Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety
Reload this Page >

Would a self driving car world make it safe for cyclists?

Notices
Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

Would a self driving car world make it safe for cyclists?

Old 12-13-17, 08:14 PM
  #826  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Canada, PG BC
Posts: 3,849

Bikes: 27 speed ORYX with over 39,000Kms on it and another 14,000KMs with a BionX E-Assist on it

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1024 Post(s)
Liked 57 Times in 49 Posts
[QUOTE=Ninety5rpm;20051306]Yes I did. Your challenge was to figure "this" out first, and you quoted the title of the LAT article. "Lidar costs $75,000 per car. If the price doesn't drop to a few hundred bucks, driverless cars won't go mass market."

But the article itself, and the other links I posted, all indicate the price will drop to at least a few thousand bucks. I disagree with the article that it needs to drop to a few hundred bucks, but it might do that too, especially if the Swedish approach works out. That reminds me, Tesla has been doing quite well without Lidar too.

In other words, what is there to figure out?[/QUOTE]

The ratio, of how many people would die per million miles driven in cars, driven by humans, compared to how many people would die per million miles in cars driven with Autonomous systems.. , it's really that simple.
350htrr is offline  
Old 12-13-17, 08:38 PM
  #827  
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,341
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 959 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 350htrr

The ratio, of how many people would die per million miles driven in cars, driven by humans, compared to how many people would die per million miles in cars driven with Autonomous systems.. , it's really that simple.
LOL! How was I to know that's what you were asking?


This is a little stale but gets us in the ballpark for human driven cars:

While the fatality rate roughly leveled off around 20002005 at around 1.5 fatalities per 100 million miles traveled, it has resumed a downward trend and reached 1.27 in 2008

That's surprisingly good, though I suspect it has been creeping back up to 1.5 since 2008.

Well, AVs are way far behind, of course. Even Waymo has only racked up about 4 million miles, and Tesla has already one fatality (though that's not really fair to count since it was only a Level 2 system and it was signaling the human driver to take over).

So we just have to wait. But... so far, so good.
Ninety5rpm is offline  
Old 12-14-17, 08:10 AM
  #828  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: SE Wisconsin
Posts: 775

Bikes: Trek 970, Bianchi Volpe,Casati

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 359 Post(s)
Liked 122 Times in 87 Posts
Ratio

[QUOTE=350htrr;20051511]
Originally Posted by Ninety5rpm
Yes I did. Your challenge was to figure "this" out first, and you quoted the title of the LAT article. "Lidar costs $75,000 per car. If the price doesn't drop to a few hundred bucks, driverless cars won't go mass market."

But the article itself, and the other links I posted, all indicate the price will drop to at least a few thousand bucks. I disagree with the article that it needs to drop to a few hundred bucks, but it might do that too, especially if the Swedish approach works out. That reminds me, Tesla has been doing quite well without Lidar too.

In other words, what is there to figure out?[/QUOTE]

The ratio, of how many people would die per million miles driven in cars, driven by humans, compared to how many people would die per million miles in cars driven with Autonomous systems.. , it's really that simple.
this ratio would only be available once all of the cars were all autonomous,, and by that time if all the cars where autonomous, it would be too late to go back to human-driven cars because the amount of money put out now, there would be no going back. Humans may be unpredictable ..but computers are glitchy to say the least.

Last edited by rossiny; 12-14-17 at 08:14 AM.
rossiny is offline  
Old 12-14-17, 09:18 AM
  #829  
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,341
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 959 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by rossiny
this ratio would only be available once all of the cars were all autonomous,, and by that time if all the cars where autonomous, it would be too late to go back to human-driven cars because the amount of money put out now, there would be no going back. Humans may be unpredictable ..but computers are glitchy to say the least.
I missed the "systems" in your comment. I don't know about autonomous "systems", or any plans for any such systems. What I see happening are autonomous individual vehicles being added to the mix. What I foresee is a rapid replacement of human driven cars by these AVs in the next few years. But I don't see any autonomous "systems".

Last edited by Ninety5rpm; 12-14-17 at 10:50 AM.
Ninety5rpm is offline  
Old 12-14-17, 09:33 AM
  #830  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: SE Wisconsin
Posts: 775

Bikes: Trek 970, Bianchi Volpe,Casati

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 359 Post(s)
Liked 122 Times in 87 Posts
My bad.. I thought autonomous is same word as self driving.. My point was more about ratio of deaths. Once billions would be spent on going to self-driving it would be too late no matter the ratio of deaths before or after human-driven...
rossiny is offline  
Old 12-14-17, 10:33 AM
  #831  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Canada, PG BC
Posts: 3,849

Bikes: 27 speed ORYX with over 39,000Kms on it and another 14,000KMs with a BionX E-Assist on it

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1024 Post(s)
Liked 57 Times in 49 Posts
Ah..., I think there is a glitch in the system here as to who said what...
350htrr is offline  
Old 12-14-17, 10:49 AM
  #832  
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,341
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 959 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by rossiny
My bad.. I thought autonomous is same word as self driving.. My point was more about ratio of deaths. Once billions would be spent on going to self-driving it would be too late no matter the ratio of deaths before or after human-driven...
Yes, autonomous is synonymous with self-driving, as far as I know.

That ratio can be determined long before anywhere near a complete switch over. Once 10,000 AVs have driven 100,000 miles each, we'll have a billion miles from which to determine fatality frequency and compare that to fatality frequency for a billion human-driven miles (which we know is about 15 per billion miles - 1.5 per 100 million).

The best part is all this is it's all financed by the private sector - it's not a government expenditure.
Ninety5rpm is offline  
Old 12-14-17, 06:45 PM
  #833  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: SE Wisconsin
Posts: 775

Bikes: Trek 970, Bianchi Volpe,Casati

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 359 Post(s)
Liked 122 Times in 87 Posts
Originally Posted by Ninety5rpm
Yes, autonomous is synonymous with self-driving, as far as I know.

That ratio can be determined long before anywhere near a complete switch over. Once 10,000 AVs have driven 100,000 miles each, we'll have a billion miles from which to determine fatality frequency and compare that to fatality frequency for a billion human-driven miles (which we know is about 15 per billion miles - 1.5 per 100 million).

The best part is all this is it's all financed by the private sector - it's not a government expenditure.
I tend to totally disagree with that logic. Projections are way different that actual reality.
rossiny is offline  
Old 12-14-17, 07:39 PM
  #834  
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,341
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 959 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by rossiny
I tend to totally disagree with that logic. Projections are way different that actual reality.
How is it a projection?

We are consistently measuring 1.2 to 1.5 deaths per 100 million miles by human-driven vehicles. That's not projection.... that's measurement.

We could measure deaths per 100 million AV miles as well.
Ninety5rpm is offline  
Old 12-14-17, 08:28 PM
  #835  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Canada, PG BC
Posts: 3,849

Bikes: 27 speed ORYX with over 39,000Kms on it and another 14,000KMs with a BionX E-Assist on it

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1024 Post(s)
Liked 57 Times in 49 Posts
Originally Posted by rossiny
I tend to totally disagree with that logic. Projections are way different that actual reality.
Really...? He is not talking about "projections", he is talking about once AV have driven a billion miles, (10,000 vehicles driving 100,000 miles), it can be compared to humans driving 10,00,00 vehicles for 100,000 miles and give you a basically accurate number of death/injuries/differences...
350htrr is offline  
Old 12-15-17, 12:07 AM
  #836  
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,341
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 959 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 350htrr
Really...? He is not talking about "projections", he is talking about once AV have driven a billion miles, (10,000 vehicles driving 100,000 miles), it can be compared to humans driving 10,000 vehicles for 100,000 miles and give you a basically accurate number of death/injuries/differences...
Ninety5rpm is offline  
Old 12-15-17, 03:26 AM
  #837  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,977
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1638 Post(s)
Liked 741 Times in 495 Posts
Originally Posted by Ninety5rpm
Yes I did. Your challenge was to figure "this" out first, and you quoted the title of the LAT article. "Lidar costs $75,000 per car. If the price doesn't drop to a few hundred bucks, driverless cars won't go mass market."

But the article itself, and the other links I posted, all indicate the price will drop to at least a few thousand bucks. I disagree with the article that it needs to drop to a few hundred bucks, but it might do that too, especially if the Swedish approach works out. That reminds me, Tesla has been doing quite well without Lidar too.

In other words, what is there to figure out?
I did not quote the title of the article. I provided a link to the LA Times article. Regardless, 8-12k is too much additional cost per vehicle to go mass market. I agree that a cost of a few hundred $ per vehicle wouldn't be necessary or realistic. At that price point, it won't be profitable for the developer of the systems.

Can a Tesla be turned loose on the streets in full autonomous mode?
__________________
nine mile skid on a ten mile ride
02Giant is offline  
Old 12-15-17, 01:23 PM
  #838  
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,341
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 959 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 02Giant
I did not quote the title of the article. I provided a link to the LA Times article. Regardless, 8-12k is too much additional cost per vehicle to go mass market. I agree that a cost of a few hundred $ per vehicle wouldn't be necessary or realistic. At that price point, it won't be profitable for the developer of the systems.
I suspect the main market will be riding hailing services like Uber. Adding $10k just means the ride price will be a bit more; still a fraction of what it is now with a human driver.

Consider the rental price difference between a $30k car and a $40k car. A few bucks per day? Not much.

Originally Posted by 02Giant
Can a Tesla be turned loose on the streets in full autonomous mode?
Current Teslas are Level 2 autonomous. AVs can't be "turned loose" until they're Level 5. Just a few months ago most estimates were that this will happen in 10 years or so. Now I'm hearing 2020 or 2019. Some are predicting maybe even by end of 2018. Heck, Waymo has Level 4s driving around Phoenix with engineers in the back seat as we speak...
Ninety5rpm is offline  
Old 12-15-17, 06:12 PM
  #839  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,977
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1638 Post(s)
Liked 741 Times in 495 Posts
Originally Posted by Ninety5rpm
I suspect the main market will be riding hailing services like Uber. Adding $10k just means the ride price will be a bit more; still a fraction of what it is now with a human driver.

Consider the rental price difference between a $30k car and a $40k car. A few bucks per day? Not much.


Current Teslas are Level 2 autonomous. AVs can't be "turned loose" until they're Level 5. Just a few months ago most estimates were that this will happen in 10 years or so. Now I'm hearing 2020 or 2019. Some are predicting maybe even by end of 2018. Heck, Waymo has Level 4s driving around Phoenix with engineers in the back seat as we speak...
While this is true, rental car companies bank on the resale of the vehicles to the general public to be profitable. If the majority of AV's are to be owned by hailing services, not privately owned, that creates the need for a completely different business plan.
The cost per use will have to be higher to recoup the entire cost of the vehicle or, maybe there will be "Rent-A-Wreck" hailing companies as a secondary market for the vehicles. Although that creates more competition and holds prices down.
02Giant is offline  
Old 12-15-17, 06:36 PM
  #840  
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,341
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 959 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 02Giant
While this is true, rental car companies bank on the resale of the vehicles to the general public to be profitable. If the majority of AV's are to be owned by hailing services, not privately owned, that creates the need for a completely different business plan.
The cost per use will have to be higher to recoup the entire cost of the vehicle or, maybe there will be "Rent-A-Wreck" hailing companies as a secondary market for the vehicles. Although that creates more competition and holds prices down.
Even a $50k car amortized over 5 years is a cost of about $1000/month, with interest. Anything recouped from that is a bonus.

These cars will probably be designed with reconditioning in mind. The seating area has to be maintained presentable, so easy to update. EVs should be easier/cheaper to maintain. Batteries easily replaced. They'll probably be used for 100s of thousands of miles. Like buses, or NYC taxis.

Interesting tidbit, which should give us some clue as to how many miles these cars will be driven...:


The average NYC taxi travels 70,000 miles a year. This means these vehicles typically run out of their bumper-to-bumper factory warranties in 6 months.
...
Now, on to the topic at hand: What are the highest-mileage taxis in the Big Apple? In other words, what cars are capable of handling this immense grind day in and day out, carrying hundreds of people, running over giant potholes, speeding up and slowing down at breakneck pace and hitting the 200,000-mile mark before their third birthday? What cars are especially ready for this ridiculous, grueling task?

The answer isn't what you think.

Your instinct would probably be to go with the Ford Crown Victoria, the venerable body-on-frame full-size sedan that has a reputation for hard use in police forces and taxi companies all over North America. But these aren't the highest-mileage taxis in New York. That distinction is claimed by the Ford Escape Hybrid.

Yes, that's right: The NYC taxis with the highest mileage are little compact crossovers with hybrid engines.
...
So after running hundreds and hundreds of these reports, I've reached the conclusion that nothing beats the Ford Escape Hybrid. They routinely have 250,000, 300,000 or 350,000 miles. They've often been involved in several accidents. And they're constantly being driven hard, every single day, despite their advancing age, their increasing mileage and the grueling road conditions.

In fact, I've found one particular taxi that stands above all the others: It's a 2009 Escape Hybrid, taxi number 8F63. It's been in four accidents, and its last New York state inspection listed the mileage at 560,415. Of course, that was back in April, and I've seen it since then, doing what it does best: driving toward the Newark airport, edging ever closer to 600,000.


https://www.autotrader.com/car-news/...u-think-255766
Ninety5rpm is offline  
Old 12-15-17, 06:40 PM
  #841  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Canada, PG BC
Posts: 3,849

Bikes: 27 speed ORYX with over 39,000Kms on it and another 14,000KMs with a BionX E-Assist on it

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1024 Post(s)
Liked 57 Times in 49 Posts
Originally Posted by 02Giant
While this is true, rental car companies bank on the resale of the vehicles to the general public to be profitable. If the majority of AV's are to be owned by hailing services, not privately owned, that creates the need for a completely different business plan.
The cost per use will have to be higher to recoup the entire cost of the vehicle or, maybe there will be "Rent-A-Wreck" hailing companies as a secondary market for the vehicles. Although that creates more competition and holds prices down.
Not necessarily, I don't know how much the average Taxi driver makes, BUT... Lets say $20,000 a year minimum, for the life of that Taxi..? 20+ years, who cares about the price of the AV Taxi, even if it was $1000,000 it would still be economically "feasible" when you eliminate the driver costs... Made up numbers, to show/explain my point of view why it would work...
350htrr is offline  
Old 12-17-17, 08:12 PM
  #842  
What happened?
 
Rollfast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Around here somewhere
Posts: 7,927

Bikes: 3 Rollfasts, 3 Schwinns, a Shelby and a Higgins Flightliner in a pear tree!

Mentioned: 57 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1835 Post(s)
Liked 292 Times in 255 Posts
Where was the last place you ever saw a 20 year old taxi fleet that wasn't full of Checker Marathons?
__________________
I don't know nothing, and I memorized it in school and got this here paper I'm proud of to show it.
Rollfast is offline  
Old 12-17-17, 08:33 PM
  #843  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Canada, PG BC
Posts: 3,849

Bikes: 27 speed ORYX with over 39,000Kms on it and another 14,000KMs with a BionX E-Assist on it

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1024 Post(s)
Liked 57 Times in 49 Posts
Originally Posted by Rollfast
Where was the last place you ever saw a 20 year old taxi fleet that wasn't full of Checker Marathons?
Well, I am pretty sure 1/2 of my cities Taxi cabs are over 20+ years old or are of the new variety and have Prius written on them...
350htrr is offline  
Old 12-19-17, 01:46 AM
  #844  
What happened?
 
Rollfast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Around here somewhere
Posts: 7,927

Bikes: 3 Rollfasts, 3 Schwinns, a Shelby and a Higgins Flightliner in a pear tree!

Mentioned: 57 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1835 Post(s)
Liked 292 Times in 255 Posts
So a 1997 hybrid with about half a ton of old batteries or so is still rolling? Toyota meant them to be replaced regularly...the entire car, as battery technologies and engines were improved.

Minivans have become the taxi vehicle of choice here. Picking up multiple rides who share the car and pay separately for their individual trips is much more efficient with 2 rows of passenger seating.
__________________
I don't know nothing, and I memorized it in school and got this here paper I'm proud of to show it.
Rollfast is offline  
Old 12-19-17, 12:41 PM
  #845  
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,341
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 959 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Rollfast
So a 1997 hybrid with about half a ton of old batteries or so is still rolling? Toyota meant them to be replaced regularly...the entire car, as battery technologies and engines were improved.

Minivans have become the taxi vehicle of choice here. Picking up multiple rides who share the car and pay separately for their individual trips is much more efficient with 2 rows of passenger seating.
I expect self-driving pooled cars to do that, and even more efficiently. Since they'll be cheaper (no human driver to pay) they'll be in higher demand. With more people using them, it will be easier to have efficient pools. By an efficient pool I mean 2-4 parties traveling at the same time between two general areas, or at least generally along the same route between two points.

Fares will be dynamic. Ordering a few hours before your trip, and indicating a willingness to share, should get you discounts compared to requesting a trip on demand ASAP without sharing. But if you want a trip ASAP and are willing to share, that should get you a discount too, especially if there already is a shared vehicle generally along that route.

It's going to be very interesting.
Ninety5rpm is offline  
Old 12-19-17, 12:58 PM
  #846  
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,341
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 959 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
As consensus grows that yesterday's tragic train crash in Seattle could have been prevented with autonomous technology (the engineer took the train into a 30 mph curve at 80 mph), I think this signals growing acceptance by the public in general for autonomous technology, which will inevitably spread to cars. It just takes a time. But it's happening.
Ninety5rpm is offline  
Old 12-19-17, 02:22 PM
  #847  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: SE Wisconsin
Posts: 775

Bikes: Trek 970, Bianchi Volpe,Casati

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 359 Post(s)
Liked 122 Times in 87 Posts
Hmm

Originally Posted by Ninety5rpm
As consensus grows that yesterday's tragic train crash in Seattle could have been prevented with autonomous technology (the engineer took the train into a 30 mph curve at 80 mph), I think this signals growing acceptance by the public in general for autonomous technology, which will inevitably spread to cars. It just takes a time. But it's happening.
I think u have a point if the speed was limited going into the curve the crash maybe would not have happened.. Notice I said maybe.. Because I would not put it past Amtrak to say was the speed when in fact was the bad rails or some other malfunction. Years ago I wanted to take a train from Chicago to California with my kid.. Wow What HORRIBLE train tracks the cars just bounced around so bad that you had to hold on to something if u got up to walk.. I got out in Colorado and they gave a refund and reboarded back to Chicago.. The train literally crawled at some points.ps it was Amtrak company
rossiny is offline  
Old 12-19-17, 02:43 PM
  #848  
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,341
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 959 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by rossiny
I think u have a point if the speed was limited going into the curve the crash maybe would not have happened.. Notice I said maybe.. Because I would not put it past Amtrak to say was the speed when in fact was the bad rails or some other malfunction. Years ago I wanted to take a train from Chicago to California with my kid.. Wow What HORRIBLE train tracks the cars just bounced around so bad that you had to hold on to something if u got up to walk.. I got out in Colorado and they gave a refund and reboarded back to Chicago.. The train literally crawled at some points.ps it was Amtrak company
The chief investigator looked at the train logs. There is no question that it was going 80 (or 79) and the speed limit on that curve is 30.
Ninety5rpm is offline  
Old 12-19-17, 09:36 PM
  #849  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: SE Wisconsin
Posts: 775

Bikes: Trek 970, Bianchi Volpe,Casati

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 359 Post(s)
Liked 122 Times in 87 Posts
Okay

Then the blame is entirely on the train operator? He intentionally or accidentally went 80 mph instead of 30 mph?

Last edited by rossiny; 12-19-17 at 11:05 PM.
rossiny is offline  
Old 12-19-17, 10:02 PM
  #850  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 4,816
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1593 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1,026 Times in 576 Posts
Originally Posted by rossiny
Because I would not put it past Amtrak to say was the speed when in fact was the bad rails or some other malfunction. Years ago I wanted to take a train from Chicago to California with my kid.. Wow What HORRIBLE train tracks the cars just bounced around so bad that you had to hold on to something if u got up to walk.. I got out in Colorado and they gave a refund and reboarded back to Chicago.. The train literally crawled at some points.ps it was Amtrak company
Amtrack doesn't generally own and maintain the rails. That's the province of the freight companies.
jon c. is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.