6 ms·

This is kind of a meta comment, but I’ve been lurking on HN for a while on car posts in particular. I have the impression that HN in general doesn’t like cars

This is kind of a meta comment, but I’ve been lurking on HN for a while on car posts in particular. I have the impression that HN in general doesn’t like cars all that much, and in fact we would be much better of without them. I can’t argue with the facts: congestion and pollution in large cities, such as London, have never been higher where almost all on-road public transport is still run on diesel. However, I think driving for a lot of people is a liberating and pleasurable experience. and, before we go there, I’m not talking about being stuck in traffic, which is often a issue with poor planning and lack of infrastructure investment rather than an issue with cars themselves, but the pure pleasure of driving. I’m quite concerned that self driving cars will take this simple pleasure and satisfaction from us, and perhaps that’s just a selfish opinion. I don’t know?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
tonyedgecombe 9y ago
Being stuck in traffic is a problem with cars, we can't build our way out of that problem, more roads just generate more traffic as longer commutes become viable. I suspect self driving cars will make this worse not better, if a 60 minute commute is OK with you then perhaps 90 minutes is if you can read a book on the way.
- ilovecars2 9y ago
  I agree, more roads are not the solution. That said, there are definitely poorly thought out roads in cities all over the world that actively create traffic because they unnecessarily disrupt traffic flow. But, more generally I believe the solution to traffic is to provide compelling alternatives. It’s all about creating a balance. In London we have the opposite issue, there are too many people trying to take the tube and mainline rail, leading to massive overcrowding. Now, is waiting 20 minutes to get on a Northern Line train, because the last four have been packed to the doors, a problem with people, or is it a problem with planning and infrastructure?
iraphael 9y ago
> I’m not talking about being stuck in traffic, which is often a issue with poor planning and lack of infrastructure investment rather than an issue with cars themselves I disagree with this statement. I believe that cars are not a transportation solution that scales like public transportation, for instance, does. For these same reasons I believe Musk's Boring Company's plans are exactly the wrong kind of urban planning ideas that will just create a "fast lane" for those who can pay, instead of a solution that works for all. Maybe cars could come with this romanticized "freedom" and "pleasure" when they're not prevalent enough to cause the issues that make driving undesirable. But I think the last time that happened was when cars were luxury items, reserved for the rich suburban white America and I don't want the future to involve making transportation more under-democratized.
- ilovecars2 9y ago
  > I believe that cars are not a transportation solution that scales like public transportation, for instance, does. One thing I would like to add is that public transport is too very difficult to scale. For example, the Northern, Central and Piccadilly lines on London Underground are massively overcrowded to the extent where it’s borderline dangerous. I don’t really know what TFL can do about it, because the lines already operates at maximum capacity. They could build more lines at £15Bn each (http://www.cityam.com/279301/gbp148bn-crossrail-project-faces-increasing-cost-and/amp http://www.cityam.com/279301/gbp148bn-crossrail-project-face...), but even if money grew on trees these projects take 5-10 years to complete, by which time population has grown so much that they too are overcrowded by the time they open.
  - bjelkeman-again 9y ago
    Having lived in London I am starting to wonder if really large cities aren’t going to suffer under overcrowding and increased housing prices to the point where it very painfully (maybe) self regulates?
    - ghaff 9y ago
      It already does. Far more people would live in the desireable areas of London and Manhattan, among others, if the housing were available at half the current prices. The effects in the greater Metro areas are less—people trade off commute time for lower prices/more space—but people still absolutely factor in CoL when making location choices. I certainly would never consider a number of areas for that reason.
amenod 9y ago
I am quite sure that people who will want to drive cars will still be able to - but not necessarily on the same streets as self driving cars. Isn't it the same now with horses and carriages?
- CM30 9y ago
  Not sure where you live, but over here, horse and carts can indeed travel on the same roads as cars/lorries/buses/bikes/pedestrians/whatever. They're obviously a lot less common than they used to be, but every now and then you'll see a horse and cart go trotting by like it's still the 1800s or what not. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/code-of-practice-for-horse-drawn-vehicles https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/code-of-practice-...
tpm 9y ago
Being stuck in traffic is a problem with cars. Driving can be a liberating and pleasurable experience. I do enjoy driving on empty country roads. I don't enjoy driving to and from work every day. If the time comes and driving by humans will be banned, I will happily accept that deal. But I don't think that day will come in the next at least 20-30 years. Biking (without any engine) is also a liberating and pleasurable experience.
transpostmeta 9y ago
Yes, this is a selfish opinion. Traffic kills a lot of people, and it's not just the ones doing the driving. Traffic is terrible for the environment, causes noise pollution and respiratory illness. I can understand that some people need to drive. But driving for pleasure is not something that should ever happen.
- ilovecars2 9y ago
  What is your opinion on flying for pleasure (i.e vacation)? We know that flying too is very damaging for the environment and creates terrible noise pollution. Would love to hear your thoughts on this!
  - clfougner 9y ago
    That isn’t the same thing at all. When you fly for a vacation, the flying is a means to an end (transportation), not the goal in itself. This discussion is about driving for fun, in which the driving is the goal in itself, not transporting yourself to a “fun” destination.
    - saltcured 9y ago
      So, I understand you'd be OK with driving to get somewhere (anywhere?) as the ends justify the means. And driving around a race track just for the purpose of driving sounds really bad? Or is the purpose of racing somehow different than someone taking a Sunday drive to nowhere? The race car also produces a lot more particulate emissions than a highway cruiser, both from fuel combustion and from the friction wear of tires and brakes. What about taking the "scenic route" to get somewhere instead of the most direct route available? You still have a destination and purpose, rather than driving just for the sake of operating the vehicle, but you might drive a little further and take the car's emissions into a nicer area. What about driving a big, gas-hungry SUV or luxury vehicle to be comfortable instead of the most economical compact car that is feasible? What about people operating off-highway vehicles instead of hiking and using mule trains to get deep into the woods? Starting with the same initial argument that it is wrong to operate a vehicle for pleasure because of its impact on others' health, why do we allow people to create filthy camp fires in the very locations where the most people will be exposed in national parks? Compared to a modern car, the fire is pumping out horrendous unregulated emissions...
gervase 9y ago
Let's assume your worst-case scenario comes to pass, and politicians decide (or are influenced) to outlaw manually-driven vehicles from public roads. First, you would still be able to drive on private tracks; plenty of car enthusiasts already do this today. If your enjoyment is derived from driving fast, or taking curves, this should be able to satisfy your requirements. Second, if your satisfaction is derived from aimlessly driving, simply enjoying the scenery and the zen of the road, this is not something that is incompatible with self-driving cars. Hell, there could be a "Scenic drive" button that randomly takes you on different routes every time. If you are concerned that you will no longer be able to combine these activities (driving aggressively on long, rambling courses), I think this is something you are likely to lose out on. On the other hand, if this is the case, is it even appropriate for you to be doing this on public roads today? If your argument is that you don't want to invest the time or money to use tracks or private courses for this purpose, then I think you should reexamine just how much enjoyment you derive from driving, and where it comes from specifically. Ultimately, it goes to a core discussion of whether roads are for transportation or for recreation; I imagine similar discussions have occurred in the past between wagons and horseback riders, for example, or later, between horse-drawn vehicles and cars. Today, I would argue that more than 50% (and probably much more) of the cars on the road are being used for transportation rather than recreation, which suggests that modifications that streamline that use will eventually crowd out the remaining percentage through the tyranny of the majority.
- Bizarro 9y ago
  Let's assume your worst-case scenario comes to pass, and politicians decide (or are influenced) to outlaw manually-driven vehicles from public roads. There seems to be some confusion around HN about politicians signing/voting for laws and the people just magically acquiescing because a hundred guys decided it was for the best. There's consequences for everything and the people can push back hard if bureacrats aren't thinking clearly.
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  >First, you would still be able to drive on private tracks; plenty of car enthusiasts already do this today. If your enjoyment is derived from driving fast, or taking curves, this should be able to satisfy your requirements. This is false choice. It's like saying you can still drink beer and watch sports in a bar even if you can't buy beer and can't buy a cable subscription.
thisisit 9y ago
> I have the impression that HN in general doesn’t like cars all that much, and in fact we would be much better of without them. In a discussion forum, people are free to form their opinions and rebut anyone, who they think is being incorrect. So, I don't understand why do people say this forum is unfair to x,y and z, stuff like HN in general doesn't like "cryptocurrencies" or "cars" etc doesn't help the discussion. As for self-driving, when I read stuff like this: But the final one speaks loudly about what city roads of the future could look like: “that autonomous vehicles (AVs) in dense urban areas should be operated only in shared fleets.” https://www.popsci.com/self-driving-car-fleets#page-2 https://www.popsci.com/self-driving-car-fleets#page-2 I can't help but get worried.
userbinator 9y ago
I agree, but it's more than just that --- self-driving cars will take more control away from individuals and put that in the hands of corporations and governments, who will have a much easier time tracking --- and even controlling --- the large-scale movement of the population. When they decide to outlaw non-self-driving cars almost completely, "the frog will have been thoroughly boiled." Of course, it's all done under the argument of safety. But I don't think a perfectly safe world, one with no risk at all, is one worth living in either. There's enough dystopian scifi around to predict rather accurately what will happen.
- icebraining 9y ago
  Regular cars are already being tracked. Real-time license plate scanning is a solved problem. You're probably more anonymous buying a bus ticket with cash than driving your car.
- visarga 9y ago
  You already got one or more GPS wireless tracking devices in your car, though.
  - userbinator 9y ago
    I have a GPS but I can turn it off when I don't want it, and I'm pretty sure it's off because it ceases to function when it's unplugged.
    - visarga 9y ago
      Do you also turn your phone off, because phones can be triangulated by cell towers.
rkcx 9y ago
The response-by-analogy is that people still ride horses for pleasure, and we should expect to see the same thing with cars: a (comparatively) small base of enthusiasts practicing the activity in a way that doesn't endanger others. Broadly speaking, it seems like there are an infinite number of potential "simple pleasures" out there that people could enjoy, and if we have a chance to transition lots of people from a simple pleasure that endangers others to other pleasures that don't, we should probably do it. I think a better way to reason about the tradeoff (since reasoning by analogy is unreliable) is to suppose that we were in a world where cars had always been autonomous, and imagine how it would play out–specifically, would enthusiasts in such a world try and build human-driven cars (maybe?), would they drive human-driven cars on public roads (probably not?), and would the non-enthusiasts feel a sense of longing for the joys of the road (for the most part, no?). The future we should try to reach is the future that we would aim for regardless of our starting position. To me, that seems like a future where no one has to drive cars, and some people who want to do drive cars, but no one has to be impacted by the manual-driving of cars if they don't want to. So I think the response-by-analogy is probably correct in this case.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
emodendroket 9y ago
Well, beyond that, I have to wonder if self-driving cars are really the solution we're looking for, rather than more mass transit.
- megy 9y ago
  Mass transit is clearly the solution we need, but it is tricky to convince people since they are so used to private transport.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    Right, like, OK, maybe mass transit isn't the solution for rural areas. But most Americans do not live in rural areas; they live in metro areas, which can probably be served by mass transit. Even the suburbs, I think, could plausibly be served much more by mass transit.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

tonyedgecombe 9y ago

Being stuck in traffic is a problem with cars, we can't build our way out of that problem, more roads just generate more traffic as longer commutes become viable. I suspect self driving cars will make this worse not better, if a 60 minute commute is OK with you then perhaps 90 minutes is if you can read a book on the way.

ilovecars2 9y ago
I agree, more roads are not the solution. That said, there are definitely poorly thought out roads in cities all over the world that actively create traffic because they unnecessarily disrupt traffic flow. But, more generally I believe the solution to traffic is to provide compelling alternatives. It’s all about creating a balance. In London we have the opposite issue, there are too many people trying to take the tube and mainline rail, leading to massive overcrowding. Now, is waiting 20 minutes to get on a Northern Line train, because the last four have been packed to the doors, a problem with people, or is it a problem with planning and infrastructure?

iraphael 9y ago

> I’m not talking about being stuck in traffic, which is often a issue with poor planning and lack of infrastructure investment rather than an issue with cars themselves I disagree with this statement. I believe that cars are not a transportation solution that scales like public transportation, for instance, does. For these same reasons I believe Musk's Boring Company's plans are exactly the wrong kind of urban planning ideas that will just create a "fast lane" for those who can pay, instead of a solution that works for all. Maybe cars could come with this romanticized "freedom" and "pleasure" when they're not prevalent enough to cause the issues that make driving undesirable. But I think the last time that happened was when cars were luxury items, reserved for the rich suburban white America and I don't want the future to involve making transportation more under-democratized.

ilovecars2 9y ago
> I believe that cars are not a transportation solution that scales like public transportation, for instance, does. One thing I would like to add is that public transport is too very difficult to scale. For example, the Northern, Central and Piccadilly lines on London Underground are massively overcrowded to the extent where it’s borderline dangerous. I don’t really know what TFL can do about it, because the lines already operates at maximum capacity. They could build more lines at £15Bn each (http://www.cityam.com/279301/gbp148bn-crossrail-project-faces-increasing-cost-and/amp http://www.cityam.com/279301/gbp148bn-crossrail-project-face...), but even if money grew on trees these projects take 5-10 years to complete, by which time population has grown so much that they too are overcrowded by the time they open.
- bjelkeman-again 9y ago
  Having lived in London I am starting to wonder if really large cities aren’t going to suffer under overcrowding and increased housing prices to the point where it very painfully (maybe) self regulates?
  - ghaff 9y ago
    It already does. Far more people would live in the desireable areas of London and Manhattan, among others, if the housing were available at half the current prices. The effects in the greater Metro areas are less—people trade off commute time for lower prices/more space—but people still absolutely factor in CoL when making location choices. I certainly would never consider a number of areas for that reason.

amenod 9y ago

I am quite sure that people who will want to drive cars will still be able to - but not necessarily on the same streets as self driving cars. Isn't it the same now with horses and carriages?

CM30 9y ago
Not sure where you live, but over here, horse and carts can indeed travel on the same roads as cars/lorries/buses/bikes/pedestrians/whatever. They're obviously a lot less common than they used to be, but every now and then you'll see a horse and cart go trotting by like it's still the 1800s or what not. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/code-of-practice-for-horse-drawn-vehicles https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/code-of-practice-...

tpm 9y ago

Being stuck in traffic is a problem with cars. Driving can be a liberating and pleasurable experience. I do enjoy driving on empty country roads. I don't enjoy driving to and from work every day. If the time comes and driving by humans will be banned, I will happily accept that deal. But I don't think that day will come in the next at least 20-30 years. Biking (without any engine) is also a liberating and pleasurable experience.

transpostmeta 9y ago

Yes, this is a selfish opinion. Traffic kills a lot of people, and it's not just the ones doing the driving. Traffic is terrible for the environment, causes noise pollution and respiratory illness. I can understand that some people need to drive. But driving for pleasure is not something that should ever happen.

ilovecars2 9y ago
What is your opinion on flying for pleasure (i.e vacation)? We know that flying too is very damaging for the environment and creates terrible noise pollution. Would love to hear your thoughts on this!
- clfougner 9y ago
  That isn’t the same thing at all. When you fly for a vacation, the flying is a means to an end (transportation), not the goal in itself. This discussion is about driving for fun, in which the driving is the goal in itself, not transporting yourself to a “fun” destination.
  - saltcured 9y ago
    So, I understand you'd be OK with driving to get somewhere (anywhere?) as the ends justify the means. And driving around a race track just for the purpose of driving sounds really bad? Or is the purpose of racing somehow different than someone taking a Sunday drive to nowhere? The race car also produces a lot more particulate emissions than a highway cruiser, both from fuel combustion and from the friction wear of tires and brakes. What about taking the "scenic route" to get somewhere instead of the most direct route available? You still have a destination and purpose, rather than driving just for the sake of operating the vehicle, but you might drive a little further and take the car's emissions into a nicer area. What about driving a big, gas-hungry SUV or luxury vehicle to be comfortable instead of the most economical compact car that is feasible? What about people operating off-highway vehicles instead of hiking and using mule trains to get deep into the woods? Starting with the same initial argument that it is wrong to operate a vehicle for pleasure because of its impact on others' health, why do we allow people to create filthy camp fires in the very locations where the most people will be exposed in national parks? Compared to a modern car, the fire is pumping out horrendous unregulated emissions...

gervase 9y ago

Let's assume your worst-case scenario comes to pass, and politicians decide (or are influenced) to outlaw manually-driven vehicles from public roads. First, you would still be able to drive on private tracks; plenty of car enthusiasts already do this today. If your enjoyment is derived from driving fast, or taking curves, this should be able to satisfy your requirements. Second, if your satisfaction is derived from aimlessly driving, simply enjoying the scenery and the zen of the road, this is not something that is incompatible with self-driving cars. Hell, there could be a "Scenic drive" button that randomly takes you on different routes every time. If you are concerned that you will no longer be able to combine these activities (driving aggressively on long, rambling courses), I think this is something you are likely to lose out on. On the other hand, if this is the case, is it even appropriate for you to be doing this on public roads today? If your argument is that you don't want to invest the time or money to use tracks or private courses for this purpose, then I think you should reexamine just how much enjoyment you derive from driving, and where it comes from specifically. Ultimately, it goes to a core discussion of whether roads are for transportation or for recreation; I imagine similar discussions have occurred in the past between wagons and horseback riders, for example, or later, between horse-drawn vehicles and cars. Today, I would argue that more than 50% (and probably much more) of the cars on the road are being used for transportation rather than recreation, which suggests that modifications that streamline that use will eventually crowd out the remaining percentage through the tyranny of the majority.

Bizarro 9y ago
Let's assume your worst-case scenario comes to pass, and politicians decide (or are influenced) to outlaw manually-driven vehicles from public roads. There seems to be some confusion around HN about politicians signing/voting for laws and the people just magically acquiescing because a hundred guys decided it was for the best. There's consequences for everything and the people can push back hard if bureacrats aren't thinking clearly.
dsfyu404ed 9y ago
>First, you would still be able to drive on private tracks; plenty of car enthusiasts already do this today. If your enjoyment is derived from driving fast, or taking curves, this should be able to satisfy your requirements. This is false choice. It's like saying you can still drink beer and watch sports in a bar even if you can't buy beer and can't buy a cable subscription.

thisisit 9y ago

> I have the impression that HN in general doesn’t like cars all that much, and in fact we would be much better of without them. In a discussion forum, people are free to form their opinions and rebut anyone, who they think is being incorrect. So, I don't understand why do people say this forum is unfair to x,y and z, stuff like HN in general doesn't like "cryptocurrencies" or "cars" etc doesn't help the discussion. As for self-driving, when I read stuff like this: But the final one speaks loudly about what city roads of the future could look like: “that autonomous vehicles (AVs) in dense urban areas should be operated only in shared fleets.” https://www.popsci.com/self-driving-car-fleets#page-2 https://www.popsci.com/self-driving-car-fleets#page-2 I can't help but get worried.

userbinator 9y ago

I agree, but it's more than just that --- self-driving cars will take more control away from individuals and put that in the hands of corporations and governments, who will have a much easier time tracking --- and even controlling --- the large-scale movement of the population. When they decide to outlaw non-self-driving cars almost completely, "the frog will have been thoroughly boiled." Of course, it's all done under the argument of safety. But I don't think a perfectly safe world, one with no risk at all, is one worth living in either. There's enough dystopian scifi around to predict rather accurately what will happen.

icebraining 9y ago
Regular cars are already being tracked. Real-time license plate scanning is a solved problem. You're probably more anonymous buying a bus ticket with cash than driving your car.
visarga 9y ago
You already got one or more GPS wireless tracking devices in your car, though.
- userbinator 9y ago
  I have a GPS but I can turn it off when I don't want it, and I'm pretty sure it's off because it ceases to function when it's unplugged.
  - visarga 9y ago
    Do you also turn your phone off, because phones can be triangulated by cell towers.

rkcx 9y ago

The response-by-analogy is that people still ride horses for pleasure, and we should expect to see the same thing with cars: a (comparatively) small base of enthusiasts practicing the activity in a way that doesn't endanger others. Broadly speaking, it seems like there are an infinite number of potential "simple pleasures" out there that people could enjoy, and if we have a chance to transition lots of people from a simple pleasure that endangers others to other pleasures that don't, we should probably do it. I think a better way to reason about the tradeoff (since reasoning by analogy is unreliable) is to suppose that we were in a world where cars had always been autonomous, and imagine how it would play out–specifically, would enthusiasts in such a world try and build human-driven cars (maybe?), would they drive human-driven cars on public roads (probably not?), and would the non-enthusiasts feel a sense of longing for the joys of the road (for the most part, no?). The future we should try to reach is the future that we would aim for regardless of our starting position. To me, that seems like a future where no one has to drive cars, and some people who want to do drive cars, but no one has to be impacted by the manual-driving of cars if they don't want to. So I think the response-by-analogy is probably correct in this case.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

emodendroket 9y ago

Well, beyond that, I have to wonder if self-driving cars are really the solution we're looking for, rather than more mass transit.

megy 9y ago
Mass transit is clearly the solution we need, but it is tricky to convince people since they are so used to private transport.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  Right, like, OK, maybe mass transit isn't the solution for rural areas. But most Americans do not live in rural areas; they live in metro areas, which can probably be served by mass transit. Even the suburbs, I think, could plausibly be served much more by mass transit.