6 ms·

I think it would happen this way: firstly you would automate things that go on a track - like trains - which I think we already have. Then secondly you could ha

I think it would happen this way: firstly you would automate things that go on a track - like trains - which I think we already have. Then secondly you could have certain lanes or roads that are designed for specific self-driving vehicles. This could help buses and trucks (in certain areas) get around. Then you would keep adding more of those, until many roads have those and very few manual lanes. It wouldn't immediately work in a big established city, but some existing highways or interstates can be fitted easily. Anywhere that has an HOV/Carpool/EV lane can be refitted to be an automated driving lane. Think of it like the Cash Only vs. Easy Pass toll lanes. At first there was 1-2 Easy Pass lanes, then the cash lane was just 1-2 - now we automate them reading license plates. So to sum up, I think that the self driving will start in very specific areas, and then those specific areas would be expanded until they are the only areas. Especially if those roads contain automated taxi (Uber, Lyft, etc) which you can call with your mobile device. The main reason a lot of people drive is because public transportation in their area is junk and you have to go by it's schedule and route. But having a point-point self-driving option is way more convenient. It's like the subway, but it doesn't need tracks.

brk 7y ago
This has been my line of thought as well, autonomous vehicle will slowly emerge over time. We are not waiting on 1 or 2 big tech breakthroughs alone, but also on a lot of infrastructure and regulatory changes, which take a lot of time to enact. I would wager we are at least a decade away from self-driving cars being a common part of daily life, in the sense that the average driver would see them on the road somewhat regularly. And probably 2 decades away from self-driving cars being an "everymans" vehicle and/or delivering on the concept of not having to own a vehicle and instead summoning one when needed, or putting your autonomous vehicle to work for you while you are not using it.
mikestew 7y ago
I think your prediction will turn out to be as closer or closer than any other. Certainly more on the money than the breathless “won’t be a problem in a few years when self-driving...” But as I read your probably-on-the-money prediction, I was thinking “here we go again, dumping money for the two-ton wheelchairs while alternative transportation goes begging again.” Where’s my fucking barrier-protected bike lane? Or any bike lane at all? Frankly, if that’s how it goes, I wonder if it happens at all. “Separate lanes for wealthy tech workers” is how that’s going to go. You know why we can’t even get bike lanes? Because people bitch and moan because they don’t personally use it. Expand that to an empty lane of moving traffic while the plebs sit in traffic.
- TheBeardKing 7y ago
  We're already doing that in my neck of the woods with toll express lanes on the insterstates. The moneyed skip the traffic at the expense of widened roads which would help all. These express lanes will logically be the first to allow automation, but at least in that case the affluent will be paying to prove the technology which will eventually benefit everyone.
- rayiner 7y ago
  > Frankly, if that’s how it goes, I wonder if it happens at all. “Separate lanes for wealthy tech workers” is how that’s going to go. You know why we can’t even get bike lanes? Because people bitch and moan because they don’t personally use it. Expand that to an empty lane of moving traffic while the plebs sit in traffic. It’s bad policy to spend scarce resources (in this case road space) on something few people use. Just 0.6% of people bike to work at leas once a week. Bike lanes are a phenomenon completely out of proportion to how many people use them.[1] Self driving cars will be that way at first, of course. But the big difference is that self driving technology has the possibility of becoming mainstream. Biking, by contrast, will never become mainstream. The average American commutes 16 miles one way. That’s an hour of biking each way (in weather that, in most of the country, is too hot or too cold most of the year). [1] It doesn’t help that bike lane resources tend to be focused in areas where they disproportionately benefit educated white men: https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2013/06/biggest-obstacle-cyclings-egalitarian-aspirations-distance/5784/ https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2013/06/biggest-obsta...
  - mikestew 7y ago
    It’s bad policy to spend scarce resources (in this case road space) on something few people use. You mean like self-driving cars? How about we spend "scarce resources" on things people actually do use right now, like bicycles, scooters, electric skateboards, whatever. You're also arguing, "let's not spend anything on infrastructure for $ACTIVITY, then when no one does $ACTIVITY, we can say, 'yeah, but nobody does that'."
    - tptacek 7y ago
rtkwe 7y ago
The issue with the intermediate 'specific lanes' step is three-fold 1) those buses and trucks will still require a human driver for most of their journey for dealing with the non marked sections so there's not too much gained because you're still paying someone the whole time. 2) the infrastructure is useless without the vehicles and the added capability in the vehicles is useless without the infrastructure so there's a chicken and egg problem with getting either started. 3) On top of those unless the lanes are completely segregated the only real thing adding hardware to lanes adds is making lane keeping easier. If not you still need all the accident avoidance cameras/lidar on the car the same as you need on a more 'free range' auto.
jmull 7y ago
A problem with this is that I don't think there are very many places with available, extra lanes. That prevents a smooth, gradual transition. Essentially you're proposing a massive public transport project that will progressively take over and replace existing transportation infrastructure. I guess that's possible, but we could have done that without autonomous automobiles and it hasn't happened yet (well, not on a pervasive scale). Actually, if we could do that, I'm not sure we'd actually choose autonomous vehicles, as generally envisioned, as the mode of transportation. Put another way: I think the whole lure of autonomous vehicles is the idea that they can adapt to existing infrastructure rather than the other way around. That's exactly what seems to make makes it possible for them to catch on in a big, general way, and eventually replace human driven cars.
7j 7y ago
I would expect full self-driving to come through remote operation capability - at first a single person can remotely operate one vehicle. After some improvements it would be possible for a single operator to control 2 vehicles and so on.
anodyne33 7y ago
> Then secondly you could have certain lanes or roads that are designed for specific self-driving vehicles I have a friend in mapping at Uber ATG. Uber Eats is only available in areas she has mapped which makes me think that they aren't waiting for dedicated infrastructure and relying on their mapping database for now, at least for early development. Granted, Uber Eats isn't using AVs, but that makes me think the GIS crew is doing some heavy lifting there. Pure speculation on my part though.
pessimizer 7y ago
I don't deny that this is a thing that is possible to do, but what's the value add of the cars being self driving - why wouldn't we invest public money more rationally than that? The only political way this could happen is if people in powerful political positions were being paid by the manufacturers or patent-holders of this technology.
onemoresoop 7y ago
How about automating traffic lights? This could ease traffic in urban areas and I don't hear anyone talking about it.
- mkl 7y ago
  Traffic lights are automated. They detect how many cars are waiting to know when to change, they adjust their cycle length depending on time of day, etc., they synchronise along long roads so people generally get a string of green lights. What do you mean?
  - yazanobeidi 7y ago
    Only a small proportion of traffic light signals are adaptive and/or connected today. Most rely on manual signal timing studies to set a timing schedule. The up-front cost is typically prohibitive. Full disclosure I am founder of a startup changing the economics on this.
    - mkl 7y ago
      Most ones I regularly go through here (Christchurch, New Zealand) seem adaptive, as you can see the detector positions (often separate ones for cyclists as well). The lights clearly respond to them. The behaviour along long busy roads here may well be just timing to line up greens.
      - yazanobeidi 7y ago
        In the USA the latest statistics indicate less than 3000 of these adaptive lights are in operation (“less than 1%”). I am curious what New Zealand did to fund the six figure cost per intersection.
        mkl 7y ago
        Hm. Maybe we're talking about different things. The detectors I mean are fairly simple: inductive loops in rectangles cut into the road, that detect the metal body of a car (or metal frame of a bike). They don't seem technologically advanced or expensive (but I don't know the cost). This article claims they're common: https://auto.howstuffworks.com/car-driving-safety/safety-regulatory-devices/how-does-a-traffic-light-detect-that-a-car-has-pulled-up-and-is-waiting-for-the-light-to-change.htm https://auto.howstuffworks.com/car-driving-safety/safety-reg...
AtlasBarfed 7y ago
Seriously, please automate highway driving first. You get all the benefits for shipping and efficiency and logistics, so the money is there. The problem is so much more simple, and there can be convergent infrastructure (embedded sensors, mesh network updates, higher standards of road quality). On long trips on highways it just kills me that I have to stare at the same image for hours basically, and that a program couldn't do that more safely than me. And if this happens, the airlines and all their fees and cramping and security and bad customer service can be brutally competed against for any trip under 800 miles, and probably longer. Even a one hour 500 mile trip in a plane is really 3-4 hours, and you don't get a car at your destination, while driving there is about 5-6 hours. If I could surf that whole time or nap, then I'll drive. If I can sleep overnight, then 8-10 hour drives become far preferable to flying. If I have friends along the way to visit, or interesting places to vacation in, two or three day trips are more preferable than 1500-2000 mile flights, especially if you have a family and it is way way way cheaper. Airlines have been reorienting themselves to shorter hops over the last couple decades. Self driving on highways will decimate that business, and only long haul/overseas will remain.
- runarberg 7y ago
  It seems there is a solution for your problem already: Busses. Although not strictly automated, they are externalized. That is you are not the one doing the driving, and therefor you are free to sleep, read, work, etc, while you wait to get to your destination. The beauty about busses is that they exists. There is no unsolved technology problems with busses. And they can be (and most likely already are) implemented without any or minimal additional infrastructure in your area. If busses are overcrowded your local government can simply buy more, so they scale really well. If they become congested, we also have a solution called trains. Trains also solves your problems with driving and as a bonus get you to your destination far quicker then driving.
  - dms105 7y ago
    Many people want privacy and control over the vehicle they're in, and will pay a premium for it. When you take a bus you're sharing it with random people, can't stop to take a break whenever you want, and can't go directly door to door. Trains can be a superior alternative depending on what country you're in. In the U.S. we're far behind some other countries in high speed rail infrastructure, so over long distances trains are usually slower than driving.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
WhompingWindows 7y ago
Your vision is idealistic, but I doubt it's going to work like that in advanced capitalism America. We don't even really have automated trains in the USA, though admittedly the business-case for those is much lower given the high worker:rider ratio. It stands to reason, in our very greedy and polarized nation, anything that requires infrastructure and policy changes is going to be VERY slowly rolled out. The most likely scenario is tech companies bust out advancing features in regulation-light states/municipalities in the USA. Look at Uber, Lyft, Bird, AirBnB, and many other companies who just implement whatever they feel like and dare cities to challenge them. The path of corporate-profit-seeking SDC's seems far more likely than your vision of limitation and safety. In fact, if we actually look what's happening on the ground, Waymo is advanced in Arizona, a regulation-light state. Tesla is pushing advancing features, hardware, and software across markets, though there are some exceptions made. Still, these companies are going to push for autonomy-everywhere faster than most would deem comfortable.
sizzle 7y ago
They should demo it on all the fastpass Lanes in Socal that are already pretty insulated from main lanes by a barrier or larger gap in most areas.

brk 7y ago

This has been my line of thought as well, autonomous vehicle will slowly emerge over time. We are not waiting on 1 or 2 big tech breakthroughs alone, but also on a lot of infrastructure and regulatory changes, which take a lot of time to enact. I would wager we are at least a decade away from self-driving cars being a common part of daily life, in the sense that the average driver would see them on the road somewhat regularly. And probably 2 decades away from self-driving cars being an "everymans" vehicle and/or delivering on the concept of not having to own a vehicle and instead summoning one when needed, or putting your autonomous vehicle to work for you while you are not using it.

mikestew 7y ago

I think your prediction will turn out to be as closer or closer than any other. Certainly more on the money than the breathless “won’t be a problem in a few years when self-driving...” But as I read your probably-on-the-money prediction, I was thinking “here we go again, dumping money for the two-ton wheelchairs while alternative transportation goes begging again.” Where’s my fucking barrier-protected bike lane? Or any bike lane at all? Frankly, if that’s how it goes, I wonder if it happens at all. “Separate lanes for wealthy tech workers” is how that’s going to go. You know why we can’t even get bike lanes? Because people bitch and moan because they don’t personally use it. Expand that to an empty lane of moving traffic while the plebs sit in traffic.

TheBeardKing 7y ago
We're already doing that in my neck of the woods with toll express lanes on the insterstates. The moneyed skip the traffic at the expense of widened roads which would help all. These express lanes will logically be the first to allow automation, but at least in that case the affluent will be paying to prove the technology which will eventually benefit everyone.
rayiner 7y ago
> Frankly, if that’s how it goes, I wonder if it happens at all. “Separate lanes for wealthy tech workers” is how that’s going to go. You know why we can’t even get bike lanes? Because people bitch and moan because they don’t personally use it. Expand that to an empty lane of moving traffic while the plebs sit in traffic. It’s bad policy to spend scarce resources (in this case road space) on something few people use. Just 0.6% of people bike to work at leas once a week. Bike lanes are a phenomenon completely out of proportion to how many people use them.[1] Self driving cars will be that way at first, of course. But the big difference is that self driving technology has the possibility of becoming mainstream. Biking, by contrast, will never become mainstream. The average American commutes 16 miles one way. That’s an hour of biking each way (in weather that, in most of the country, is too hot or too cold most of the year). [1] It doesn’t help that bike lane resources tend to be focused in areas where they disproportionately benefit educated white men: https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2013/06/biggest-obstacle-cyclings-egalitarian-aspirations-distance/5784/ https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2013/06/biggest-obsta...
- mikestew 7y ago
  It’s bad policy to spend scarce resources (in this case road space) on something few people use. You mean like self-driving cars? How about we spend "scarce resources" on things people actually do use right now, like bicycles, scooters, electric skateboards, whatever. You're also arguing, "let's not spend anything on infrastructure for $ACTIVITY, then when no one does $ACTIVITY, we can say, 'yeah, but nobody does that'."
  - tptacek 7y ago

rtkwe 7y ago

The issue with the intermediate 'specific lanes' step is three-fold 1) those buses and trucks will still require a human driver for most of their journey for dealing with the non marked sections so there's not too much gained because you're still paying someone the whole time. 2) the infrastructure is useless without the vehicles and the added capability in the vehicles is useless without the infrastructure so there's a chicken and egg problem with getting either started. 3) On top of those unless the lanes are completely segregated the only real thing adding hardware to lanes adds is making lane keeping easier. If not you still need all the accident avoidance cameras/lidar on the car the same as you need on a more 'free range' auto.

jmull 7y ago

A problem with this is that I don't think there are very many places with available, extra lanes. That prevents a smooth, gradual transition. Essentially you're proposing a massive public transport project that will progressively take over and replace existing transportation infrastructure. I guess that's possible, but we could have done that without autonomous automobiles and it hasn't happened yet (well, not on a pervasive scale). Actually, if we could do that, I'm not sure we'd actually choose autonomous vehicles, as generally envisioned, as the mode of transportation. Put another way: I think the whole lure of autonomous vehicles is the idea that they can adapt to existing infrastructure rather than the other way around. That's exactly what seems to make makes it possible for them to catch on in a big, general way, and eventually replace human driven cars.

7j 7y ago

I would expect full self-driving to come through remote operation capability - at first a single person can remotely operate one vehicle. After some improvements it would be possible for a single operator to control 2 vehicles and so on.

anodyne33 7y ago

> Then secondly you could have certain lanes or roads that are designed for specific self-driving vehicles I have a friend in mapping at Uber ATG. Uber Eats is only available in areas she has mapped which makes me think that they aren't waiting for dedicated infrastructure and relying on their mapping database for now, at least for early development. Granted, Uber Eats isn't using AVs, but that makes me think the GIS crew is doing some heavy lifting there. Pure speculation on my part though.

pessimizer 7y ago

I don't deny that this is a thing that is possible to do, but what's the value add of the cars being self driving - why wouldn't we invest public money more rationally than that? The only political way this could happen is if people in powerful political positions were being paid by the manufacturers or patent-holders of this technology.

onemoresoop 7y ago

How about automating traffic lights? This could ease traffic in urban areas and I don't hear anyone talking about it.

mkl 7y ago
Traffic lights are automated. They detect how many cars are waiting to know when to change, they adjust their cycle length depending on time of day, etc., they synchronise along long roads so people generally get a string of green lights. What do you mean?
- yazanobeidi 7y ago
  Only a small proportion of traffic light signals are adaptive and/or connected today. Most rely on manual signal timing studies to set a timing schedule. The up-front cost is typically prohibitive. Full disclosure I am founder of a startup changing the economics on this.
  - mkl 7y ago
    Most ones I regularly go through here (Christchurch, New Zealand) seem adaptive, as you can see the detector positions (often separate ones for cyclists as well). The lights clearly respond to them. The behaviour along long busy roads here may well be just timing to line up greens.
    - yazanobeidi 7y ago
      In the USA the latest statistics indicate less than 3000 of these adaptive lights are in operation (“less than 1%”). I am curious what New Zealand did to fund the six figure cost per intersection.
      - mkl 7y ago
        Hm. Maybe we're talking about different things. The detectors I mean are fairly simple: inductive loops in rectangles cut into the road, that detect the metal body of a car (or metal frame of a bike). They don't seem technologically advanced or expensive (but I don't know the cost). This article claims they're common: https://auto.howstuffworks.com/car-driving-safety/safety-regulatory-devices/how-does-a-traffic-light-detect-that-a-car-has-pulled-up-and-is-waiting-for-the-light-to-change.htm https://auto.howstuffworks.com/car-driving-safety/safety-reg...

AtlasBarfed 7y ago

Seriously, please automate highway driving first. You get all the benefits for shipping and efficiency and logistics, so the money is there. The problem is so much more simple, and there can be convergent infrastructure (embedded sensors, mesh network updates, higher standards of road quality). On long trips on highways it just kills me that I have to stare at the same image for hours basically, and that a program couldn't do that more safely than me. And if this happens, the airlines and all their fees and cramping and security and bad customer service can be brutally competed against for any trip under 800 miles, and probably longer. Even a one hour 500 mile trip in a plane is really 3-4 hours, and you don't get a car at your destination, while driving there is about 5-6 hours. If I could surf that whole time or nap, then I'll drive. If I can sleep overnight, then 8-10 hour drives become far preferable to flying. If I have friends along the way to visit, or interesting places to vacation in, two or three day trips are more preferable than 1500-2000 mile flights, especially if you have a family and it is way way way cheaper. Airlines have been reorienting themselves to shorter hops over the last couple decades. Self driving on highways will decimate that business, and only long haul/overseas will remain.

runarberg 7y ago
It seems there is a solution for your problem already: Busses. Although not strictly automated, they are externalized. That is you are not the one doing the driving, and therefor you are free to sleep, read, work, etc, while you wait to get to your destination. The beauty about busses is that they exists. There is no unsolved technology problems with busses. And they can be (and most likely already are) implemented without any or minimal additional infrastructure in your area. If busses are overcrowded your local government can simply buy more, so they scale really well. If they become congested, we also have a solution called trains. Trains also solves your problems with driving and as a bonus get you to your destination far quicker then driving.
- dms105 7y ago
  Many people want privacy and control over the vehicle they're in, and will pay a premium for it. When you take a bus you're sharing it with random people, can't stop to take a break whenever you want, and can't go directly door to door. Trains can be a superior alternative depending on what country you're in. In the U.S. we're far behind some other countries in high speed rail infrastructure, so over long distances trains are usually slower than driving.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

WhompingWindows 7y ago

Your vision is idealistic, but I doubt it's going to work like that in advanced capitalism America. We don't even really have automated trains in the USA, though admittedly the business-case for those is much lower given the high worker:rider ratio. It stands to reason, in our very greedy and polarized nation, anything that requires infrastructure and policy changes is going to be VERY slowly rolled out. The most likely scenario is tech companies bust out advancing features in regulation-light states/municipalities in the USA. Look at Uber, Lyft, Bird, AirBnB, and many other companies who just implement whatever they feel like and dare cities to challenge them. The path of corporate-profit-seeking SDC's seems far more likely than your vision of limitation and safety. In fact, if we actually look what's happening on the ground, Waymo is advanced in Arizona, a regulation-light state. Tesla is pushing advancing features, hardware, and software across markets, though there are some exceptions made. Still, these companies are going to push for autonomy-everywhere faster than most would deem comfortable.

sizzle 7y ago

They should demo it on all the fastpass Lanes in Socal that are already pretty insulated from main lanes by a barrier or larger gap in most areas.