle lane.  My assumption is people that would use this auto pilot function will generally be slow to change lanes and will likely camp out in the middle or passing lanes.  Now if their cars were limited to the speed limit, this would create an unsafe situation.     

 

Then what happens when 95% of the cars on the road are self-driving cars? They are all keeping pace with eachother. So if they are programmed to go 90 MPH on highways, all of the cars will be going 90 MPH and exceeding the speed limit by 20 MPH in Ohio.

 

Also, I was taught in drivers ed that you are not allowed to exceed the speed limit in order to pass other cars.

Hmmm, they might have taken that one off the books as two-lane passing became less common.

So the latest Tesla self-driving software restricts the cars to "speed limits of 90 mph on highways and [...] 5 mph over the limit when off highways."

 

Why in the world wouldn't states (if not the federal government) pass laws requiring self-driving cars to obey posted speed limits, 100% of the time? The idea that we would allow self driving cars to exceed the speed limits at all is ridiculous.

 

Within reason, keeping pace with traffic all around you is the safest speed regardless of the speed limit.  By driving only the speed limit when everyone around you is going 10 mph over, or faster, it is much less safe to be driving the speed limit assuming you are in either the passing or middle lane.  My assumption is people that would use this auto pilot function will generally be slow to change lanes and will likely camp out in the middle or passing lanes.  Now if their cars were limited to the speed limit, this would create an unsafe situation.     

 

Then what happens when 95% of the cars on the road are self-driving cars? They are all keeping pace with eachother. So if they are programmed to go 90 MPH on highways, all of the cars will be going 90 MPH and exceeding the speed limit by 20 MPH in Ohio.

 

Also, I was taught in drivers ed that you are not allowed to exceed the speed limit in order to pass other cars.

 

The fact that a car's speed is capped at 90 MPH does not mean that it will always attempt to be traveling at that cap.

 

Sight unseen, I'll wager that EVs will not be programmed to attempt to synchronize to 90 MPH traveling speeds for a long while yet.  (Of course we might get there when 90%+ of the cars on the road are autopilot, since that will be a lot safer, but the efficiency issue will still be there.)  EVs are less energy efficient on the highway, not more like most gasoline cars.  An electric car conserves range by staying under 55.  A gasoline car might actually be at its peak range at 55 MPH.  Electric cars in many ways actually prefer stop-and-start traffic.  The fact that they're capable of 90 (or 130, for a Model S) does not mean they want to be up at that threshold for long periods.

Hmmm, they might have taken that one off the books as two-lane passing became less common.

 

I dunno, maybe there is something like that on the book for two lane state routes. Kinda like how in Indiana, people under the legal driving age are allowed to operate pickup trucks since they're considered farm equipment. (No idea if that's actually true, it's just something I've heard people say.)

^ I'd much prefer an option that automatically steered idiots out of the passing lane.

 

People of Ohio, please stop camping out in the left lane. You're a hazard to everyone.

 

State of Ohio, please invest in a few highway signs as a friendly reminder to our citizenry.

^ Ohio, unfortunately, is in the group of states that does not have left lane passing laws. 

So the latest Tesla self-driving software restricts the cars to "speed limits of 90 mph on highways and [...] 5 mph over the limit when off highways."

 

Why in the world wouldn't states (if not the federal government) pass laws requiring self-driving cars to obey posted speed limits, 100% of the time? The idea that we would allow self driving cars to exceed the speed limits at all is ridiculous.

 

Within reason, keeping pace with traffic all around you is the safest speed regardless of the speed limit.  By driving only the speed limit when everyone around you is going 10 mph over, or faster, it is much less safe to be driving the speed limit assuming you are in either the passing or middle lane.  My assumption is people that would use this auto pilot function will generally be slow to change lanes and will likely camp out in the middle or passing lanes.  Now if their cars were limited to the speed limit, this would create an unsafe situation.     

 

Then what happens when 95% of the cars on the road are self-driving cars? They are all keeping pace with eachother. So if they are programmed to go 90 MPH on highways, all of the cars will be going 90 MPH and exceeding the speed limit by 20 MPH in Ohio.

 

Also, I was taught in drivers ed that you are not allowed to exceed the speed limit in order to pass other cars.

 

We cannot solve problems today that basically do not exist in any form - it's a waste of time.  When 95% of the cars on the road are self driving, we'll have a different set of problems not even thought of yet. 

 

If I play this game of future world development, a software update would just take care of this problem.  Its just as easy to find theoretical solutions to theoretical problems. 

^^ Ohio doesn't quite have a left lane passing law, but there's a requirement for a driver to move out of the way to the right when someone is trying to pass. Per code, if you're trying to pass someone who won't move to the right, you're actually supposed to lay on the horn:

 

4511.27 Overtaking and passing of vehicles proceeding in the same direction.

 

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4511.27

 

(2) Except when overtaking and passing on the right is permitted, the operator of an overtaken vehicle shall give way to the right in favor of the overtaking vehicle at the latter's audible signal, and the operator shall not increase the speed of the operator's vehicle until completely passed by the overtaking vehicle.

 

Though the next clause stats on a divided highway, you don't have to beep - implying the passee should have the common sense to move over, which is unfortunately rarely the case.

So the latest Tesla self-driving software restricts the cars to "speed limits of 90 mph on highways and [...] 5 mph over the limit when off highways."

 

Why in the world wouldn't states (if not the federal government) pass laws requiring self-driving cars to obey posted speed limits, 100% of the time? The idea that we would allow self driving cars to exceed the speed limits at all is ridiculous.

 

Within reason, keeping pace with traffic all around you is the safest speed regardless of the speed limit.  By driving only the speed limit when everyone around you is going 10 mph over, or faster, it is much less safe to be driving the speed limit assuming you are in either the passing or middle lane.  My assumption is people that would use this auto pilot function will generally be slow to change lanes and will likely camp out in the middle or passing lanes.  Now if their cars were limited to the speed limit, this would create an unsafe situation.     

 

Then what happens when 95% of the cars on the road are self-driving cars? They are all keeping pace with eachother. So if they are programmed to go 90 MPH on highways, all of the cars will be going 90 MPH and exceeding the speed limit by 20 MPH in Ohio.

 

Also, I was taught in drivers ed that you are not allowed to exceed the speed limit in order to pass other cars.

 

We cannot solve problems today that basically do not exist in any form - it's a waste of time.  When 95% of the cars on the road are self driving, we'll have a different set of problems not even thought of yet. 

 

If I play this game of future world development, a software update would just take care of this problem.  Its just as easy to find theoretical solutions to theoretical problems. 

 

I am proposing that we do not allow this problem to ever exist by requiring the makers of self driving cars to make their cars obey the posted speed limits. I know this is a radical idea, that self-driving cars would obey the rules of the road.

Isn't it iRobot where the automatic vehicles all cruise down the highway at well over 100MPH? This is one of those hypothetical that would require every car on the road to be autonomous. If mechanically capable, a self driving car would have no problem traveling/merging safely in traffic at that speed given it was actively communicating with every vehicle around it. In theory, you wouldn't even need a speed limit on limited access highways as self-driving vehicles could collectively calculate what the fastest safe speed would be and adjust accordingly, in unison. This would obviously not be the case in cities.

^It only works if ALL cars follow the laws, and that will only exist (mostly) when 90+% of cars on the roads are fully autonomous.  That will happen in the next 20-25 years, I'm guessing.

 

But it won't work if you still have humans going 15-20 mph above with autonomous vehicles going the speed limit.

There is only going to be an improvement in traffic flow if people can resist the temptation to actually drive their cars in traffic.  And I don't see how that happens without some sort of central control actually locking out manual driving in order to get cars to wait and then proceed in an orderly fashion. 

 

I'm unconvinced that people will ride in a taxi without manual controls or that they will buy a vehicle they can't drive. 

Also, when and if actual driverless cars hit the roads and they are forced to drive the speed limit (i.e. 35mph), people driving their cars will frequently pass them.  So we will have tons of wrecks out in the twisty country road suburbs as SUV's cross the double yellow to pass the geeky Google car. 

The speed limit question needs to be evaluated based on the disparity between three properties: design speed, posted speed, and desired speed.  This is a major problem with our streets today, irrespective of self-driving cars. 

 

Design speed is the speed at which the roadway is engineered.  It's what the subtle cues of lane width, curvature, presence or absence of parked cars, trees, buildings, pedestrians, sidewalks, etc. communicate to the driver about how fast they should be going.  The design speed for most interstate highways is 80 mph, regardless of the posted speed.  Wide one-way city streets with no parking say "I'm a highway" and encourage speeds of 45+ mph even if it's just drag racing between stop lights.  In many states in the country, the design manuals dropped anything below 35 mph setting a floor even on residential side streets.  An alley on the other hand, even if it's fairly wide and dead straight, tells you to go slow because of all the garages right up to the sides, the many doors and accesses where someone could come out unexpectedly, and even the rough pavement. 

 

Posted speed (speed limit) is used to try to counteract the flaws in the design speed.  Unfortunately that means people go faster than the limit because the cues they're getting are telling them it's ok.  If you have a self-driving car going the posted limit of 25 mph on a street engineered for 45 they're going to be extra frustrated, especially if the desired speed on that street is really 35, but it was posted at 25 because they assume people are going to go 10 over anyway.  That said, in many states the posted speed is required to be the 85th percentile speed.  So if you have a residential street with lots of speeding motorists, doing a speed study may actually see the limit increased because "that's the standard."

 

The desired speed is the somewhat subjective but still probably the most important.  I call it the speed people should be driving, and it's what the posted speed tries to do but may fail at because of the 85th percentile rule or because it's a "through street" or any number of other automobile-centric policies.  One can argue that any street with sidewalks, pedestrians, or cyclists shouldn't have a speed limit higher than 20 mph.  That's because an unprotected person hit by a motor vehicle at 20 mph has only a 10% chance of dying, whereas at 40 mph they have only a 10% chance of surviving.  Compare this to an interstate highway, where even in an urban setting a limit of 75 or 80 mph could actually be appropriate instead of the usual 55 that nobody obeys.  In a self-driving car situation, I can see speed limits being raised in many places even if that's not the best idea.

 

I like to compare the situation in the US with the situation in Mexico.  In the US it's assumed that people will be going at least 5 mph over the limit, if not 10 on most streets, and even more on interstate highways posted at 55.  In Mexico however, if you go over the limit at all you'll quickly get a ticket, so they usually drive a bit under.  That would suggest their posted speeds are probably more in line with their desired speeds due to more aggressive enforcement, which may make self-driving cars doing the speed limit a bit more palatable.

Great rundown jjakucyk.  And that is precisely what electric car designers here in the US are dealing with when they want electric cars to be able to go over the limit.  In practical terms, they largely just want electric cars to be able to go with the flow.

Revisiting the idea of why Tesla isn't "tech"...today I came up with what I think is a useful definition of tech...that it is able to scale extraordinarily fast because it's just software (usually), not a physical object (like hardware). There is no actual expense to the proliferation and sale of traditional software or an app. Some hardware can scale very easily because it is a small object (like a smart phone), but not others, like an actual physical tower network which must be assembled mostly by hand across a continent. 

 

So electric cars aren't really "tech" in any respect other than they've been branded as such and stock prices have shot around irrationally like tech.  The only thing letting them scale quickly is the magnificent network of roads that exist today but didn't 100 years ago. 

By that definition, Amazon isn't tech, either (except maybe for Amazon Web Services), and yet people certainly treat it more like a tech stock than a retail stock.

Because it's a web site first and foremost it gets thrown in with tech. If you ask me they are not a retailer... yet. Nobody ever called catalogs retail really, but most catalogs/mail order houses had a physical store or two somewhere like Jeg's does.

 

And I'll say it... Hipsters, nerds, unemployment, retirement, thrift stores, lack of boredom and digitized entertainment have each negatively affected traditional B&M as much or more than Amazon. But people don't think like that. They think only one thing causes everything. See, in the video game business the "Amazon Apocalypse" happened in like 2000 rather than 2013 like it did in apparel. So as a businessman I don't know a video game industry that isn't internet-dominated.

To be honest, although I agree that 'tech' is too often associated with 'software' particularly, I think some of you under-estimate how complicated and even how innovative software can be. Software isn't a tangible object but it's rendering a lot of physical objects obsolete, through engineering. It's doing so, in ways that save companies a lot of money and manage to under-cut competition so I think that's where investors get excited about 'tech companies.'

 

I'm not a gamer and I'm curious how video game stores are able to survive. You don't need physical video games anymore, do you? Isn't it easier to just download games from a cloud? I guess they protect their software to the extent that you can't simply download a game and then manage to trade them with your friends by copying the file, even though you've paid for it. That's an incredibly genius way of generating more revenue. If it were easy to transfer those files to another machine, people would have no need to buy physical copies anymore and buying the physical copies at least allows you to trade the game once you've conquered it or are bored with it.

Much of our business is retro games. The downloads only make the value of the original cartridge go up. Plus the rights to a lot of older games makes them unavailable on download formats. I'd say only 100 of the 700+ NES games are unencumbered with legal issues.

Truthfully, with all of the empty storefronts I'm seeing all over the place, there isn't much excuse *not* to have a storefront.  I remember when skateboard shops and the like were stuck down in the basements.  Now those people can get a spot right next to Petsmart for the same price.