5 ms·

Autonomous drive is a novel idea but doesn't really provide any real solution. Most important selling point at the moment is that you could take the time spent

Autonomous drive is a novel idea but doesn't really provide any real solution. Most important selling point at the moment is that you could take the time spent in car and spend it doing something else such as your work while the car drives itself (i.e. is stuck in the traffic). However if the real problem we want to look at is the overall stupidity of traffic congestion that is extremely a) energy inefficient, b) time consuming c) unenvironmental d) space intensive the first real question to be asked really is, why does everyone need to commute to the same place in the same time? It seems that urban city planning has really gone horribly wrong with all the businesses and companies packing into the "business district". The direct consequences in terms of economy and environmental pollution not to mention direct impact on individual life (time wasted in a car...) are dire. In order to really solve the problem of traffic congestion the ultimate solution is to disperse with this silly need. If people are really required at a place physically (i.e. cannot do their work remotely) urban cities should become decentralized with several business hubs closer to the suburbuan areas. Failing that a secondary solution is to increase the efficiency of the transit. One derp sitting in his Ford Thunderfuck XL EarthDestroyer 5600 is incredibly stupid. Like the author of the commented a train is massively more efficient, has higher throughput and scales better. I know americans (and aussies) consider this to be an inferior mode of transport, they rather sit in their cars. But I personally don't really understand this. I'd never accept a commute that would take more than 15 minutes. My life and time is simply too precious for that.

sneakest 11y ago
> the first real question to be asked really is, why does everyone need to commute to the same place in the same time? Schools (K-12) are one of the biggest drivers of why at the same time. Schools start and end at specific times. This (usually) requires one adult to be around to drop them off and pick them up at school or the bus stop, especially K to at least early middle school. Because of this a lot of people in (sub)urban areas leave from home and from work around the same time. The difference in traffic congestion is drastic when you compare summer to the school year in larger cities with no meaningful mass transit.
jessriedel 11y ago
> the first real question to be asked really is, why does everyone need to commute to the same place in the same time? > If people are really required at a place physically (i.e. cannot do their work remotely) urban cities should become decentralized with several business hubs closer to the suburbuan areas. Yes, other business hubs are called "other cities" and "towns". There's a reason people pay a premium to pile into the same city, and you can't wish away the large benefits of density, both in terms of housing and in terms of businesses.
CyberDildonics 11y ago
Lamenting that people need to commute for their jobs doesn't really change or help anything. People work within their systems of incentives. Driverless cars will be an enormous help in many ways, even to traffic congestion. Having many small buses are a distinct possibility. They could be basically boxes filled with standing people with the motors and batteries underneath. They could be be much more granular and recharge on their own. They could even turn their wheels selectively to get around smaller spaces. Even a small one could hold 6-8 standing people. You have to realize that there is a lot more to an advancement like this then just 'now you can take your hands off the wheel'
- TrevorJ 11y ago
  The problem with driverless cars is it incentivises behaviour that puts more vehicles on the road: you can call your (empty) car to come pick you up, and public transport no longer has the same advantages compared to driverless cars. I just don't see driverless cars helping congestion in the long run.
  - CyberDildonics 11y ago
    How would that put more vehicles on the road? Don't forget carpooling. What if one car could take everyone home then return to it's owner? Also how would public transportation lose its advantage? It could be cheap, more direct, and more granular.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
npsimons 11y ago
I'd agree that the issue is with how we (US perspective) have built our cities and require too much face time. I'd also agree that driverless cars are a stopgap measure. That being said, they might present a way to transition to more efficient models, and in the short term they can relieve the burdens of many. It occurred to me the other day that there are many people who can't drive themselves and have to give up a measure of independence to be reliant on someone else to get them places. Driverless cars could give them back their independence.

sneakest 11y ago

> the first real question to be asked really is, why does everyone need to commute to the same place in the same time? Schools (K-12) are one of the biggest drivers of why at the same time. Schools start and end at specific times. This (usually) requires one adult to be around to drop them off and pick them up at school or the bus stop, especially K to at least early middle school. Because of this a lot of people in (sub)urban areas leave from home and from work around the same time. The difference in traffic congestion is drastic when you compare summer to the school year in larger cities with no meaningful mass transit.

jessriedel 11y ago

> the first real question to be asked really is, why does everyone need to commute to the same place in the same time? > If people are really required at a place physically (i.e. cannot do their work remotely) urban cities should become decentralized with several business hubs closer to the suburbuan areas. Yes, other business hubs are called "other cities" and "towns". There's a reason people pay a premium to pile into the same city, and you can't wish away the large benefits of density, both in terms of housing and in terms of businesses.

CyberDildonics 11y ago

Lamenting that people need to commute for their jobs doesn't really change or help anything. People work within their systems of incentives. Driverless cars will be an enormous help in many ways, even to traffic congestion. Having many small buses are a distinct possibility. They could be basically boxes filled with standing people with the motors and batteries underneath. They could be be much more granular and recharge on their own. They could even turn their wheels selectively to get around smaller spaces. Even a small one could hold 6-8 standing people. You have to realize that there is a lot more to an advancement like this then just 'now you can take your hands off the wheel'

TrevorJ 11y ago
The problem with driverless cars is it incentivises behaviour that puts more vehicles on the road: you can call your (empty) car to come pick you up, and public transport no longer has the same advantages compared to driverless cars. I just don't see driverless cars helping congestion in the long run.
- CyberDildonics 11y ago
  How would that put more vehicles on the road? Don't forget carpooling. What if one car could take everyone home then return to it's owner? Also how would public transportation lose its advantage? It could be cheap, more direct, and more granular.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

npsimons 11y ago

I'd agree that the issue is with how we (US perspective) have built our cities and require too much face time. I'd also agree that driverless cars are a stopgap measure. That being said, they might present a way to transition to more efficient models, and in the short term they can relieve the burdens of many. It occurred to me the other day that there are many people who can't drive themselves and have to give up a measure of independence to be reliant on someone else to get them places. Driverless cars could give them back their independence.