4 ms·

He might be right, but it would require allowing cars to drive around on roads without anyone in them. Using a shared, limited resource in that way is such a p

He might be right, but it would require allowing cars to drive around on roads without anyone in them. Using a shared, limited resource in that way is such a prototypical "tragedy of the commons" that I can't see any government allowing it. Traffic will be insane if people can send their cars on errands without having to sit in the resulting traffic, or if hired cars can drive halfway across the city to pick up the next fare with no impact to the car's owner besides wear and fuel. No amount of incremental improvements in capacity due to "better" robot drivers will make up for that.

fastball 10y ago
What errands do you imagine a car will be able to do by itself?
- kinofcain 10y ago
  There's somewhere around 60 million kids in the US alone. Picking them up and dropping them off from school, soccer practice, ukulele lessons, birthday parties, etc. is a large amount of time as a parent. Ask anyone with kids if they'd buy a car that would take their kids to dance rehearsals on its own. People will love these things, and they'll want to use them all the time, and the traffic will be horrendous.
hx87 10y ago
> I can't see any government allowing it What if they could apply a "time on the streets" tax?
- kinofcain 10y ago
  That's the only solution I can think of other than an outright ban. It could also coincide with the last gasps of the gasoline tax. It might still not be enough, however, and it would be highly regressive without some sort of heavy scaling based on income: The disparity between the value that people at different income levels place on their time is staggering. That disparity is the entire reason Uber (and the rest of the service industry) are thriving.
zeveb 10y ago
> Traffic will be insane if people can send their cars on errands without having to sit in the resulting traffic, or if hired cars can drive halfway across the city to pick up the next fare with no impact to the car's owner besides wear and fuel. Of course, what do you care what traffic is like, if you're being driven? So you get to read the news for an extra fifteen minutes, or have another beer.
- shepting 10y ago
  Once people don't have to own their own vehicle, many roads will get an extra driving lane that used to be used for parking.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Traffic will be insane if people can send their cars on errands without having to sit in the resulting traffic Most errands involving cars also require the user on both ends to load and/or unload or perform some other function. But, sure, we can ignore that for the sake of argument... > or if hired cars can drive halfway across the city to pick up the next fare with no impact to the car's owner besides wear and fuel. Well, it will if there is no cost other than low-cost fuel (like the US has no) or similarly low-cost energy (e.g., for electrics). OTOH, the solution to "the aggregate amount of traffic is too high because the cost is too low" is to increase the cost -- probably not with gas charges because of the move to EVs, but by tracking cars on the road and charging for their use of the road, more at peak hours.
- kinofcain 10y ago
  Most errands involving cars primarily involve transporting people, who are usually more than capable of getting into cars by themselves. In fact, that's the whole point of Uber's business model. If I can send my car out without having to drive it myself, I'll use it for things things like picking up kids. Take my spouse to work, drive back home, take me to work at a different time, repeat. Right now many families buy two cars, often not because they need to drive both of them at exactly the same time, but because they need to use them in different places. If you can send the car between locations then you can use one car, and the cost is that the car spends time on the road, making someone else's commute worse. Again, this is Uber's entire business model, and if they're successful at getting everyone to use ride-sharing, regardless of self-driving cars, then we will trade a bunch of parking spaces for more cars on the road. It's literally how Uber works. In addition, if your car can drive itself places, whole new business models will spring up around things like delivery of food, packages, etc. Businesses will be happy to start providing you the service of putting stuff in your trunk. Yes, I'm guessing that the arrival of self driving cars coincides with electric drive becoming commonplace. They could even go hand in hand: send the car back home to charge, then have it pick us up later. All of these things reduce the incremental cost of having your car on the road, which will drastically increase traffic.

fastball 10y ago

What errands do you imagine a car will be able to do by itself?

kinofcain 10y ago
There's somewhere around 60 million kids in the US alone. Picking them up and dropping them off from school, soccer practice, ukulele lessons, birthday parties, etc. is a large amount of time as a parent. Ask anyone with kids if they'd buy a car that would take their kids to dance rehearsals on its own. People will love these things, and they'll want to use them all the time, and the traffic will be horrendous.

hx87 10y ago

> I can't see any government allowing it What if they could apply a "time on the streets" tax?

kinofcain 10y ago
That's the only solution I can think of other than an outright ban. It could also coincide with the last gasps of the gasoline tax. It might still not be enough, however, and it would be highly regressive without some sort of heavy scaling based on income: The disparity between the value that people at different income levels place on their time is staggering. That disparity is the entire reason Uber (and the rest of the service industry) are thriving.

zeveb 10y ago

> Traffic will be insane if people can send their cars on errands without having to sit in the resulting traffic, or if hired cars can drive halfway across the city to pick up the next fare with no impact to the car's owner besides wear and fuel. Of course, what do you care what traffic is like, if you're being driven? So you get to read the news for an extra fifteen minutes, or have another beer.

shepting 10y ago
Once people don't have to own their own vehicle, many roads will get an extra driving lane that used to be used for parking.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

dragonwriter 10y ago

> Traffic will be insane if people can send their cars on errands without having to sit in the resulting traffic Most errands involving cars also require the user on both ends to load and/or unload or perform some other function. But, sure, we can ignore that for the sake of argument... > or if hired cars can drive halfway across the city to pick up the next fare with no impact to the car's owner besides wear and fuel. Well, it will if there is no cost other than low-cost fuel (like the US has no) or similarly low-cost energy (e.g., for electrics). OTOH, the solution to "the aggregate amount of traffic is too high because the cost is too low" is to increase the cost -- probably not with gas charges because of the move to EVs, but by tracking cars on the road and charging for their use of the road, more at peak hours.

kinofcain 10y ago
Most errands involving cars primarily involve transporting people, who are usually more than capable of getting into cars by themselves. In fact, that's the whole point of Uber's business model. If I can send my car out without having to drive it myself, I'll use it for things things like picking up kids. Take my spouse to work, drive back home, take me to work at a different time, repeat. Right now many families buy two cars, often not because they need to drive both of them at exactly the same time, but because they need to use them in different places. If you can send the car between locations then you can use one car, and the cost is that the car spends time on the road, making someone else's commute worse. Again, this is Uber's entire business model, and if they're successful at getting everyone to use ride-sharing, regardless of self-driving cars, then we will trade a bunch of parking spaces for more cars on the road. It's literally how Uber works. In addition, if your car can drive itself places, whole new business models will spring up around things like delivery of food, packages, etc. Businesses will be happy to start providing you the service of putting stuff in your trunk. Yes, I'm guessing that the arrival of self driving cars coincides with electric drive becoming commonplace. They could even go hand in hand: send the car back home to charge, then have it pick us up later. All of these things reduce the incremental cost of having your car on the road, which will drastically increase traffic.