3 ms·

In tipical geek fashion, this discussion is stuck around matters of safety in driverless cars and how can people be made to trust them. How much better they are

by CrLf 11y ago

In tipical geek fashion, this discussion is stuck around matters of safety in driverless cars and how can people be made to trust them. How much better they are, how fascinating the tech is. How driverless cars can replace cars entirely. But do people actually _want_ driverless cars? Will they _ever_ do? A driverless car is not a driverless elevator or train. People never drove their own elevators or trains, they were driven by other people. A car is another matter entirely. People enjoy driving their own cars, some because of the control it gives them, others because of the act of driving itself. If this weren't so, people wouldn't choose to drive their own cars in situations where taxis or other forms of public transportation are clearly superior. I want a self-driving car as much as I want self-drinking beer. I'm not saying self-driving cars are useless. I can certainly see a future with self-driving buses and taxis. However, for that to happen there are a few human obstacles that must be overcome even if the technology becomes perfect. The same obstacles that currently prevent self-driving trains from becoming more widespread: if you need a human to stand watch against vandalism and to react in emergency situations, he might as well be driving the thing, it's cheaper.

gvurrdon 11y ago
Indeed, there's still a case for car ownership even if one doesn't enjoy driving. One reason for preferring a car over a bus or taxi is the ability to transport luggage. I frequently find that I have to undertake round trips of 200-300 miles with a car full of bulky and valuable equipment; the destination is often somewhere that is not easily accessible by public transport, or requires changes between bus, train and taxi, even if I could take the luggage via that means. It might be rather convenient to have the car conduct at least the motorway portion of the driving itself, but access to my own car is pretty much essential in order to do this sort of thing. I suspect that for anyone in business where they must transport goods or tools it will be even more vital.
- prawn 11y ago
  You would just get a van or truck on demand. That's a huge benefit of on demand, self-driving cars - instead of having one car you try to fit into your every need, you get what you need and when you need it. So, something tiny if it's just you and your partner going to dinner. Or a van if you're taking kids and friends to an event. Or a truck if you have to move a sofa. I have a sedan. 90% of the time it's just me in the car. Insane.
  - CrLf 11y ago
    True. But you are talking about logic, which seldom matches human behavior. Humans are driven by other matters besides efficiency. A car is a status symbol. This must be taken into account when advocating solutions that may transmit a lower status for its user, be it driverless cars, on-demand cars or something else. Ignoring it is futile because this is above all else what made cars so widespread. No other fact explains why some people have more than one car strongly than this. Take the Segway, a wonderful device with much going for it except you looked stupid while riding it. It was a perceived low-status symbol and it failed because of that.
    - prawn 11y ago
      Lower prices for on-demand vehicles will mean that car ownership declines. Most people don't care too much about the brand of taxi or plane they take already. Once the price/efficiency mix is right, I will quickly ditch my second car.
  - gambiting 11y ago
    I am in similar situation to OP - I need a larger car during the weekends because I drive 200 miles away for certain events where I need to take loads of stuff with me. But during the week it's mostly me alone in the car driving to work. I could rent a truck during weekends - but that would be ungodly expensive, especially since I'm under 25 so every rental company charges literally 2x or 3x for car/van rental to drivers under 25. Then I have to worry about returning it on time, and it has to be in perfect condition or again, I have to pay for anything that's damaged. If I scratch my own car - no biggie. If I want to stay overnight - it won't cost me another $100 per day of rental. And then the question is - is it really "better" for the environment/society/traffic to make two cars rather than one?
    - prawn 11y ago
      Why would they make two cars rather than one? Most people would be sharing cars in x years. There would be fewer on the road over all. You'll use the truck for a couple of hours and then until you need it again, it'll return to the pool of available cars unless you want to hold it for the day. In the future, you won't be driving the car so I don't think U25 will be such an issue.
prawn 11y ago
I want self driving cars. I could read or work during every commute - that's hundreds of hours regained each year. Eat or socialise or sleep on a road trip. And the car that I need on demand. I hate driving something that's bigger than I need most of the time, just because on rare occasions I need to pick up the kids.

by CrLf 11y ago

gvurrdon 11y ago

Indeed, there's still a case for car ownership even if one doesn't enjoy driving. One reason for preferring a car over a bus or taxi is the ability to transport luggage. I frequently find that I have to undertake round trips of 200-300 miles with a car full of bulky and valuable equipment; the destination is often somewhere that is not easily accessible by public transport, or requires changes between bus, train and taxi, even if I could take the luggage via that means. It might be rather convenient to have the car conduct at least the motorway portion of the driving itself, but access to my own car is pretty much essential in order to do this sort of thing. I suspect that for anyone in business where they must transport goods or tools it will be even more vital.

prawn 11y ago
You would just get a van or truck on demand. That's a huge benefit of on demand, self-driving cars - instead of having one car you try to fit into your every need, you get what you need and when you need it. So, something tiny if it's just you and your partner going to dinner. Or a van if you're taking kids and friends to an event. Or a truck if you have to move a sofa. I have a sedan. 90% of the time it's just me in the car. Insane.
- CrLf 11y ago
  True. But you are talking about logic, which seldom matches human behavior. Humans are driven by other matters besides efficiency. A car is a status symbol. This must be taken into account when advocating solutions that may transmit a lower status for its user, be it driverless cars, on-demand cars or something else. Ignoring it is futile because this is above all else what made cars so widespread. No other fact explains why some people have more than one car strongly than this. Take the Segway, a wonderful device with much going for it except you looked stupid while riding it. It was a perceived low-status symbol and it failed because of that.
  - prawn 11y ago
    Lower prices for on-demand vehicles will mean that car ownership declines. Most people don't care too much about the brand of taxi or plane they take already. Once the price/efficiency mix is right, I will quickly ditch my second car.
- gambiting 11y ago
  I am in similar situation to OP - I need a larger car during the weekends because I drive 200 miles away for certain events where I need to take loads of stuff with me. But during the week it's mostly me alone in the car driving to work. I could rent a truck during weekends - but that would be ungodly expensive, especially since I'm under 25 so every rental company charges literally 2x or 3x for car/van rental to drivers under 25. Then I have to worry about returning it on time, and it has to be in perfect condition or again, I have to pay for anything that's damaged. If I scratch my own car - no biggie. If I want to stay overnight - it won't cost me another $100 per day of rental. And then the question is - is it really "better" for the environment/society/traffic to make two cars rather than one?
  - prawn 11y ago
    Why would they make two cars rather than one? Most people would be sharing cars in x years. There would be fewer on the road over all. You'll use the truck for a couple of hours and then until you need it again, it'll return to the pool of available cars unless you want to hold it for the day. In the future, you won't be driving the car so I don't think U25 will be such an issue.

prawn 11y ago

I want self driving cars. I could read or work during every commute - that's hundreds of hours regained each year. Eat or socialise or sleep on a road trip. And the car that I need on demand. I hate driving something that's bigger than I need most of the time, just because on rare occasions I need to pick up the kids.