5 ms·

You can pry my human-driven gas-burning vehicle out of my cold dead hands.

by peapicker 9y ago

zild3d 9y ago
Well if you're one of the (un)lucky 1.3 million people a year, that is certainly possible
- peapicker 9y ago
  In the US, the # is just over 37,000 driving deaths per year, or about 35 times less than 1.3 million. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_i...
rayiner 9y ago
You can keep the car and drive it on your farm. But as to public roads, they're a limited public resource, and the government has an obligation to ensure they are utilized as efficiently as possible. That will be achieved by only allowing self-driving cars.
- eesmith 9y ago
  "as efficiently as possible" There is no such obligation. Or rather, how do you define "utilize"? In terms of transport efficiency, buses and light rail carry more people than cars. And if only self-driving cars are allowed on the roads, what of bicycles, pedestrians, people on wheelchairs, and horses? We used to play on the roads when I was a kid, being careful to watch out for cars. That's part of "utilize", is it not? There are also other categories of roads, like scenic highways, which have a different utility function than efficiency. Some neighborhoods have back alleys for garage access, garbage pickup, and the like.
  - burfog 9y ago
    I don't see how it can be true that "In terms of transport efficiency, buses and light rail carry more people than cars.", particularly for the light rail. The first problem, shared by both, is that in many locations they run nearly empty. Smaller vehicles would be far less wasteful. Light rail is a horrifically inefficient use of land. Use (passengersdistance)/(timeland) to score it. Another way to look at this: on average, what percent of the time is there a person above a physical location that is dedicated to transportation? The bus, if operating in mixed traffic, is somewhat efficient for land use. (more so if full) The train wastes most of the land most of the time. At best it might share with freight service, but that degrades passenger service.
    - eesmith 9y ago
      "I don't see how it can be true ..." Because if the goal is efficiency then we would have a completely different transport system. We would not have large amounts of paved roads which are lightly used (and you see many places in the US moving away from paved roads to gravel roads for exactly that reason). If we are talking about efficiency then a lane of traffic carries about 3,000 people per hour per lane. Light rail at grade is about 4,000/hour and grade separated is about 8,000. Wikipedia says "light rail vehicles can travel in multi-car trains carrying a theoretical ridership up to 20,000 passengers per hour in much narrower rights-of-way, not much more than two car lanes wide for a double track system". Subways can handle 30,000 people per hour. Numbers from https://www.thoughtco.com/passenger-capacity-of-transit-2798765 https://www.thoughtco.com/passenger-capacity-of-transit-2798... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail . The thing is, the goal is not efficiency, at least not in any simple sort of sense. The big problem is that the transport system affects where people go and live, and vice versa. Many places in the US are built with the expectation that people will have cars, which is why buses and light rails are run nearly empty. But in places like NYC or central London, which were built before cars and which can't waste the space on car infrastructure, it's more efficient to have mass transit. Look at all the people who use light rail to commute into London, rather than drive. Can you really make the blanket statement that "Light rail is a horrifically inefficient use of land"? Much of what you describe makes sense in the US historical context. However, the US system was not built with efficiency in mind. It was built with growth in mind, with the idea that new growth would be able to fund the maintenance of the old system. https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme/ https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme/ is what convinced me of that. If the goal is really for efficient use of limited public resources, then it needs to be done by redesigning our cities and towns so that bicycles, walking, and mass transit are more useful. (Bear in mind too that when you see unused parking spaces - and most zoning laws require far more parking spaces than are usually needed - then that is also a waste. And a waste which makes is harder to walk, bike, or have an effective mass transit system.) Other countries have done that, like cities in the Netherlands in the 1970s (see https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/07/it-takes-more-than-bollards-to-build-a-bike-paradise/533607/ https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/07/it-takes-more... ). You proposed "on average, what percent of the time is there a person above a physical location that is dedicated to transportation?" Isn't that a way of saying "how long does it take to go from X to Y"? I don't think your proposal is that useful. If it takes 10 minutes to walk and 5 minutes to drive, but the drive requires available parking on both ends, then shouldn't you also include the infrastructure needed to support the transportation, in addition to the simple time that the person is above a physical location dedicated to transportation? And since the car takes up more space, including a larger safety margin ("two second rule"), shouldn't that also be included?
- soneil 9y ago
  Unfortunately this is the kinda stuff that creates red/blue divides. I used to live somewhere I could drive the 12 miles to work without seeing another car. Telling people around there that they can't have their trucks because roads are a limited resource, would go over like a fart in a spacesuit.
  - zild3d 9y ago
    > like a fart in a spacesuit relevant quora discussion [1] - doesn't seem too bad since the suit has a carbon filter and the helmet is well-sealed & separated from the rest of the suit. (breathable air is prioritized for the head of course, not so much the rest of the suit) [1] https://www.quora.com/What-happens-when-astronauts-fart-in-their-spacesuits-The-space-suit-is-sealed-What-technology-does-NASA-use-to-deal-with-the-fart-Or-do-the-astronauts-just-prevent-themselves-from-farting https://www.quora.com/What-happens-when-astronauts-fart-in-t...
- acheron 9y ago
  I used to think the song "Red Barchetta" was far-fetched.
  - gargravarr 9y ago
    Have you read the story it's based on, 'A Nice Sunday Drive'?
- CogitoCogito 9y ago
  Once self-driving cars are proved to be able to support the entire population at reasonable levels of safety, privacy, efficiency, reliability, etc., over a long enough period of time (I'd say a couple decades), I would accept the _beginning_ of a conversation about only allowing self-driving cars (even then the only sane thing is to have specific areas like certain highways devoted to self-driving cars). Unfortunately, I don't really see how that can be proven without them actually doing it. If self-driving cars require 100% penetration before they are viable they are and should be dead in the water. I will not support the dismantling of our main transportation network on a pipe dream. The government has many ways to ensure that public roads are utilized more efficiently. A first step could simply be to increase taxes on gasoline (with increased equivalent taxes on electric cars). This would decrease the roads' utilization. They could also increase road-usage taxation that increases at higher levels of utilization. There are also many other actions that can be taken and none of them require a 100% conversion to an untested complete electric fleet of vehicles.

You can pry my human-driven gas-burning vehicle out of my cold dead hands.

zild3d 9y ago

Well if you're one of the (un)lucky 1.3 million people a year, that is certainly possible

peapicker 9y ago
In the US, the # is just over 37,000 driving deaths per year, or about 35 times less than 1.3 million. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_i...

rayiner 9y ago

You can keep the car and drive it on your farm. But as to public roads, they're a limited public resource, and the government has an obligation to ensure they are utilized as efficiently as possible. That will be achieved by only allowing self-driving cars.

eesmith 9y ago
"as efficiently as possible" There is no such obligation. Or rather, how do you define "utilize"? In terms of transport efficiency, buses and light rail carry more people than cars. And if only self-driving cars are allowed on the roads, what of bicycles, pedestrians, people on wheelchairs, and horses? We used to play on the roads when I was a kid, being careful to watch out for cars. That's part of "utilize", is it not? There are also other categories of roads, like scenic highways, which have a different utility function than efficiency. Some neighborhoods have back alleys for garage access, garbage pickup, and the like.
- burfog 9y ago
  I don't see how it can be true that "In terms of transport efficiency, buses and light rail carry more people than cars.", particularly for the light rail. The first problem, shared by both, is that in many locations they run nearly empty. Smaller vehicles would be far less wasteful. Light rail is a horrifically inefficient use of land. Use (passengersdistance)/(timeland) to score it. Another way to look at this: on average, what percent of the time is there a person above a physical location that is dedicated to transportation? The bus, if operating in mixed traffic, is somewhat efficient for land use. (more so if full) The train wastes most of the land most of the time. At best it might share with freight service, but that degrades passenger service.
  - eesmith 9y ago
    "I don't see how it can be true ..." Because if the goal is efficiency then we would have a completely different transport system. We would not have large amounts of paved roads which are lightly used (and you see many places in the US moving away from paved roads to gravel roads for exactly that reason). If we are talking about efficiency then a lane of traffic carries about 3,000 people per hour per lane. Light rail at grade is about 4,000/hour and grade separated is about 8,000. Wikipedia says "light rail vehicles can travel in multi-car trains carrying a theoretical ridership up to 20,000 passengers per hour in much narrower rights-of-way, not much more than two car lanes wide for a double track system". Subways can handle 30,000 people per hour. Numbers from https://www.thoughtco.com/passenger-capacity-of-transit-2798765 https://www.thoughtco.com/passenger-capacity-of-transit-2798... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail . The thing is, the goal is not efficiency, at least not in any simple sort of sense. The big problem is that the transport system affects where people go and live, and vice versa. Many places in the US are built with the expectation that people will have cars, which is why buses and light rails are run nearly empty. But in places like NYC or central London, which were built before cars and which can't waste the space on car infrastructure, it's more efficient to have mass transit. Look at all the people who use light rail to commute into London, rather than drive. Can you really make the blanket statement that "Light rail is a horrifically inefficient use of land"? Much of what you describe makes sense in the US historical context. However, the US system was not built with efficiency in mind. It was built with growth in mind, with the idea that new growth would be able to fund the maintenance of the old system. https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme/ https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme/ is what convinced me of that. If the goal is really for efficient use of limited public resources, then it needs to be done by redesigning our cities and towns so that bicycles, walking, and mass transit are more useful. (Bear in mind too that when you see unused parking spaces - and most zoning laws require far more parking spaces than are usually needed - then that is also a waste. And a waste which makes is harder to walk, bike, or have an effective mass transit system.) Other countries have done that, like cities in the Netherlands in the 1970s (see https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/07/it-takes-more-than-bollards-to-build-a-bike-paradise/533607/ https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/07/it-takes-more... ). You proposed "on average, what percent of the time is there a person above a physical location that is dedicated to transportation?" Isn't that a way of saying "how long does it take to go from X to Y"? I don't think your proposal is that useful. If it takes 10 minutes to walk and 5 minutes to drive, but the drive requires available parking on both ends, then shouldn't you also include the infrastructure needed to support the transportation, in addition to the simple time that the person is above a physical location dedicated to transportation? And since the car takes up more space, including a larger safety margin ("two second rule"), shouldn't that also be included?
soneil 9y ago
Unfortunately this is the kinda stuff that creates red/blue divides. I used to live somewhere I could drive the 12 miles to work without seeing another car. Telling people around there that they can't have their trucks because roads are a limited resource, would go over like a fart in a spacesuit.
- zild3d 9y ago
  > like a fart in a spacesuit relevant quora discussion [1] - doesn't seem too bad since the suit has a carbon filter and the helmet is well-sealed & separated from the rest of the suit. (breathable air is prioritized for the head of course, not so much the rest of the suit) [1] https://www.quora.com/What-happens-when-astronauts-fart-in-their-spacesuits-The-space-suit-is-sealed-What-technology-does-NASA-use-to-deal-with-the-fart-Or-do-the-astronauts-just-prevent-themselves-from-farting https://www.quora.com/What-happens-when-astronauts-fart-in-t...
acheron 9y ago
I used to think the song "Red Barchetta" was far-fetched.
- gargravarr 9y ago
  Have you read the story it's based on, 'A Nice Sunday Drive'?
CogitoCogito 9y ago
Once self-driving cars are proved to be able to support the entire population at reasonable levels of safety, privacy, efficiency, reliability, etc., over a long enough period of time (I'd say a couple decades), I would accept the _beginning_ of a conversation about only allowing self-driving cars (even then the only sane thing is to have specific areas like certain highways devoted to self-driving cars). Unfortunately, I don't really see how that can be proven without them actually doing it. If self-driving cars require 100% penetration before they are viable they are and should be dead in the water. I will not support the dismantling of our main transportation network on a pipe dream. The government has many ways to ensure that public roads are utilized more efficiently. A first step could simply be to increase taxes on gasoline (with increased equivalent taxes on electric cars). This would decrease the roads' utilization. They could also increase road-usage taxation that increases at higher levels of utilization. There are also many other actions that can be taken and none of them require a 100% conversion to an untested complete electric fleet of vehicles.