Camino LS6

The mention of this in the ELR thread got me thinking about the topic. Recently, google was licensed to operate their driverless cars on public highways in California. At least, that's the gist of what I heard a short while ago on the radio in the form of a news report. This raises all sorts of questions, and fears. The way I see it, those fears are somewhat unfounded. Yes, those pursuing this technology like to daydream about magically eliminating traffic jams and accidents in a world without human drivers. But things are unlikely to work out that way. Resistance will come from all quarters (and with good reason), it would be a long and bloody battle to enforce this vision of the future with bitterness and rebellion throughout. I don't think things will happen that way. To begin with, there would be a long period of overlap with manually-operated cars. This necessitates that the autonomous cars be flawless in their interaction with manually-operated cars. That technology isn't there yet - period. And, what of sudden failure of the systems in such cars? Manual override will be a required feature. And there would be the issue of liability when a system failure causes an accident. What would the exposure be for the car's owner? For their insurance company? For the manufacturer of the autonomous systems? For the manufacturer of the car itself? In short, it will be a very long incubation cycle. Today, even with the sophisticated autopilot systems in airplanes, we still have pilots. The principles involved are the same. I expect a long period in which the owner/operator of a driverless car will be required to be able, and prepared, to take over if needed. So, the fears of a mandate from on high that we all become passive passengers are premature at best. The realities of transition make that unlikely. Nor would such policies be very smart, as they would create great conflict where none need occur. Fighting tooth and nail for the absolute shift to this technology would be a fool's errand. It is something that will need to evolve from the challenge of a mixed driving environment with all of its variables. As the technology becomes seasoned by its time in what seems to be an adverse environment, it can only become safer and more reliable. Those chasing after the dreams of a top-down mandate, would serve themselves better by adopting the approach of driverless technology as an augmentation of current systems rather than a replacement. Why spit into the wind? For those of us who find the idea of being forced into autonomous transportation pods to be abhorrent, we should also take a breath and think it over. What if you are exhausted, but really need to be somewhere at a time certain? What if you want to have just one more beer at a gathering? Or what if you have a medical condition, illness, or injury that inhibits your ability to drive? Wouldn't it be nice to let the computer drive when the need is real? Imagine what continued mobility would mean to seniors who can no longer drive due to impaired vision. The benefits could work for all of us, as long as the technology can be made failsafe. And the only way , in my view, to make it failsafe is to develop it within the crucible of an environment which includes human drivers and all of the variables they introduce to that environment. Those still seeing a mandated driving utopia, as well as those fearing the same, should consider the necessity of the process I have outlined here before digging trenches, and fixing bayonets. We can all win with such an approach.

It is human nature to be wary of any perceived differences - it is how we are wired. Condemning those differences is where we become racist.

Is that really racism, or just a shallow nature?

Driverless cars are still a long way off as a practical reality. That's not to say that the tech isn't there, just that real-world application of it on any large scale is years, if not decades, away. I expect to be dead before such cars become mandated - if they ever do. And if that arrives early, well, I'll just have to be an outlaw in my old age. It would be a very dangerous thing to attempt to stop me from driving. EDIT: In any case, I see no connection between electric propulsion and driverless cars.

in theory yes, in practice not as often as it sounds cheery. people like the comfort food aspect of dating someone of your same race, culture, value set, aestethic group....... to be honest, if i were ever single again, even if i found somebody interesting outside my own 'race'.....even if she seemed awesome on the surface, if her family and culture were something that was outside my preference or comfort zone I would probably move on. That really wasn't the point, Reg. None of us can help who we love, so there is no point in making an issue of anyone's choice. If you are attracted to someone, that's just how it is.

The fact that the front looks different is a good thing.

Trucks will likely be there, but I don't know that for sure.

The local Chevy Store has an Avalanche in a very nice green tucked into the corner of the lot (new ). If I had the budget, I'd be hearing it call my name.

Take it from a guy who has worked out of pickups for decades, getting this feature right will be a big win and major sales tool. GM HAD it right in the Avalanche in 2002! I haven't had the pleasure of testing that, but it doesn't surprise me. I think cancelling Avalanche was an error.

I don't.

I think Via is wise to aim this at large fleets, they have lots of number crunching to do before the public will pick up more than a handful of these.

I don't think it will be there, the Vette will not.

I have to agree, Ocn. Changing the styling now would be an unnecessary risk. It works, don't mess with it.

Or you are getting old. Scratch that option as having any bearing! It's just that the ELR is damn good looking - including the interior.

That sort of "cargo light" is all but useless, all it does is blind you while trying to work out of the bed at night. As far as the idea goes, it's a good one - provided you get it right. The GMC concept is very attractive looking, and the Atlas tucks the lights up under the rail in a safer location. The thing is, for it to be a real plus, cargo lighting has to be effective and durable. The GMC concept is beautiful, and would likely light things up effectively - but it wouldn't survive a week in a work truck. The Atlas concept might protect the lights better, but looks to be ineffective in actually providing useable light. The "production version" in the '14 is a Pep Boys special - a joke. Take it from a guy who has worked out of pickups for decades, getting this feature right will be a big win and major sales tool.

At $79k, this is interesting, but not "must have".

It won't be at the Philly show, so It will be some time before I get to see it in person. With that in mind, I'll likely be skipping the Philly show again this year.

It must be working. I hate FWD, and I'm not big on electrics or small cars. And I'm known for not loving Cadillac all that much. Yet, I am falling in love with the ELR.

Interesting.

More here: http://www.viamotors.com/

Well now that's interesting. Still need more detail.

Hmmm... I'm usually with Lutz on things, but on this one I'm a skeptic.

It will have to be sold. I have a few things still to do to get it ready, but I'm nearly there. It is very hard to stop improving things, but I'll have to draw a line somewhere. Lots of blood, sweat, tears, and money in this one.

Love knows no bounds. Isn't that the simple truth of it?

Mr. Green got his shiny new stickers this morning. Passed inspection and emissions with flying colors.