3 ms·

To the extent this works anytime soon it will be so slow and inconsistent that it won’t be economically successful. Any driving service that works worse at nigh

To the extent this works anytime soon it will be so slow and inconsistent that it won’t be economically successful. Any driving service that works worse at night, in bad weather, or outside small well-mapped neighborhoods will not be comprehensive or reliable enough to be economically viable. Also the idea that self driving cars will end traffic is a dangerous lie to tell. Self driving cars will do nothing to reduce traffic. If anything, self driving cars will increase car trips. And in fact in order to serve people with reasonable service times there will need to be _more_ cars on the road at all times which will more than soak up any additional capacity gained from tighter traffic patterns on restricted access highways.

elchief 9y ago
Love me that hacker ethos...
- rocky1138 9y ago
  He or she is definitely right about the second point. For more detail on the thought behind the second point, read up on the Jevons Paradox if you're not already familiar with it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox I'm not convinced about the first idea, though. I think we shouldn't get confused with equating not covering all trips with lack of success. Even if driverless only works for commutes in one or two major cities I think that might be enough to call it a success, economical and societal.
  - labster 9y ago
    Yes, increasing availability of cars through self-driving will result in more trips, probably from underage or elderly people. But add in a service like Lyft, and the facts change. Taxi services reduce the total amount of miles driven. When I first heard that it sounded crazy, but think of this scenario: you live near your friends, but go to work at different places. You all agree to meet up for a beer after work. If everyone takes the same taxi home from the pub, you've saved two car trips.
    - rocky1138 9y ago
      I'm not sure you grasp just how fundamental a change in our lifestyles a switch to driverless cars could be, especially ones sold on a subscription basis with unlimited usage. It's the difference between first world countries with socialized medicine and those without. Before, driving was a job that everyone had and took up valuable cycles away from living your life. You had to consider each trip, e.g., "How much gas do I have? What's the traffic like? My car isn't working, I have to skip going out tonight." After, no matter what you want to do, you just call a car and get in. You don't even have to think about it. It's going to liberate so many people that undoubtedly frivolous trips are going to stack, similar to how people in countries with socialized medicine tend to visit the emergency room for less and less serious medical problems. Since Uber has come to town I catch myself calling it for things I could have easily skipped or taken the bus to or suffered on my motorcycle for (rain, etc.). I might haven taken, on average, less than one taxi per year but now take at least 15 Uber trips during that same time period. I think this sort of liberating convenience will only increase once driverless cars become popular.
  - perennate 9y ago
    I am skeptical of claims that autonomous vehicles would decrease congestion even without taking into account this paradox (i.e., even if the density of cars on the road remained the same). All the claims seem to reference the same study [1], but per the abstract they are just simulating one circular lane of traffic. No "lane changes, bottlenecks, merges, or changes in grade". Intuitively, it seems like once you add all these other factors in, autonomous vehicles won't help much unless deployed on a wide scale; for example, it doesn't seem like one driver can do much to speed up the merging of cars ahead of it. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.01693 https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.01693
    - hateduser2 9y ago
      The original post even mentions that it’s if deployed on a wide enough scale. The point is that f it is, it will end traffic. I haven’t seen any arguments that address what they’re talking about it here in this thread so far.
      - perennate 9y ago
        The original Lyft post references a news article that references the article that I linked to. This is under the "The end of traffic" headline.
      - so33 9y ago
        >The point is that f it is, it will end traffic. Will it though? Lyft claims that self driving cars are smoother and more consistent. They claim this will end traffic. Smoother, consistent driving doesn’t take into account traffic lights, stop signs, merging, lane changing and turning, all of which require you to slow down, even for a bit, and all of which are sources of traffic congestion. And of course bottlenecks as you move from a highway to city streets, and the slowing down as you reach your final destination. Intuitively, you would need a vast, high capacity tunnel network that would allow you to avoid all those things to “end” traffic (maybe). That’s more than self driving cars alone.
TYPE_FASTER 9y ago
I think self driving cars will increase safety, and decrease accidents. I've read that accidents contribute for 25% of traffic congestion that exists today, so self driving cars could have a noticeable impact on decreasing drive times.
- bennettfeely 9y ago
  The only noticable impact will be as you watch fellow human drivers speed past you on the road. Self-driving cars must follow the speed limit at all times. How can a company program a car to break the law?
  - ajmurmann 9y ago
    Yes, that's such a massive issue. Ideally we would do away with simple speed limits and have more complex safety rules for self driving cars. Of course that won't happen for a very long time. Till then the issue you are describing will be infuriating to human drivers. Here in Oregon though everyone already is going below the speed limit, so I won't really care. As a passenger it also doesn't matter as much, since you at least can do other stuff now. I'm looking forward to the increased productivity while the car is driving itself.
  - iancarroll 9y ago
    Tesla seems to have no problem letting people speed with Autopilot, within reason.
  - Saaster 9y ago
    Passengers won't care, they'll be busy playing with their phones or working. All that useless time spent driving is suddenly productive, as if you were in a nice private train car. If a car passes the train on the highway outside, do you even notice as a passenger? I think following the laws and driving calmly is a great benefit. Never once I have thought, "I'm so happy that Uber driver drove like a maniac weaving between lanes, and got me to my destination all of 4 minutes earlier. Yay".
grecy 9y ago
To the extent this works anytime soon it will be so slow and inconsistent that it won’t be economically successful. Any driving service that works worse at night, in bad weather, or outside small well-mapped neighborhoods will not be comprehensive or reliable enough to be economically viable. Worst case scenario - the cars NEVER self-drive and always have a driver - the whole setup is exactly as economically viable as current taxis. From all reports, current taxi setups make a lot of money. If the cars can self-drive lets say 25% of the time, then the whole setup is that much more economically viable.
Turing_Machine 9y ago
> outside small well-mapped neighborhoods will not be ... economically viable. Hmm... but aren't the small well-mapped (and high-density) neighborhoods where almost all the money is? You see way more conventional cabs roaming Manhattan and the Chicago Loop than you do on a county road outside Minot, North Dakota. Also, there's no reason they couldn't keep some human drivers for trips outside the dense core regions. The apps know where you're going before the car is even dispatched, after all. "This guy is going from the Art Institute to the Field Museum... send him a robocar." "This guy is going from O'Hare to a farmhouse on the outskirts of Kankakee... send him a human driver."

elchief 9y ago

Love me that hacker ethos...

rocky1138 9y ago
He or she is definitely right about the second point. For more detail on the thought behind the second point, read up on the Jevons Paradox if you're not already familiar with it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox I'm not convinced about the first idea, though. I think we shouldn't get confused with equating not covering all trips with lack of success. Even if driverless only works for commutes in one or two major cities I think that might be enough to call it a success, economical and societal.
- labster 9y ago
  Yes, increasing availability of cars through self-driving will result in more trips, probably from underage or elderly people. But add in a service like Lyft, and the facts change. Taxi services reduce the total amount of miles driven. When I first heard that it sounded crazy, but think of this scenario: you live near your friends, but go to work at different places. You all agree to meet up for a beer after work. If everyone takes the same taxi home from the pub, you've saved two car trips.
  - rocky1138 9y ago
    I'm not sure you grasp just how fundamental a change in our lifestyles a switch to driverless cars could be, especially ones sold on a subscription basis with unlimited usage. It's the difference between first world countries with socialized medicine and those without. Before, driving was a job that everyone had and took up valuable cycles away from living your life. You had to consider each trip, e.g., "How much gas do I have? What's the traffic like? My car isn't working, I have to skip going out tonight." After, no matter what you want to do, you just call a car and get in. You don't even have to think about it. It's going to liberate so many people that undoubtedly frivolous trips are going to stack, similar to how people in countries with socialized medicine tend to visit the emergency room for less and less serious medical problems. Since Uber has come to town I catch myself calling it for things I could have easily skipped or taken the bus to or suffered on my motorcycle for (rain, etc.). I might haven taken, on average, less than one taxi per year but now take at least 15 Uber trips during that same time period. I think this sort of liberating convenience will only increase once driverless cars become popular.
- perennate 9y ago
  I am skeptical of claims that autonomous vehicles would decrease congestion even without taking into account this paradox (i.e., even if the density of cars on the road remained the same). All the claims seem to reference the same study [1], but per the abstract they are just simulating one circular lane of traffic. No "lane changes, bottlenecks, merges, or changes in grade". Intuitively, it seems like once you add all these other factors in, autonomous vehicles won't help much unless deployed on a wide scale; for example, it doesn't seem like one driver can do much to speed up the merging of cars ahead of it. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.01693 https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.01693
  - hateduser2 9y ago
    The original post even mentions that it’s if deployed on a wide enough scale. The point is that f it is, it will end traffic. I haven’t seen any arguments that address what they’re talking about it here in this thread so far.
    - perennate 9y ago
      The original Lyft post references a news article that references the article that I linked to. This is under the "The end of traffic" headline.
    - so33 9y ago
      >The point is that f it is, it will end traffic. Will it though? Lyft claims that self driving cars are smoother and more consistent. They claim this will end traffic. Smoother, consistent driving doesn’t take into account traffic lights, stop signs, merging, lane changing and turning, all of which require you to slow down, even for a bit, and all of which are sources of traffic congestion. And of course bottlenecks as you move from a highway to city streets, and the slowing down as you reach your final destination. Intuitively, you would need a vast, high capacity tunnel network that would allow you to avoid all those things to “end” traffic (maybe). That’s more than self driving cars alone.

TYPE_FASTER 9y ago

I think self driving cars will increase safety, and decrease accidents. I've read that accidents contribute for 25% of traffic congestion that exists today, so self driving cars could have a noticeable impact on decreasing drive times.

bennettfeely 9y ago
The only noticable impact will be as you watch fellow human drivers speed past you on the road. Self-driving cars must follow the speed limit at all times. How can a company program a car to break the law?
- ajmurmann 9y ago
  Yes, that's such a massive issue. Ideally we would do away with simple speed limits and have more complex safety rules for self driving cars. Of course that won't happen for a very long time. Till then the issue you are describing will be infuriating to human drivers. Here in Oregon though everyone already is going below the speed limit, so I won't really care. As a passenger it also doesn't matter as much, since you at least can do other stuff now. I'm looking forward to the increased productivity while the car is driving itself.
- iancarroll 9y ago
  Tesla seems to have no problem letting people speed with Autopilot, within reason.
- Saaster 9y ago
  Passengers won't care, they'll be busy playing with their phones or working. All that useless time spent driving is suddenly productive, as if you were in a nice private train car. If a car passes the train on the highway outside, do you even notice as a passenger? I think following the laws and driving calmly is a great benefit. Never once I have thought, "I'm so happy that Uber driver drove like a maniac weaving between lanes, and got me to my destination all of 4 minutes earlier. Yay".

grecy 9y ago

To the extent this works anytime soon it will be so slow and inconsistent that it won’t be economically successful. Any driving service that works worse at night, in bad weather, or outside small well-mapped neighborhoods will not be comprehensive or reliable enough to be economically viable. Worst case scenario - the cars NEVER self-drive and always have a driver - the whole setup is exactly as economically viable as current taxis. From all reports, current taxi setups make a lot of money. If the cars can self-drive lets say 25% of the time, then the whole setup is that much more economically viable.

Turing_Machine 9y ago

> outside small well-mapped neighborhoods will not be ... economically viable. Hmm... but aren't the small well-mapped (and high-density) neighborhoods where almost all the money is? You see way more conventional cabs roaming Manhattan and the Chicago Loop than you do on a county road outside Minot, North Dakota. Also, there's no reason they couldn't keep some human drivers for trips outside the dense core regions. The apps know where you're going before the car is even dispatched, after all. "This guy is going from the Art Institute to the Field Museum... send him a robocar." "This guy is going from O'Hare to a farmhouse on the outskirts of Kankakee... send him a human driver."