Beware near Teslas (if they allow autopilot in NZ)

[george formby]

Possibly

But It only took Henry Ford less than 11 years to wipe out the horse and cart market.

Horse and carts had been around for 6000 year's.

To be fair he used steam to develop a production line, streamlining manufacturing. Then he used electricity. He didn't really invent anything, just refined an existing process.
Up to a point, this is true of Tesla as well.

Hydrogen safety is a bit muddied. If a tank is punctured it evaporates faster than it can explode. Toyota have been testing their tanks with armour piercing bullets and when they do eventually puncture, nothing happens.

Any hoo, I'm off topic..... Self driving.

Military tech and hacking have to be factored in.

There is a vid of a Tesla being hacked and driven around a car park in Israel and the driver cannot do a thing about it. Same thing with other manufacturers.

[pete376403]

Safer for motorcyclist, pedestrians, and cyclists..

Isn't this where we came in? (Motorcyclists) beware near Teslas...

[Al Bundy 4eva!]

Isn't this where we came in? (Motorcyclists) beware near Teslas...

Have to disagree with you there Pete.

You take the human animal out of the equation, the vehicle can't kill anyone.

Similar to the gun debate, it's the human that pulls the trigger not the gun.

Enter Autonomous driving, no speeding, no drunk driving, no cell phone distraction, no crossing the centre line.

I couldn't imagine a safer environment for the biker community to be in, outside our own dumb arse shit.

[Berries]

Motorbikes are incompatible with the current road safety regime in NZ and allowing them on the road makes a mockery of Road to Zero. When they realise that people are still dying in their droves after the national speed limit has been dropped to 80km/h they will be looking at what else they can do beyond 'safety' cameras. We will end up being priced off the road years before autonomous vehicles become a thing.

I was at a conference about autonomous vehicles in Sydney years ago. Some dude was saying how it would be absolute gridlock in town centres once pedestrians knew that they could step out in front of a vehicle and it would stop for them. There are a few interesting ethical issues to be overcome as well, like the Trolley Problem described here - https://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...s-cars/280360/

Apart from long haul trucks on SH1 I can't see any of this shit happening in NZ in my life time.

[Al Bundy 4eva!]

Motorbikes are incompatible with the current road safety regime in NZ and allowing them on the road makes a mockery of Road to Zero. When they realise that people are still dying in their droves after the nshit happening in NZ in my life time.

Possible, but just because Ford killed off the horse and cart industry, doesn't mean we don't have a thriving horse industry in New Zealand albeit owned by the wealthy community in New Zealand.

I see should autonomous cars taking over, less motorcycle commuting and increased weekend riders, perhaps by the higher income earners as is happening now with the cost of motorcycle ownership. Young people can't afford to enter the biking community without a large income, life's already expensive enough.

They won't ban cycling or pedestrians walking.

[Al Bundy 4eva!]

I was at a conference about autonomous vehicles in Sydney years ago. Some dude was saying how it would be absolute gridlock in town centres once pedestrians knew that they could step out

I'm not sure why anyone would naturally step into a 3 tonne moving object traveling at 45kph, it's still has to stop at that speed.

I'm presuming humans would still have common courtesy for the passengers that may be in the car,and simply use the crossing.

This is unnatural to human instinct and doesn't make sense.

Unlikely, if 80% of car's are autonomous, you have no need for car parks, the space these car parks need would be transformed into safe pickup areas.

Along road sides,car parks etc, look at how much room these car parks take, if autonomous cars are consistently moving you don't need to have car parks, only when there sent home to their owners for charging.

This is the reason many people won't own cars, decreasing traffic to a certain extent.

2 car families become 1 car,1 car families becoming no car or no need to own one because an autonomous subscription is more affordable.

[Al Bundy 4eva!]

Apart from long haul trucks on SH1 I can't see any of this shit happening in NZ in my life time.

The technology is already here, I'm looking at 2025 before becoming mainstream 2030.

[Viking01]

Good point Pete

My best guess forcast would be road user charger would be increased upon 80% uptake of EVs , and obviously the remaining 20% being priced into submission.

However

I doubt there will be much of a need to own a vehicle in the cities if cars are autonomous, road user tax would likely be priced into the journey cost or the subscription to use the service,

Less vehicles on the road,less wear and tear on the roads, less accident's,lower ACC premiums and cost, lower emissions helps the farming sector move forward.

Safer for motorcyclist, pedestrians, and cyclists.

4 Fucks sake I'm starting to sound like a fucken greenie.

Afternoon.

1. Re post # 56
I'd be interested to see your rationale as to why a supposed reduced need to own (operate?) a car would necessarily translate into (significantly) "fewer cars on the road".

Given that we currently have "peaks of usage" all throughout the business day, how were you envisaging the demand of the working public (those working in a workplace remote from home) travelling back and forth between home and work being met ?

During week-ends, people go shopping, play sport and visit friends and family. During holiday periods, we have significant proportions of the population travelling (plus a more varied travel mix).

In other words, how were you expecting either (i) the "peaks in concurrent daily demand" being flattened, or (ii) the concurrent demand being met ( e.g. via bus / light rail services operating in parallel ; pools of "spare" EV's available to be requested )?

How were you going to service the different geographicareas , so that their individual levels of demand were met ?

I can see "supply vs demand" issues for both high density (high population / short distance commute) and low density (low population / longer distance) areas of population. Rental car and taxi companies currently have enough challenge ensuring adequate supply of vehicles where and when they are wanted. And Uber drivers still probably struggle to achieve economic payback for their vehicle investment.

I can't help thinking that you're possibly overlooking a number of other enablers (technical, infrastructure, social) required to be in place to provide a good working solution across the majority of the country:
e.g.
Technical: Suitable battery manufacture and recycling technology and capability to be available

Infrastructure: Increased / improved electricity generation and reticulation (long distance and local) - plus energy storage (battery) - needed to support vehicle charging

Social: Changes in people's work and social behaviours and transport patterns

2. Re post 59:
You mention Henry Ford and his vehicle plants. I think that you should also acknowledge some other factors which supported rapid adoption of motor vehicles around that time
e.g.
Environmental : In the period 1900-1910, large US cities such as New York were suffering from the number of horses needed for transport, and city roads becoming increasingly fouled by horse manure. Not to mention public health risks. The introduction of cars was a god-send in that respect.

Industrialisation: The increasing level of other industrial development that was happening in the US at that point in time (hence the growing demand for transport).

World War 1: Technological development and spread in response to war.

3. Post # 60:
Hydrogen: I'd disagree with some of your assertions regarding hydrogen. Would be happy to see some links to articles.

Solar: If we were considering solar panels and storage, were you considering this as a means of providing energy for a vehicle alone, or for a vehicle as well as a house / garage ?

If you were going to install a battery to provide energy storage, I'd be interested to see the economics (and your vehicle usage pattern) that justifies that investment decision. Whether for the vehicle alone, or in combination with providing energy to a household.

Cheers, Viking

[Al Bundy 4eva!]

Afternoon Viking

I'll answer your questions to the best of my knowledge and understanding.

-Reduced cars, is a result of lower car ownership.

-Peak hour traffic would be peak hour traffic, there's no escaping that, autonomous cars would be summoned on request

-Weekend usage, autonomous cars would be summoned to take families to sports,shopping etc. 2 car families would be 1 car families, 1 car families would be no car families.

-Peaks and usage, were not all on the road at the same time ,obviously peak times would be more busy, but take a look down your street in rush hour, there are still many cars parked in the driveway doing nothing, a wasted resource.

- Geographic areas, my forcast are heavily reliant on large populated urban areas, rural areas would still own there own EV, there low population base does not affect our greenhouse emissions. For once the city dwellers are looking out for country folk.

- Technical/ Batteries and infrastructure. Tesla batteries can last 10 to 15 years, Tesla is in the process of battery recycling, They have 10 to 15 years to build the infrastructure for the recycling of the first generation EV batteries.

-Charging networks are growing around New Zealand, this will expand as EV adoption grows. Easy money for private contractors, I'm guessing the corporations will beat them to it.

- Social changes: We are evolving as a species as technology grows, me communicating with you in this form was unheard of 25 years ago.

-Henry Ford: agree with your point.

- Environmental : interesting point you commented.

- World War 1: I don't doubt that technology especially Artificial intelligence is a danger to human existence, Tesla wants to build a safe humanoid, hopefully one that won't kill us.

- Hydrogen: my comment was preferenced with a limited understanding of Hydrogen engines, However with Tesla aiming for 2 million units this year, it's unlikely other car manufacturers would use Hydrogen as the Teslas electric engine patent has been open sourced to other car manufacturers to allow for the rapid transition to EVs.

- Solar: Tesla has the technology to store the solar roof energy which would be stored in a wall battery to power your house and ev, at this stage I believe it's too expensive, the US has just past a bill to contribute 45k towards home solar energy.

We will move in that direction, I have no time frame on this.

All my responses were from my own knowledge and research as an investor in Tesla.

DISCLAIMER: I hold a large stock position in Tesla .

Hope this helps!

[husaberg]

Axehole or boner?

He said "cagers"so moneys on axehole.
Axehole also had issues with simple words, like "they're" and their.
boner was just simple.
Axhole liked to shag goats Albundy only gets to third base with captive goats.

Great thread! I own 2 Teslas (and a Honda CBR)

There fantastic cars, it feels like a new car every time I drive it!

Maintenance you say? What maintenance! It doesn't have a fucken engine or transmission..haha brilliant absolutely brilliant!!

When full self automated driving becomes legal in NZ I expect life to be much safer as a motorcyclist, because cagers are the worst of all animals in controlling there shit .

Disclaimer: I own a large position of TSLA stock and call options.

What's funnier, is when he claims to know more than the tesla company itself than tesla does that's pure katman level narcissistic troll.
The only one that ever reached that level previously was James Walby

Teslas don't use cameras, they use a new technology in a micro chip called Dojo.

Transitioning to Tesla Vision
https://www.tesla.com/en_NZ/support/...g-tesla-vision
We are continuing the transition to Tesla Vision, our camera-based Autopilot system. Model 3 and Model Y vehicles built from June 2022 for the New Zealand market now utilise our camera-based Tesla Vision, which relies on Tesla’s advanced suite of cameras and neural net.

[pete376403]

I'm not sure why anyone would naturally step into a 3 tonne moving object traveling at 45kph, it's still has to stop at that speed. .

Did you not see 1 News item tonight about the kid who rode a bicycle in front of (and ultimately under) a moving shunting loco ? Most people are stupid and ignorant of anything that exists outside their own head.

[Al Bundy 4eva!]

Did you not see 1 News item tonight about the kid who rode a bicycle in front of (and ultimately under) a moving shunting loco ? Most people are stupid and ignorant of anything that exists outside their own head.

Didn't catch that story, but kids will be kids, I still have faith in humanity that 99.9% of us won't purposely walk Infront of a moving vehicle.

"Most" people managed to make it home tonight without being killed.

[Al Bundy 4eva!]

Just re reading this whole thread, it seems my replies have come off as I'm right, you have know idea what your talking about.

I'm not degrading anyone, just passing on what I know and understand from my investment in Tesla.

If you were to invest 100k into a Liquor store or 1million into Triumph motorcycle dealership, you would want to understand as much about that company as possible.

My information comes from the source and trusted sources, I don't take on information from media thats owed by oil companies.

Or publications that accept donations from Ford and General Motors.

If I'm correcting you, it's because what you don't know, you don't know, similar to me asking questions about motorcycles which seems ridiculously dumb that I must be trolling, it's because I don't know, so I ask.

[neels]

So many posts, so much......

You take the human animal out of the equation, the vehicle can't kill anyone.

Yes it can, if it's driving itself it can run a person over, that's actually what this thread is about

I'm not sure why anyone would naturally step into a 3 tonne moving object traveling at 45kph, it's still has to stop at that speed.

I'm presuming humans would still have common courtesy for the passengers that may be in the car,and simply use the crossing.

This is unnatural to human instinct and doesn't make sense.

Basic human instinct is survival and obtaining resources, this is moderated by ethics varying from person to person.

If there are people willing to risk physical danger and punishment associated with speeding/drunk driving/stealing/assault/rape/murder they'll quite happily step out in front of a car that they know will stop, without any concern that it may inconvenience it's occupants.

-Reduced cars, is a result of lower car ownership.

-Peak hour traffic would be peak hour traffic, there's no escaping that, autonomous cars would be summoned on request

-Weekend usage, autonomous cars would be summoned to take families to sports,shopping etc. 2 car families would be 1 car families, 1 car families would be no car families.

-Peaks and usage, were not all on the road at the same time ,obviously peak times would be more busy, but take a look down your street in rush hour, there are still many cars parked in the driveway doing nothing, a wasted resource.

Which then raises the question - how many less cars is still enough to meet demand? It doesn't take long for people to opt out of something if there's not enough capacity to meet demand, or it is unacceptably inconvenient.

The fundamental problem with shared resources is that everyone wants them for the same purpose, and therefore at the same time.

DISCLAIMER: I hold a large stock position in Tesla

Which is why you so desperately want what you're saying to be true.

That's not to mention that some people believe there is prestige in being a Telsa wanker, or some sort of virtue signalling in driving an EV of any type.

There are always those companies who want to stand alone because they have the ego to think they know best, and end up being a weird niche company when the rest of the world is sensible and works together or their technology is superseded, that's assuming they survive at all of course. Kodak. Compaq. Nokia. Xerox. Chase Corp. Hudson. British motorcycles. Once leading edge, and eventually irrelevant and consigned to history....

[george formby]

So many posts, so much......


Yes it can, if it's driving itself it can run a person over, that's actually what this thread is about


Basic human instinct is survival and obtaining resources, this is moderated by ethics varying from person to person.

If there are people willing to risk physical danger and punishment associated with speeding/drunk driving/stealing/assault/rape/murder they'll quite happily step out in front of a car that they know will stop, without any concern that it may inconvenience it's occupants.

So true. I really had that hit home riding the Amsterdam cobbles in the rain. Cyclists and peds did not give a shit knowing they are always 100% in the right. Twitchy, very twitchy.


Which then raises the question - how many less cars is still enough to meet demand? It doesn't take long for people to opt out of something if there's not enough capacity to meet demand, or it is unacceptably inconvenient.

The fundamental problem with shared resources is that everyone wants them for the same purpose, and therefore at the same time.

Uber being a perfect example, check out how fast fares go up at peak hour. Whatshischops from The Rock radio station was stung $220 for a trip to the airport this morning. Oof, company cost no doubt.

Which is why you so desperately want what you're saying to be true.

That's not to mention that some people believe there is prestige in being a Telsa wanker, or some sort of virtue signalling in driving an EV of any type.

There are always those companies who want to stand alone because they have the ego to think they know best, and end up being a weird niche company when the rest of the world is sensible and works together or their technology is superseded, that's assuming they survive at all of course. Kodak. Compaq. Nokia. Xerox. Chase Corp. Hudson. British motorcycles. Once leading edge, and eventually irrelevant and consigned to history....

Indeed.

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/08/08/t...ina/index.html