MY TIPS - to INCREASE your GAS MILAGE

[Helmut.G]

A couple tips I use to save gas:

1) If you're in a parking lot of a shopping center or anywhere else, don't start the car until your all buckled in, and you've checked out the rear window that it is a good time to backup. Many times people start their cars then have to wait till its clear to backup.

2) If you're going to be stopped for more than about 1 minute, shut off the engine.

3) For city driving if you see a red light, just coast as far as you can. There is a good chance the light will turn green as you near the light. I see so many people driving full speed then slamming on their brakes at the red light like morons. Look ahead and anticipate the lights.

4) If time and traffic allow, drive ~60mph on the highway. You'll save about 10% vs going 70-75mph.

can't repeat 1 and 3 often enough.

There's also no need to accelerate to 20 mph in first gear like a maniac when you need to stop in a few meters, thus converting all the energy in the movement you just built up to heat in your brakes.

This is ok so long as you leave the windows up. With the windows down you actually cause more drag, requiring more energy than what the AC would use. At highway speeds would be the worst.

The drag really doesn't matter much at city speed while most cars' AC use a heck of a lot of fuel.
On the highway the drag does matter.

Also keep in mind that the AC uses fuel per the hour, not per distance. So in the city when you're going relatively slow the AC will affect the MPG much more (and city MPG is already terribly low).


Get a white car and it will heat up less, so your AC will use less fuel.

[ElectronGuru]

No offense, but that would mean no one would ever drive during their lifetime.

0 taken. And a good chance to add clarification:

Enough trouble (above normal/typical) to get the attention of the commodities market.

[Lite_me]

Some very good tips and info in this thread. Just think... if everyone that drives would read and heed some of the suggestions here, it would defiantly make a difference.

3) For city driving if you see a red light, just coast as far as you can. There is a good chance the light will turn green as you near the light. I see so many people driving full speed then slamming on their brakes at the red light like morons. Look ahead and anticipate the lights.

This is a good one. It also applies to RR tracks. I go over 2 sets almost every time I go out. They only require a slight reduction in speed to cross, and everyone stays on the gas until they're near the tracks and then hit the brakes to slowdown to cross. In the mean time, I've anticipated the forthcoming reduction in speed needed, and will let off the gas and coast, maybe 100yds or more sooner... I end up catching up to the car in front of me, often going over the tracks at the same speed and right behind them. By not scrubbing off the energy you used to get the vehicle moving with the brakes, and coasting, you add efficiency. And it adds up. ANY time you use the brakes it cost you MPG. So, if you can get around using them unnecessarily, or even try and use them in a more gentle nature, it's good practice.

I always get better MPG than the EPA ratings on my cars. Usually by several MPG. It helps that I'm usually never in a hurry. But then again, you'll often find me in the outside lane on the interstate. I hate pokin' along there for some reason. It's just in-town where I'm conservative.

[StarHalo]

I always get better MPG than the EPA ratings on my cars. Usually by several MPG.

You could be a hypermiler; they have a forum where the hardcore guys have their "total MPG" in their siglines - they use hardware in their cars that always monitors their MPG, and can therefore very specifically track what their numbers are not just for the day, but for the entire time they've owned the car. All of them score in the upper 90%, that is above 90% of the rated MPG for their car, but I don't think anyone has ever matched or beaten it..

[Lite_me]

You could be a hypermiler; they have a forum where the hardcore guys have their "total MPG" in their siglines - they use hardware in their cars that always monitors their MPG, and can therefore very specifically track what their numbers are not just for the day, but for the entire time they've owned the car. All of them score in the upper 90%, that is above 90% of the rated MPG for their car, but I don't think anyone has ever matched or beaten it..

Huh... never knew that one existed. Shouldn't be surprised though. I'll check it out. I do track my MPG regularly but I'm not that fanatical about it. It's mostly due to the high prices and trying to conserve.

I recently advanced the static timing by about 3-4 deg by moving the sensor block off the crank pulley on My Mazda3 2.5 I'm now getting 1-2 more MPG. Seems a little stronger in the mid range too. It was an easy mod. I should also add, I run 89 octane. It just feels smoother to me than 87. Even before the mod.

[PCC]

This is ok so long as you leave the windows up. With the windows down you actually cause more drag, requiring more energy than what the AC would use. At highway speeds would be the worst.

On days where the car interior heats up from the greenhouse effect (typically between 62 to 75 degrees F) I drive with the windows down up to 40 MPH then roll them up as I accelerate past that speed. I then gulp colder air every few miles when the interior starts to get uncomfortably warm by opening the electric windows on one side of the car fully then closing them as soon as they're wide open. I don't use the air conditioning at all. On warmer days, like today (91F!) I only turn on the AC when the car is pointed downhill on the freeway. Same rule applies about having the windows open until 40 MPH. If it gets much warmer than that then I don't care about mileage and the AC is on regardless of the speed I'm driving.

[Slazmo]

I try to keep the paintwork clean as we all know that air will pass over a smooth surface thats not encrusted with dust and other stuff like mud, bird droppings etc... I know its would be a tiny gain however enough over a lifetime. Also I remove my AC belt over the winter months, it still runs off the main pully wheel and drives another wheel regardless if the electro coupling isnt in effect but there are some savings there...

We've just had a TV advert that states that these particular tyres would save you $400 (Aud) over the life of your tires, so say 80,000km's average if you look after them eg: rotate 5 tyres and swap outside to inside etc.

so it'd be $400 / 80,000km's = .005 cents a km... Umm not worth it buddy!

Buy good tyres that are safe and keep them rotated every 6000km's and keep up the pressure or use Nitrogen if available.

[Illum]

I took the car in and had it waxed today, now I hear a whistle

[Monocrom]

I took the car in and had it waxed today, now I hear a whistle

Did they do it properly? Two coats of wax. Always two.

[BVH]

Be aware that some, if not all automatic transmissions have very reduced basic lubrication of their internal parts going on when RPMs are down at idle. So if you coast at road speed and idle RPM frequently, you may end up damaging your transmission and then where are the savings? Also, it's a distraction shifting in and out of gear, it may end up causing an accident or you may end up putting the tranny in reverse by mistake. Is it really worth the risks to maybe save a few pennies per tank? Changing spark plugs is almost a thing of the past with precious metal tipped plugs, which are in most factory cars now. You should not change them for an absolute minimum of 60,000 and more like 80,000 miles and more. Change them early and you're wasting money.

[TyJo]

While I don't recommend it, I'm pretty sure putting an automatic transmission in reverse while going forward does no damage due to safety mechanisms (it was on mythbusters episode and those that know about cars confirmed this to me).

[StarHalo]

While I don't recommend it, I'm pretty sure putting an automatic transmission in reverse while going forward does no damage due to safety mechanisms

Reverse won't engage at speed. You can put it in park - makes your car sound like a Big Wheel as the parking pawl goes clacking across its gear, but doesn't do anything otherwise. Not sure what that has to do with saving gas..

[Monocrom]

While I don't recommend it, I'm pretty sure putting an automatic transmission in reverse while going forward does no damage due to safety mechanisms (it was on mythbusters episode and those that know about cars confirmed this to me).

Even if reverse gear didn't also use up gas, or perhaps not quite as much as Drive; it's FAR too impractical as well as dangerous to drive through the streets in reverse. (Hell, some folks barely know how to drive forwards.)

[TyJo]

Reverse won't engage at speed. You can put it in park - makes your car sound like a Big Wheel as the parking pawl goes clacking across its gear, but doesn't do anything otherwise. Not sure what that has to do with saving gas..

I was referencing an earlier post, agreed it wont affect gas usage, as most gas savings tips won't. The best thing is to be easy on the accelerator and coast rather then brake when possible, not too complicated (if there are brake lights or a red light in the distance release the accelerator or cancel the cruise control, at green lights lightly depress the accelerator).

Even if reverse gear didn't also use up gas, or perhaps not quite as much as Drive; it's FAR too impractical as well as dangerous to drive through the streets in reverse. (Hell, some folks barely know how to drive forwards.)

Very true.

[Illum]

Did they do it properly? Two coats of wax. Always two.

Don't know... I dropped the car off and went to werk by shuttle. I'll go back and ask tomorrow

[orbital]

^
Regarding waxing car to increase mileage:

Rough (sandpaper like) surfaces go the fastest through water,...our atmosphere is measured as a liquid.
>>>same reason there are dimples in golf balls, fly straight and further

I saw a thing on Nike making micro textured racing clothing for Lance Armstrong,
they calculated it was worth like 20 seconds in a hundred mile stage, using the same output.
That doesn't sound like anything, but that could easily be enough time for a win.

Waxing your car could get chicks attention & that has some value

[Hooked on Fenix]

Does anyone have any tips or tricks to save on gas?

In California, gas prices have skyrocketed over 50 cents in the last week (20 cents in the last day). Some areas in San Diego county are nearing $6 a gallon. I can't afford these increases and I doubt anyone can in the current economy. I heard from an employee at my local Circle K that California is getting rid of 87 Octane gas (Regular Unleaded), forcing people to buy Midgrade which is 10-15 cents more a gallon (I really hope that employee was wrong). On top of that, BP is fed up with California and is leaving the state, so all Arco stations (all of the cheapest gas stations in my area) are going out of business or changing ownership. With the changeover to the winter grade of gasoline, oil companies sold off the summer grade to Mexico and elsewhere and let supplies dwindle knowing that soon, they wouldn't be able to sell it in California. After that, there was a refinery power outage and pipeline incident that shot gas prices to near record levels (we're likely to shatter records by tomorrow). Other than bugging our representatives to get rid of the requirements for a special blend of fuel in California (at least temporarily), I don't see a way to lower prices any time soon (If we didn't have to have the special California blend of fuel, we could get supplies from out of state and there would be absolutely no shortage of fuel.). Therefore, if we can't save on the price, we have to reduce consumption to save. What tricks do you use to save on gas?

I'll start. I just replaced my car that was totaled by a friend with an old 99 Toyota Camry that should get around 30 MPG highway. It came with a full 18.5 gallon tank of gas. I'm hoping to ride out the price increase if I think it will be short-term (1-2 weeks tops). If I think prices will continue to rise, I'll change strategy and top off daily. If you have any other tips to save on gas please share them.

Thread Merge - Norm

[ElectronGuru]

This is a long term problem requiring long term solutions, like moving closer to work. Nothing you can likely do in the coming days will let you skirt most of these near term issues.

The question is: when this crises is over, how can you stay motivated to reduce your exposure before the next crises arrives.

[jtr1962]

I agree with ElectronGuru here. In the short term the impact of higher gas might be mitigated by changing driving habits slightly, doing things like coasting to red lights and driving slower. In the long run this issue isn't going anywhere. With China and India industrializing, demand for oil will only go up, whether the oil is used to make plastics or burned as fuel. The long term price trends are therefore up, way up actually. Had the economy fully recovered, I've little doubt we would be seeing $7 a gallon gas prices. At some point we as a nation are going to have to reduce our dependency on oil-based transportation in particular, and mechanized transportation in general. This will mean the preferred solution will be to live within walking or biking distance of jobs if no local rail transit exists, or living/working within walking/biking distance of train stations if it does. Rail will be the king of mechanized transport in the 21st century for the simple reason no other technology comes close in terms of using the least energy, land, and labor to move a ton of cargo. All three will be relevant because all three will be either expensive or in short supply in the future. This is why even if electric cars become mainstream, which I feel they will, sprawling communities just aren't sustainable either economically or resource-wise except maybe for the wealthy few. The basic issue is the infrastructure costs more per capita, but the residents aren't really willing or even able to pay these costs. And the larger issue is that personal automobiles as a means of transport are grossly inefficient in terms of land use, energy use, resource use, and even time.

For now anyone with a very long car commute would do well to see if they can either get a job closer to home, or move closer to work. Even better would be relocating to places where you can live without a car. If demand for such places increased, then more would be built. In many cases it's simply a matter of reviving existing city centers. Granted, housing in many transit-oriented communities is more expensive, but factor in the annual cost of owning a car or two or three. Also factor in the hours spent in traffic. And consider that the same job in a city will often pay more than in the suburbs. In the end you might find that moving is feasible.

I highly recommend reading blogs and websites pertaining to living a car-free lifestyle for inspiration. That's really going to be the only way going forward to cope with increasing oil prices.

[Monocrom]

For many, not really an option to move closer to work. Job might be $#!%. Paycheck only. No room for promotion. Might get laid off soon after moving. Even if the job is a decent one, family obligations might not allow simply moving closer. Spouse might not want to leave. If you're single but signed a lease, makes no sense to break it just to move a bit closer.

Better option would be getting something like a Diesel-powered VW Jetta. Better fuel economy than any hybrid. Or perhaps a vehicle with a small engine that is known for sipping fuel. Something about the size of a Toyota Yaris hatchback. (Though "something" like that. The Yaris itself is surprising not fuel-efficient for its size and small engine.) Driving less aggressively helps too. But that's as good as it gets. Being a car enthusiast isn't easy in this Day & Age. Still . . . You can have my sports sedan when you pry it from my cold, dead, hands. (Or, if you can keep up with me on the open highway.)

If a car is just an appliance to someone, yeah; they do have options for saving fuel.

[SemiMan]

Contrary to the first post, cleaning or replacing your air intake filter will not improve your mileage if you have a car made in the last 10+ years. You may even get better mileage with a dirty filter. All a clean filter will give you is more peak horsepower.

Did anyone mention synthetic? Dyno tests usually show 1-2% more peak horsepower, but no idea if that really makes a difference in real world horsepower. I run it for reduced engine wear and reduced change intervals.

Hate to be political, but perhaps we need to be investing more in battery technology. I know that is not the panacea to a solution, but we really need to explore every option in this area as who knows what will shake out. While we all hate government involvement, electricity prices tend to have a lot less volatility than gas prices. Price per unit of usable energy is lower too. .... side note, that Chevy Volt does not seem like such a bad idea now.

I find the high prices of gas taking the fun out of driving.

Semiman

[ElectronGuru]

For many, not really an option to move closer to work. Job might be $#!%. Paycheck only. No room for promotion. Might get laid off soon after moving. Even if the job is a decent one, family obligations might not allow simply moving closer. Spouse might not want to leave. If you're single but signed a lease, makes no sense to break it just to move a bit closer.

Totally get you. I've spent the most of my life being car dependent. New car, new job, new housing all fall into the category of personal long term solutions, little you can do this year. New/portable jobs are rare, theres a year left on a lease/loan, and even when options are available, the expense of moving and/or new home loan requires long intervals. This is made more challenging in that most US housing built in the last 60 years (90% of whats in the west) is specifically designed to be car dependent. With our individual and collective choices, we have built ourselves into a corner.

Even if gas persisted at $20/G, it would take another 60 years to begin to balance against that structural inertia. But that isn't even the real challenge. We've not built our country like this because of cars. We've done so because of what cars do for us. Say you're starting a family and can pay 3k/mo for a small flat in town with parking for one car and not even a shared court to play in and dangerous parks. Compare that to 2k/mo for a single family detached on quarter acre, with personal playground and good schools and 1k/mo in commenting expenses. Everything goes great until gas goes from 3 to 6 a gallon and 3k becomes 4k. This is what Californians are facing right now.

[jtr1962]

Even if gas persisted at $20/G, it would take another 60 years to begin to balance against that structural inertia. But that isn't even the real challenge. We've not built our country like this because of cars. We've done so because of what cars do for us. Say you're starting a family and can pay 3k/mo for a small flat in town with parking for one car and not even a shared court to play in and dangerous parks. Compare that to 2k/mo for a single family detached on quarter acre, with personal playground and good schools and 1k/mo in commenting expenses. Everything goes great until gas goes from 3 to 6 a gallon and 3k becomes 4k. This is what Californians are facing right now.

I'm not so sure it will take 60 years to readjust to the new reality of higher energy costs. Remember that it took us less than 50 years to get to the mess we're in now. Already with higher gas prices demand for public transit is exceeding supply in many places. And the cities are showing net growth while many exurbs are being abandoned. The problem in a nutshell is in the last 50 years we built as if we were going to have cheap energy forever. It's not just that we became overly car dependent, but also that we built huge McMansions in suburban subdivisions. Now we're realizing we just can't afford to maintain the status quo. You hit the nail on the head of suddenly going from $3K a month to $6K. In the short term there's very little you can do. It's the decisions people make down the road which will make a difference. Do I take that job 5 miles away which I can bike to even though it pays $10K less than a job 35 miles away? Do I buy a smaller, but still adequate, home which has lower operating expenses? If I'm still car dependent, do I buy an electric car when my gas car needs to be replaced? All of these decisions can mean the difference between being comfortable versus not being able to make it. We can either voluntarily start using our resources more sensibly, or let shortages/price spikes do it for us. Either way, there's going to be fewer resources spread among more people.

[SemiMan]

I agree with ElectronGuru here. In the short term the impact of higher gas might be mitigated by changing driving habits slightly, doing things like coasting to red lights and driving slower. In the long run this issue isn't going anywhere. With China and India industrializing, demand for oil will only go up, whether the oil is used to make plastics or burned as fuel. The long term price trends are therefore up, way up actually. Had the economy fully recovered, I've little doubt we would be seeing $7 a gallon gas prices. At some point we as a nation are going to have to reduce our dependency on oil-based transportation in particular, and mechanized transportation in general. This will mean the preferred solution will be to live within walking or biking distance of jobs if no local rail transit exists, or living/working within walking/biking distance of train stations if it does. Rail will be the king of mechanized transport in the 21st century for the simple reason no other technology comes close in terms of using the least energy, land, and labor to move a ton of cargo. All three will be relevant because all three will be either expensive or in short supply in the future. This is why even if electric cars become mainstream, which I feel they will, sprawling communities just aren't sustainable either economically or resource-wise except maybe for the wealthy few. The basic issue is the infrastructure costs more per capita, but the residents aren't really willing or even able to pay these costs. And the larger issue is that personal automobiles as a means of transport are grossly inefficient in terms of land use, energy use, resource use, and even time.

For now anyone with a very long car commute would do well to see if they can either get a job closer to home, or move closer to work. Even better would be relocating to places where you can live without a car. If demand for such places increased, then more would be built. In many cases it's simply a matter of reviving existing city centers. Granted, housing in many transit-oriented communities is more expensive, but factor in the annual cost of owning a car or two or three. Also factor in the hours spent in traffic. And consider that the same job in a city will often pay more than in the suburbs. In the end you might find that moving is feasible.

I highly recommend reading blogs and websites pertaining to living a car-free lifestyle for inspiration. That's really going to be the only way going forward to cope with increasing oil prices.

In developed countries, population growth is light ... with the real possibility of stagnancy beyond immigration.

Oil will get expensive and/or run out ... this is true, but I am more concerned with climate impact of the industrialization of more of the world.

I really do not think the personal care will go out of style though. The average car as 4000 pounds of metal .... that will definitely change.

In many countries, there is far too much established "suburbia" which is highly likely to be abandoned. While in an ever escalating oil market it may be easy to think of this as something that must go away, the reality is that we are humans like and rise to challenges. It's an enormous economic market and one for which solutions will arrive. Do our fat democracies at least in North America have the political fortitude to make the right steps? .... that is the bigger question.

Today we could build thorium cycle nuclear reactors that are extremely safe and we have enough thorium to power the world for well over the next 100's of years. Cost of electricity would be higher than today, but as a "fuel" for transportation, still cheaper than today's gas by far.

I think viability of a tolerable battery, i.e. 300km range is within the next 20 years if not less.

So while 4000lbs of metal will disappear for the most part, commuter cars weighing a 1000lbs and able to carry 4 people will be common.

Intelligent vehicle highway systems and automated driving will become the norm for highways enabling 2-3x the traffic density with no increase in highway construction.

The exact time frame of this is debatable and their will be some grief along the way, but it will happen. At least in North America, we have enough oil reserves, as difficult as they are to get at, for at least the next 50 years.

Semiman

[StarHalo]

The Green Wars are just starting in the car industry; the aforementioned Mazda 3 Skyactiv gets 40 mpg @ 76 mph, the four-cylinder Mustang and Camaro are returning, the new Ford Fusion will be four-cylinder-only, and Ford is reintroducing the three-cylinder engine (61 cubic inches making 148 lb-ft of torque!)

[jtr1962]

Today we could build thorium cycle nuclear reactors that are extremely safe and we have enough thorium to power the world for well over the next 100's of years. Cost of electricity would be higher than today, but as a "fuel" for transportation, still cheaper than today's gas by far.

I think viability of a tolerable battery, i.e. 300km range is within the next 20 years if not less.

So while 4000lbs of metal will disappear for the most part, commuter cars weighing a 1000lbs and able to carry 4 people will be common.

Intelligent vehicle highway systems and automated driving will become the norm for highways enabling 2-3x the traffic density with no increase in highway construction.

The exact time frame of this is debatable and their will be some grief along the way, but it will happen. At least in North America, we have enough oil reserves, as difficult as they are to get at, for at least the next 50 years.

I also feel the personal car won't disappear, but will probably evolve into a small, battery-powered "errand" machine suitable for shopping and getting to work/school, and most definitely self-driven. Even though I feel we'll soon have electric cars with 300+ km range, long distance car travel I think will be pretty much dead, mostly replaced in the short term by high-speed rail, in the long term possibly by maglevs in evacuated tubes. The idea in all cases is as you said-to go from using oil as transport fuel to using electricity. That in my opinion is the only way any type of lifestyle dependent upon mechanized transport will survive. In many cities we already have established transport networks based on electricity-namely subways and railroads.

I also think it's imperative to conserve as much oil as possible because the need for plastics and other materials derived from oil isn't going anywhere.

[Hooked on Fenix]

I did a little research on what I think is the real reason why gas prices are so high. Yes, we had some refineries shut down and an oil pipeline shut down. Yes, BP is shutting down many of the Arco's in California (They are being replaced with USA Gas). Yes, BP is getting out of the oil refining business in California and Texas (half of their oil refining capacity countrywide) and using their resources to get oil out of the ground in Canada (moving their business toward the Keystone Pipeline). And all this is happening when summer grade fuel supplies are dwindling and winter grade gas is required to be produced. All of these things are bad and contributing to the price skyrocketing. However, there is one larger factor that no one is talking about. It's not that BP is leaving the state that is the biggest problem. It's why BP is leaving the state that's the problem. Part of it is that BP is fed up with the bureaucracy and environmental regulations in California. The largest problem has to do with the environmental regulations in California making it impossible for oil refineries to make a profit. The places that oil comes from for California are running out of light and sweet crude oil. Many of the oil refineries are only capable of making gas from light and sweet crude oil. This is causing reduced output as light and sweet crude oil runs out. The BP refinery that BP is selling is capable of making gasoline from lousy grades of oil but requires expensive upgrades to make the gas. With the little profits they receive from refining the oil now, it isn't worth it to them to invest in the upgrades, especially with Cap and Trade beginning soon in California. This problem isn't going to get any better. BP is abandoning a sinking ship. This is a warning of things to come. As the supply of light and sweet crude runs dry, California will run out of gas as the refineries that can produce gas from poor grades of oil will leave the state since there is no incentive to invest in upgrades without profit potential. The only relief will be if new supplies of light and sweet crude oil are found by drilling elsewhere, if regulations cease to exist allowing us to purchase gas that is not California's special blend, or if oil companies find a way to make the upgrades and continued business in California profitable. In short, we're screwed for the long term, not just until Thanksgiving like news stations are telling us. I honestly don't see any real relief in sight unless we get some serious changes. Electricity prices make electric cars a lousy solution as well. We have a tiered system. My home is already at the highest tier. Monthly electric bills are already up to $400 with gas appliances and heating. The state lets energy companies pay practically nothing back for solar to homeowners (it isn't worth the investment). I don't see any real solutions near term.

[Monocrom]

I also feel the personal car won't disappear, but will probably evolve into a small, battery-powered "errand" machine suitable for shopping and getting to work/school, and most definitely self-driven.

Not gonna happen. For a variety of reasons. Some good, some not so good. An example of the latter being the insurance industry. They're not going to give up the lucrative, legal, racket of providing insurance to drivers who are legally required to have it. (A retired insurance adjuster once admitted to me that the insurance industry is indeed a racket. Just happens to be a legalized one.) Cars that drive themselves? Well, can't hold the vehicle owner responsible anymore for accidents that take place. After all, he wasn't the driver. Who do you hold responsible? Why, it's the car-makers of course! If self-driven cars are ever created, watch their demise after the very first lawsuit against Ford, GM, or Toyota, etc. after the first self-driven car crashes into someone or something. So that's the car-makers who will also lobby Congress too to make sure cars are never self-driven.

Also, unless you live in Britain where driving regulations are overly complicated for no reason at all; it's not that hard to learn to drive a car. It's just not. I'll even go so far as to say it's easy for the vast majority of folks.

[jtr1962]

Not gonna happen. For a variety of reasons. Some good, some not so good. An example of the latter being the insurance industry. They're not going to give up the lucrative, legal, racket of providing insurance to drivers who are legally required to have it. (A retired insurance adjuster once admitted to me that the insurance industry is indeed a racket. Just happens to be a legalized one.) Cars that drive themselves? Well, can't hold the vehicle owner responsible anymore for accidents that take place. After all, he wasn't the driver. Who do you hold responsible? Why, it's the car-makers of course! If self-driven cars are ever created, watch their demise after the very first lawsuit against Ford, GM, or Toyota, etc. after the first self-driven car crashes into someone or something. So that's the car-makers who will also lobby Congress too to make sure cars are never self-driven.

I'm not so sure about that. Elevators used to have operators and then they became automated. There have been some fatalities due to failures, but nobody has ever suggested we go back to elevator operators. There is one compelling reason here for self-driven cars-the fact that most humans *can't* safely operate one. Sure, it's easy as you say to learn to move a car. It's well beyond the capability of most people to safely operate one on roads with other vehicles and pedestrians and cyclists. Most people just don't have the coordination, level of judgement, or spatial ability to do so. Why do I say this? Well, 35,000 deaths and 2 million injuries a year from collisions in the US alone is why. We wouldn't tolerate this level of carnage with plane travel or train travel, yet for now we tolerate it for car travel.

There is a great reason why self-driven cars will happen, and it's that the costs of not automating cars greatly exceed the costs of automating them. Liability is a non issue here. Even if automakers are held liable for the deaths caused by automated cars at the current going rate (say about $2 million per life), that will be a drop in the bucket to their bottom line. I'd be surprised if there were more than a handful of deaths annually due to issues with self-driven cars. Don't forget these systems won't be implemented until they're thoroughly tested in the real world. I could put another angle on it. Suppose there was a class-action lawsuit against the automakers right now for the carnage their vehicles cause? That's actually fairly plausible because many car commercials depict cars driven in an illegal and dangerous manner, with only a small disclaimer "car driven on closed course by professional driver". My guess is the automakers would lose big time because they've done little to prevent their vehicles from being operated in a dangerous manner. Certainly they could have done things like use GPS and speed limit data to limit acceleration rates on city streets (to prevent drag racing on streets with pedestrians), and also to limit speeds to the posted speed limit at all times. None of this would even have required any extra hardware. Most cars already have GPS navigation which could be tied into the engine controls to limit speeds and acceleration rates. My larger point is that going to self-driven cars might actually shield automakers from liability because I suspect they won't be able to hide forever behind the fact that how the vehicle is operated is out of their control. To some extent they're complicit in this already just by building cars which have top speeds and acceleration rates well beyond what the average driver can handle.

On the insurance industry, I think this is the one thing which will get the general public to embrace automated cars. Some may not like no longer being able to drive because they enjoy it. The carrot though will be that auto insurance will be a thing of the past. The auto makers and possibly service stations would end up facing liability if something happened, not the individual driver. I suspect that once automated cars are widespread, accidents will be so rare that they will make the national news.

Remember an underlying reason for the trend towards automated driving is the increasing number of driver distractions. Evidently enough people would prefer to text or web surf instead of drive because that's what they're already doing. At least with self-driven cars they can do this without placing others in danger. There are also tons of other advantages. You can do away with traffic lights. You can run closer together at much higher speeds on expressways. The value of all these things far exceeds any potential liability issues.

[Monocrom]

Sorry, I can't agree about "most humans can't safely operate [a motor vehicle]."

That's an incredibly general statement. That's your belief. And that's perfectly fine. Mine is that they can, but that many don't take driving seriously. It's not a question of physical or mental limitations. Such as hand / eye coordination, or being tall enough to reach the pedals. Some of us take driving seriously. Others have way the wrong mindset / attitude. The ones who text & drive, for example. Or those who eat & drive. Apply make-up while driving. Shave while driving . . .

Problem isn't their ability at all, it's their wrong-headed mentality.

The main issue once again is money. The insurance industry isn't going to give up their legalized racket that allows them to figuratively print money. No way are they going to make as much money insuring the various car-makers for self-driven vehicles as they would the sheer staggering number of private civilians who need to drive in order to get to work. No way are the various car brands going to have their profit margins greatly reduced by having to buy a new type of insurance for self-driven cars. Then, there are the enviromentalists who will also be petitioning Congress. After all, they're not going to support a ton of self-driven cars clogging up the highways when each of those car owners could be "self-driven" on a public bus along with a ton of other such car owners.

So that's at least 3 huge groups that will flood Congress with lobbyists. All lobbying against self-driven cars. Also, in the incredibly unlikely event that these groups are ignored. After the very first malfunction of a self-driven car in which a person gets killed, that's it! They're getting yanked off the roads.