5 ms·

My issue with autonomous driving for personal vehicles is that it is the right answer to the wrong question. Isn't the biggest problem with individual cars the

by chicob 9y ago

My issue with autonomous driving for personal vehicles is that it is the right answer to the wrong question. Isn't the biggest problem with individual cars the very fact that they're individual? Individual transportation is already a reality, but there are more problems to it. I think autonomous vehicle technology would be better applied to collective transportation: less cars, autonomous or not, means more manageable traffic and as such a lot less accidents. But it also means more efficient energy usage, because of the scaling factor. The more people moved at a time, the least energy per person. Static topology public transportation may also be broken, with all its social consequences, but a dynamic/semi-dynamic topology with self-driving technology would, imo, do wonders for cities and their inhabitants.

eru 9y ago
Depends. What goals are you trying to optimizing for? Individual cars are great for individual transport, no doubt. Going with more collective systems makes sense if the economics work out. (Or if that's your ideological bend..) Why do you worry about energy usage? I see two reasons why anyone would want to worry: CO2 emissions, or cost of energy. The latter is largely alleviated by shale oil these days. The former could be by moving to eg electric cars and nuclear power (or solar). The move would be relatively straightforward technologically, if the political will for eg a huge CO2 tax existed. (Of course, the conversion would cost society as a whole a lot.) Another factor to wonder about that you mention is the effect of various kinds of traffic on the shape of living. I am with you that pedestrians should reign supreme again---and I am actually hopeful that the very convenience of self-driving cars will make people adopt them (either as individual owners or uber-style) even though in practice they will always yield to pedestrians and cyclists. Thus essentially voluntarily ending a century of car drivers bullying less armoured road users.
- closeparen 9y ago
  > pedestrians should reign supreme again This is deeply classist. Those of us who can't afford centrally located real estate (and therefore need motor transport of some kind) should lose more of our lifespans to the commute, so that people who can afford centrally located real estate don't have to bother with crosswalks? The inconvenience of sticking to sidewalks and crossing with the light is so small, and the quality-of-life impact of additional commute time so large, that this is a really weird trade to make. Certainly they can and should improve the rate of actually yielding to pedestrians where they currently have right of way, but it will become basically impossible to live beyond walking distance of your workplace if pedestrians are allowed to wander in front of your bus at any time and make it wait arbitrarily long.
  - eru 9y ago
    I also happen to be a Georgist: so I think that we should tax away all land rent (which is essentially unearned) and give it out equally to all members of the population. Is that still classist? I just moved from car-dominated Sydney to pedestrian-dominated London, and the difference in quality of life from that alone is huge. (Even if Sydney otherwise has better weather and food, and more modern housing stock etc.) The inconvenience ain't small.
    - closeparen 9y ago
      London has an extensive network of vehicle-dominated pedestrian-hostile pathways, but the vehicles in question are trains.
- chicob 9y ago
  I left this comment hanging for some reason, but here it goes. >Why do you worry about energy usage? It's not just CO2, but energy in general. If it never becomes arbitrarily cheap, it will always be a constraint. Also vehicle production, since steel might become a scarce commodity. >the effect of various kinds of traffic on the shape of living Definitely. This century of individual transportation has had cheap energy and vehicle production on its side. Besides, ubiquitous pavement and city planning have been forced into fitting the idea that it is a good thing.
  - eru 9y ago
    > If it never becomes arbitrarily cheap, it will always be a constraint. I agree. But to use words inspired by mathematical optimization: it's more of a cost than a hard constraint.
closeparen 9y ago
What is the virtue of having less traffic if no one will be subject to it? Framing "traffic" as a problem that should be solved by getting others off the roads reads as pure selfishness. Certainly we should have less (zero) fossil fuel combustion, but we can already do that with personal vehicles.
- chicob 9y ago
  I would define selfishness as a car per person. Where I live, every time I go south, roughly 8-9 am, with opposing traffic, I see a >5 mile train of engines waiting in line. And I call it a train because in the exact same direction there is an actual train, this time with only one engine, transporting hundreds of people at a time. Public transportation could be better, if public administrators really wanted. Before we get to the time autonomous personal vehicles have 0 emissions and are maximal efficient, being so cheap anyone can afford one, every other solution than rationalizing transportation and city planning will fall short of it, imo.
  - closeparen 9y ago
    Reducing vehicle traffic will not make rail service better. They are separate rights of way. So again, what is the virtue of having less traffic? Around here, even regional (Transbay) bus service works fine in arbitrarily bad traffic because no matter how many people are waiting to get through the personal-vehicle lanes, the bus flies right over them on a dedicated lane. The primary impediment to Transbay service speed is actually the stream of pedestrians preventing the buses from getting a right turn between the freeway off-ramp and the bus terminal. Certainly improving public transit is good in and of itself, and traffic will diminish if people are taking public transit instead, but this is a secondary effect. Reducing traffic should not be a goal by itself. Traffic is bad to the extent that it wastes people's time. If public transit and bicycles would waste even more of their time, then we should be happy people have access to something better.
    - chicob 9y ago
      >Reducing vehicle traffic will not make rail service better. I didn't said that less traffic leads to better rail service. It just seams irrational to me to avoid the cheaper, quicker alternative. However, it does mean better bus performance. The virtue of less traffic is that whatever traffic remains is easier to manage, there is less urban noise, and since we are far from optimal, to some extent it will mean a lower energy consumption. >Reducing traffic should not be a goal by itself. Of course not, but minimizing traffic while maximizing mobility should.

by chicob 9y ago

eru 9y ago

Depends. What goals are you trying to optimizing for? Individual cars are great for individual transport, no doubt. Going with more collective systems makes sense if the economics work out. (Or if that's your ideological bend..) Why do you worry about energy usage? I see two reasons why anyone would want to worry: CO2 emissions, or cost of energy. The latter is largely alleviated by shale oil these days. The former could be by moving to eg electric cars and nuclear power (or solar). The move would be relatively straightforward technologically, if the political will for eg a huge CO2 tax existed. (Of course, the conversion would cost society as a whole a lot.) Another factor to wonder about that you mention is the effect of various kinds of traffic on the shape of living. I am with you that pedestrians should reign supreme again---and I am actually hopeful that the very convenience of self-driving cars will make people adopt them (either as individual owners or uber-style) even though in practice they will always yield to pedestrians and cyclists. Thus essentially voluntarily ending a century of car drivers bullying less armoured road users.

closeparen 9y ago
> pedestrians should reign supreme again This is deeply classist. Those of us who can't afford centrally located real estate (and therefore need motor transport of some kind) should lose more of our lifespans to the commute, so that people who can afford centrally located real estate don't have to bother with crosswalks? The inconvenience of sticking to sidewalks and crossing with the light is so small, and the quality-of-life impact of additional commute time so large, that this is a really weird trade to make. Certainly they can and should improve the rate of actually yielding to pedestrians where they currently have right of way, but it will become basically impossible to live beyond walking distance of your workplace if pedestrians are allowed to wander in front of your bus at any time and make it wait arbitrarily long.
- eru 9y ago
  I also happen to be a Georgist: so I think that we should tax away all land rent (which is essentially unearned) and give it out equally to all members of the population. Is that still classist? I just moved from car-dominated Sydney to pedestrian-dominated London, and the difference in quality of life from that alone is huge. (Even if Sydney otherwise has better weather and food, and more modern housing stock etc.) The inconvenience ain't small.
  - closeparen 9y ago
    London has an extensive network of vehicle-dominated pedestrian-hostile pathways, but the vehicles in question are trains.
chicob 9y ago
I left this comment hanging for some reason, but here it goes. >Why do you worry about energy usage? It's not just CO2, but energy in general. If it never becomes arbitrarily cheap, it will always be a constraint. Also vehicle production, since steel might become a scarce commodity. >the effect of various kinds of traffic on the shape of living Definitely. This century of individual transportation has had cheap energy and vehicle production on its side. Besides, ubiquitous pavement and city planning have been forced into fitting the idea that it is a good thing.
- eru 9y ago
  > If it never becomes arbitrarily cheap, it will always be a constraint. I agree. But to use words inspired by mathematical optimization: it's more of a cost than a hard constraint.

closeparen 9y ago

What is the virtue of having less traffic if no one will be subject to it? Framing "traffic" as a problem that should be solved by getting others off the roads reads as pure selfishness. Certainly we should have less (zero) fossil fuel combustion, but we can already do that with personal vehicles.

chicob 9y ago
I would define selfishness as a car per person. Where I live, every time I go south, roughly 8-9 am, with opposing traffic, I see a >5 mile train of engines waiting in line. And I call it a train because in the exact same direction there is an actual train, this time with only one engine, transporting hundreds of people at a time. Public transportation could be better, if public administrators really wanted. Before we get to the time autonomous personal vehicles have 0 emissions and are maximal efficient, being so cheap anyone can afford one, every other solution than rationalizing transportation and city planning will fall short of it, imo.
- closeparen 9y ago
  Reducing vehicle traffic will not make rail service better. They are separate rights of way. So again, what is the virtue of having less traffic? Around here, even regional (Transbay) bus service works fine in arbitrarily bad traffic because no matter how many people are waiting to get through the personal-vehicle lanes, the bus flies right over them on a dedicated lane. The primary impediment to Transbay service speed is actually the stream of pedestrians preventing the buses from getting a right turn between the freeway off-ramp and the bus terminal. Certainly improving public transit is good in and of itself, and traffic will diminish if people are taking public transit instead, but this is a secondary effect. Reducing traffic should not be a goal by itself. Traffic is bad to the extent that it wastes people's time. If public transit and bicycles would waste even more of their time, then we should be happy people have access to something better.
  - chicob 9y ago
    >Reducing vehicle traffic will not make rail service better. I didn't said that less traffic leads to better rail service. It just seams irrational to me to avoid the cheaper, quicker alternative. However, it does mean better bus performance. The virtue of less traffic is that whatever traffic remains is easier to manage, there is less urban noise, and since we are far from optimal, to some extent it will mean a lower energy consumption. >Reducing traffic should not be a goal by itself. Of course not, but minimizing traffic while maximizing mobility should.