Jump to content
Create New...
  • William Maley
    William Maley

    Google: Who Wants To Partner With Us On Self-Driving Vehicles?

    William Maley

    Editor/Reporter - CheersandGears.com

    April 29, 2012

    This past week at the SAE World Congress in Detroit, Google says that self-driving cars can be on U.S. roads within the next few years.

    We don't know what it's going to take to show its safer than a driver. It's much sooner than the next decade," said Google project manager Anthony Levandowski.

    Levandowski revealed that Google is in talks with auto makers and suppliers about working with them on the technology.

    "All options are open. From giving the technology away to licensing it to working with Tier 1s, Tier 2s, working with the OEMs, building a car with them, everything is open and we're trying to figure out which paths make the most sense. We're talking to basically every car company to see what their level of excitement is and how do we work with them."

    But before Google's prediction of self-driving cars on roads within the next few years come true, there will be many legal and insurance hurdles to get over.

    So far, Google has successfully lobbied legislation in Nevada for testing of autonomous vehicles on public roads.

    Google is now in talks with insurance companies about creating policies that would cover autonomous vehicle owners. Also, the company is planning to log at least 1 million miles on the technology before its allowed in the real world. Currently, Google said they have logged about 250,000 miles on their fleet of ten Toyota Priuses.

    Source: The Detroit News

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    Google wants to track everywhere the cars take you, and accidentally record your conversations in the car to try and figure out what you are talking about before target advertising to you.

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Google wants to track everywhere the cars take you, and accidentally record your conversations in the car to try and figure out what you are talking about before target advertising to you.

    They could use a head-up display to show ads on the windshield as the car drives you...

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    PASS, Self driving cars are for morons who would rather play with stupid facebook the scourge of society.

    Driving is a privilage and they need to tighten up the requirements so that only good drivers get on the roads, those that can enjoy the experiance and safely drive about.

    People who do not want to think about driving, take the bus.

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    This will be interesting to watch. Personal mobility pods can be like monorails without as great of an infrastructure cost.

    In many ways, it's a hybrid between rail and automobile. It's like rail in that you won't have to look for parking or operate the vehicle, and it's like the automobile in that you don't have to be with other passengers, still insulated from society in your little metal and plastic cocoon. Its environmental impact will probably be somewhere between the two.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    This will be interesting to watch. Personal mobility pods can be like monorails without as great of an infrastructure cost.

    In many ways, it's a hybrid between rail and automobile. It's like rail in that you won't have to look for parking or operate the vehicle, and it's like the automobile in that you don't have to be with other passengers, still insulated from society in your little metal and plastic cocoon. Its environmental impact will probably be somewhere between the two.

    That Isolation from society in a metal and plastic cocoon is what will be humanity's downfall If we stop interacting, then how does one learn to get along with others.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    This will be interesting to watch. Personal mobility pods can be like monorails without as great of an infrastructure cost.

    In many ways, it's a hybrid between rail and automobile. It's like rail in that you won't have to look for parking or operate the vehicle, and it's like the automobile in that you don't have to be with other passengers, still insulated from society in your little metal and plastic cocoon. Its environmental impact will probably be somewhere between the two.

    That Isolation from society in a metal and plastic cocoon is what will be humanity's downfall If we stop interacting, then how does one learn to get along with others.

    I interact w/ resources when I'm at work or home, don't need to whilst commuting to and from work...I like my car/SUV to be my zone of quiet or a place for listening to my own choice of music/news for an hour or so every day...and I don't need Google to do the the driving for me.

    Edited by Cubical-aka-Moltar
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    PASS, Self driving cars are for morons who would rather play with stupid facebook the scourge of society.

    Driving is a privilage and they need to tighten up the requirements so that only good drivers get on the roads, those that can enjoy the experiance and safely drive about.

    People who do not want to think about driving, take the bus.

    First, driving is NOT a privilege, but it is supposed to be a right. You have the right to travel. It is your lovely government that fooled everyone years ago by trading in your horse for a car with a bunch of limits, then legislated the horse into impracticality.

    Second, in the end, the government is going to dupe you into using self driving cars by making manual driving such a hassle that its not enjoyable or worthwhile. Writing laws so you always have to yield to the self-drivers. Programming traffic lights to turn green for self-drivers, etc.

    It once was a government run by the people, now its a government that controls the people, generally by slow deception. For example, the laws in the failed SOPA are going to get passed. If not as SOPA, than as PIPA or CISPA (which is currently succeeding) or they will be installed piece by piece as riders on budgets and other boring, everyday legislation.

    • Disagree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    while you have some good forward thinking points SAmadei.... i read a short article about how the car has cleaned up the environment... basically removing all the manure horses would leave in public and around your own property that create messes to clean up after when wet, and dust when dry......it may not be cleaner, but it's more sterile... one kind of pollution for another,... sorta.

    licensing is generally good for something like driving, but lots of the specifics are pretty terrible. like speed limits... when weather isn't bad and not much traffic. pretty ridiculous. along with stop lights when visibility of surrounding area is good, just turn them to yield until traffic picks up....

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    while you have some good forward thinking points SAmadei.... i read a short article about how the car has cleaned up the environment... basically removing all the manure horses would leave in public and around your own property that create messes to clean up after when wet, and dust when dry......it may not be cleaner, but it's more sterile... one kind of pollution for another,... sorta.

    Problem is, that the horse pollution was matter that was already in circulation. The pollution that cars kick out is emissions that had been sequestered deep in the ground for millions of years. Of course, at this point, its something of a moot point, as in some cases, such as a recent test of emissions from Mythbusters, IIRC, showed that a brand new F-150 was actually emitting cleaner air than it ingested.

    licensing is generally good for something like driving, but lots of the specifics are pretty terrible. like speed limits... when weather isn't bad and not much traffic. pretty ridiculous. along with stop lights when visibility of surrounding area is good, just turn them to yield until traffic picks up....

    Licenses and fines are not a problem. You could get tickets in the past for "overdriving" your horse. But you didn't lose your horse license over it. The problem is that with public transportation being a problem for 90% of the people out there, and any number of judicial excuses, many unrelated to driving, to revoke your license to drive, it instantly puts a person in a position where they're ability to work a proper job or go to school is affected. Wasted manpower that can eventually become a draw on our society.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    PASS, Self driving cars are for morons who would rather play with stupid facebook the scourge of society.

    Driving is a privilage and they need to tighten up the requirements so that only good drivers get on the roads, those that can enjoy the experiance and safely drive about.

    People who do not want to think about driving, take the bus.

    First, driving is NOT a privilege, but it is supposed to be a right. You have the right to travel. It is your lovely government that fooled everyone years ago by trading in your horse for a car with a bunch of limits, then legislated the horse into impracticality.

    Second, in the end, the government is going to dupe you into using self driving cars by making manual driving such a hassle that its not enjoyable or worthwhile. Writing laws so you always have to yield to the self-drivers. Programming traffic lights to turn green for self-drivers, etc.

    It once was a government run by the people, now its a government that controls the people, generally by slow deception. For example, the laws in the failed SOPA are going to get passed. If not as SOPA, than as PIPA or CISPA (which is currently succeeding) or they will be installed piece by piece as riders on budgets and other boring, everyday legislation.

    WRONG, Driving is a Privilage you EARN, No where in our laws does it say driving is a Right. This is just like Cell phones or the internet. Tax payers being taxed heavily have ended up subsidising the Internet for everyone at the schools and Libraries and then we end up with people saying it is a right, same with cell phones. People seem to think this is a right for everyone to have.

    Nothing here is a right, but a privilage you earn by working hard to afford the ability to drive. Sorry, but I have the Right to make more money than you and earn the privilage to drive nice expensive cars.

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    PASS, Self driving cars are for morons who would rather play with stupid facebook the scourge of society.

    Driving is a privilage and they need to tighten up the requirements so that only good drivers get on the roads, those that can enjoy the experiance and safely drive about.

    People who do not want to think about driving, take the bus.

    First, driving is NOT a privilege, but it is supposed to be a right. You have the right to travel. It is your lovely government that fooled everyone years ago by trading in your horse for a car with a bunch of limits, then legislated the horse into impracticality.

    Second, in the end, the government is going to dupe you into using self driving cars by making manual driving such a hassle that its not enjoyable or worthwhile. Writing laws so you always have to yield to the self-drivers. Programming traffic lights to turn green for self-drivers, etc.

    It once was a government run by the people, now its a government that controls the people, generally by slow deception. For example, the laws in the failed SOPA are going to get passed. If not as SOPA, than as PIPA or CISPA (which is currently succeeding) or they will be installed piece by piece as riders on budgets and other boring, everyday legislation.

    WRONG, Driving is a Privilage you EARN, No where in our laws does it say driving is a Right. This is just like Cell phones or the internet. Tax payers being taxed heavily have ended up subsidising the Internet for everyone at the schools and Libraries and then we end up with people saying it is a right, same with cell phones. People seem to think this is a right for everyone to have.

    Nothing here is a right, but a privilage you earn by working hard to afford the ability to drive. Sorry, but I have the Right to make more money than you and earn the privilage to drive nice expensive cars.

    Seriously, it's like Driver's Ed 101--"Driving is a privilege, not a right." First sentence in EVERY Driver's Ed class.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    WRONG, Driving is a Privilage you EARN, No where in our laws does it say driving is a Right. This is just like Cell phones or the internet. Tax payers being taxed heavily have ended up subsidising the Internet for everyone at the schools and Libraries and then we end up with people saying it is a right, same with cell phones. People seem to think this is a right for everyone to have.

    Nothing here is a right, but a privilage you earn by working hard to afford the ability to drive. Sorry, but I have the Right to make more money than you and earn the privilage to drive nice expensive cars.

    You got it completely wrong here. You can have all the money in the world, but still have the right to drive revoked for nothing related to driving. Nobody here is arguing for free cars.

    There are no free cell phone service or cable TV. If you don't pay, you don't watch. If its available and you pay, and they refuse, you have a good case in court for discrimination. You do have a right to fair and equal services.

    Free Internet, well, libraries provide lots of free information services, within limits. Compared to the price of books, magazines, audio recordings, video recordings, the Internet is a bargain. If you meet the criteria to use the library's resources and are refused, you also would have a good case for discrimination.

    OTOH, driving a car on public roads, roads which are paid with your tax dollars, and cannot be opted out of, can be revoked for many reasons not related to driving. For example, failure to pay child support. Well, if you are down and out and cannot pay, removing your ability to find and attend work doesn't make much sense.

    Anyway, our forefathers were not able to code into law everything needed 200+ years later. The 9th amendment states, basically, that just because rights are not specifically spelled out they are still valid. During our forefather's time, they did not feel it was necessary, for example, to specify that one had the right to travel via horse on public roads. Since the car replaced the horse, it is only logical that you should still have the right to drive a car. While I tend to side with state, I am not happy with the power grab the states have, so far, performed here. It is well documented that the federal government recognizes your right to drive, but arguing with the state troopers will get you nowhere. In fact, in a twist of legislative insanity, illegal aliens, which are residents of no state, clearly have the right to drive anywhere in the US.

    Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that anarchy should reign on the highways. There should still be tickets, fines, surcharges, etc. But in the end, taking away one's ability to drive is not right. And in practice, people who lose their licenses generally ignore it anyway.

    In the end, your argument of privilege is whats going to put you in a self-driving car. Privileges can be revoked without due process, unlike rights.

    Seriously, it's like Driver's Ed 101--"Driving is a privilege, not a right." First sentence in EVERY Driver's Ed class.

    As written by the state, not the federal government.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Driving is a privilege, not a right, as dfelt said. Sure you have the right to travel. You can travel by bus, plane, train, ship, etc. But it is a privilege to operate a motor vehicle, one you must earn.

    Frankly, the privilege is too easy to earn in this country. Too many people on the road who lack the ability to understand something as simple as what a traffic light is and what the color of the lights mean are able to operate these machines.

    As far as self driving cars, go. I'd love the feature. While I enjoy driving, I don't care for commuting the same roads in the same traffic jams at the same time everyday. Something you could turn on when you wanted it and turn off when you didn't would be great.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    ok while i enjoy driving and don't really want a computer driving my car (mainly because of nostalgia and the fact that i really don't mind having to commute.) driving is NOT a right, no where in the bill of rights or any political document that i have ever heard of does it say that it is every Americans right to drive a car. we drive because we can not because we have to. we COULD walk every where and as a nation maybe that would be a good choice . maybe then we wouldn't be so fat. we have the right of free religion, the freedom of speech, the right to PURSUE happiness among a few obvious ones. no where is the constitution does it say anything that it is your right to drive a car.

    Edited by fullmoon97
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    TOP

    1. Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition
      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    TOP

    1. Right to keep and bear arms
      A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    TOP

    1. Conditions for quarters of soldiers
      No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

    TOP

    1. Right of search and seizure regulated
      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    TOP

    1. Provisons concerning prosecution
      No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

    TOP

    1. Right to a speedy trial, witnesses, etc.
      In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

    TOP

    1. Right to a trial by jury
      In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

    TOP

    1. Excessive bail, cruel punishment
      Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

    TOP

    1. Rule of construction of Constitution
      The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    TOP

    1. <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment10/">Rights of the States under Constitution
      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    yea..... i see nothing saying congress shall make no law making it illegal to drive. while people may dissagree with this fact. that does not make it any less true.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Driving is a privilege, not a right, as dfelt said. Sure you have the right to travel. You can travel by bus, plane, train, ship, etc. But it is a privilege to operate a motor vehicle, one you must earn.

    Frankly, the privilege is too easy to earn in this country. Too many people on the road who lack the ability to understand something as simple as what a traffic light is and what the color of the lights mean are able to operate these machines.

    As far as self driving cars, go. I'd love the feature. While I enjoy driving, I don't care for commuting the same roads in the same traffic jams at the same time everyday. Something you could turn on when you wanted it and turn off when you didn't would be great.

    DodgeFan, sounds like the cars in Demolition man. Drive when you want and auto drive when you do not. :)

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    In the end, your argument of privilege is whats going to put you in a self-driving car. Privileges can be revoked without due process, unlike rights.

    IMO, you have that completely backward. If driving is considered a right, and so everyone should be able to do it and the government should work to ensure rights are protected and/or enabled, then automating cars would be the way to make that possible for the largest number of people. It enables driving for those who aren't physically or mentally capable of operating heavy machinery (manually driven automobiles), including children, elderly, etc. It also enables those who would not follow traffic laws if they were doing the driving.

    Driving as a privilege requires the driver to have skills, abilities, and to maintain lawful behavior. Without these standards, drivers endanger the true rights of others by putting them at risk of physical harm.

    I agree with others on here, there could be considered a certain right to travel, but not to driving. If someone is a dangerous driver, I'm not interested in the government protecting their right to get in a car and potentially t-bone me while I'm driving safely. They can ride the bus or call a cab. They have that right. (And if they can't behave in socially appropriate ways on the bus or in the cab, then they can walk or stay home.)

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    yea..... i see nothing saying congress shall make no law making it illegal to drive. while people may dissagree with this fact. that does not make it any less true.

    The 9th amendment states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    In other words, there are other rights, and they are not denied by not being included in the Constitution.

    Driving as a privilege requires the driver to have skills, abilities, and to maintain lawful behavior. Without these standards, drivers endanger the true rights of others by putting them at risk of physical harm.

    I agree with others on here, there could be considered a certain right to travel, but not to driving. If someone is a dangerous driver, I'm not interested in the government protecting their right to get in a car and potentially t-bone me while I'm driving safely. They can ride the bus or call a cab. They have that right. (And if they can't behave in socially appropriate ways on the bus or in the cab, then they can walk or stay home.)

    You can argue all you want about revoking licenses to keep dangerous drivers off the road, but its not needed. We have laws for that. Its called vehicular assault and/or vehicular homicide. People killed others with dangerous horse driving a hundred years ago, without the threat of losing a license. The presence of a license does not stop people from driving. It does stop them from legally registering a car or insuring it. But that don't help you when they slam into your car, destroying it and injuring you. They go to prison, you suffer. Roads are not absolutely safe, you have accepted that risk whenever you go on the road to travel.

    The bottom line is that driving a car is easier that driving a horse and carriage. While horses have some sense of self-preservation, they are also incredibly stupid and are easily spooked. Assuming you have the land to store the horses, you can ride a horse or drive a horse and carriage on the public roadway without a revokable license. You can lose control and easily kill people with such devices, as you can with a car.

    Anyway, I'm done on this, because just because the states have fooled you into thinking its a privilege, does not make it justified. Slavery was not justified, yet it was perfectly legal for many decades of US history. If it needs more spelling out by the federal government, perhaps we need a new amendment.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    SAmadei, totally agree.

    when you have to swipe a license and have your id confirmed, to start and drive a car, mandated, then it will become a privilege, and not a right...but only by law.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I believe vehicles and driving should be a right. The government should supply everyone with a Chevrolet Spark EV, which will give everyone the opportunity to drive. As a bonus, it will accelerate electrification and eliminate hydrocarbons in transportation.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    You can argue all you want about revoking licenses to keep dangerous drivers off the road, but its not needed. We have laws for that. Its called vehicular assault and/or vehicular homicide.

    So you would have police do nothing to regulate traffic until someone kills or maims someone else? I guess we'd save a lot of money on street signs since enough people would ignore them to render them moot.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    So you would have police do nothing to regulate traffic until someone kills or maims someone else? I guess we'd save a lot of money on street signs since enough people would ignore them to render them moot.

    Only posting to reply to your specific question.

    Police right now are only out there to generate income. They get a few people for easy violations... like speeding and harassing people in three groups... the poor, young and non-white. Do they remove dangerous people from the roads? A few... enough to look good for the statisticians to make positive graphs for them... but look at all the near misses around you and vehicular tragedy on the news. They aren't doing their job nearly well enough. Most of the people involved in these vehicular disasters are repeat offenders and should be IN JAIL. Even the people who do kill others on the road, are usually back on the road in a short time, doing a couple years or probation. Why? The jails are full of people for drug offenses... a wrongheaded prohibition that I will not get into.

    Remember, the police only solve like 60% of homicides... much of which can be explained by stupid criminals... so if you are dependent on the police to save you, I have a bridge to sell you.

    Anyway, when I am driving, I am assuming everyone around me is trying to kill me. It is my responsibility to ensure I get to my destination in one piece. I can count thousands of near misses that would have been an annoyance, but I also recall several times where my awareness kept me and my passengers out of the morgue by doing some extreme maneuver.

    Speaking of street signs, in some places, street sign density is high enough that even I (a fast reader) occasionally have trouble keeping up. I wish the DOT would legislate a upper limit to how much signage can be plastered out there... too much signage leads to people missing the important signs.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • google-news-icon.png



  • google-news-icon.png

  • Subscribe to Cheers & Gears

    Cheers and Gears Logo

    Since 2001 we've brought you real content and honest opinions, not AI-generated stuff with no feeling or opinions influenced by the manufacturers.

    Please consider subscribing. Subscriptions can be as little as $1.75 a month, and a paid subscription drops most ads.*
     

    You can view subscription options here.

    *a very limited number of ads contain special coupon deals for our members and will show

  • Community Hive Community Hive

    Community Hive allows you to follow your favorite communities all in one place.

    Follow on Community Hive
  • Posts

    • GMC Hummer EV drivers can now charge their gargantuan EVs on Tesla Superchargers, according to an announcement on GMC's website. Enabling Supercharging requires an update to the myGMC app; however, users can use the Tesla app and register temporarily as a Rivian R1S until the app update completes. Drivers who expect to use the Tesla Superchargers network regularly may wish to sign up for a $12.99 subscription through the Tesla app, which grants a 10c/kWh discount.  With a 200 kWh battery, just two charges from 20% - 80% per month would cover the membership fee. The myGMC app will also allow owners to purchase an official NACS to CCS adaptor.  While third-party NACS to CCS adapters are available for purchase, they are not officially approved for use on Tesla's network. With this change, GMC says that Hummer EV drivers now have access to approximately 195,000 charge points across North America.  Most Tesla Superchargers are of the 250kw variety, and while not specified in GMC's announcement, we suspect that the Hummer EV is not eligible to charge on the 150kw chargers, much like the Ford EVs, which cite the same 15,000 number for eligible Superchargers.  Limited to 250kw charging speeds, Hummer EV drivers may wish to limit the use of Tesla stations to a last resort while traveling as they will not reach the full 350kw charging speeds their vehicle is capable of. GM has also partnered with Flying-J / Pilot to offer 350kw charging at truck stops nationwide and is a founding member of the new IONNA Network that will offer both CCS and NACS charging without an adaptor. There is no announcement yet on Tesla Supercharger Access for their other EVs.  Drivers can identify 250kw chargers by the black collar at the end of the charging cable. View full article
    • COST, Apartment owners are very stingy even here in Liberal PNW, there is city mandates now to get apartment owners to install chargers as renters are complaining. Yet up north by my area where I live around Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, Edmonds and Mukilteo Apartment owners who have installed L2 chargers rarely have vacancy so yes, it is valuable I believe and of course the Tesla Supercharger stations are packed all the time. Workwise, Seattle has been very progressive in having building owners install chargers and I had at one time posted pictures of all the chargers at my work where 2 years ago, there were 4 and now there is 20 and still they are filled up, so demand is truly there, but resistance to change is still very hard among older folks. With GOP Trump having control of the Rural he has them sold on Toxic Diesel is the life and EVs need to die, so I doubt rural will get chargers without the Feds forcing the install and then we have to deal with the idiots cutting the cables or icing the chargers. I hope there is a future way to have the cables shock the idiots that attempt to cut the cables as it is just stupid.
    • That's hella ugly, but people will buy it because it says "off road"   Look at how it tackles that gravel road that a Nissan Sentra could easily navigate.
    • True, but some larger apartment complexes or parking garages could put in level 2 chargers, maybe even level 1 for places like an airport extended parking.  If people have their car sit 12 hours at their apartment, or 8 hours in a parking garage while at work, there is opportunity there also for charing without having to build out expensive super chargers. And really it is rural America that should be embracing EV's way more because there aren't many gas stations when you get into farm country, you might have to drive 30-40 minutes to find a gas station in some parts of rural America, but they have houses with electricity and can easily charge.  
    • Meh, just another forgettable appliance...styling very similar to the Polstar something something...
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • My Clubs

×
×
  • Create New...

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search