4 ms·

> 1. They're cheaper. This sounds crude, until you realize that this makes things like buses and shared rides far more viable. Meaning millions of people have a

> 1. They're cheaper. This sounds crude, until you realize that this makes things like buses and shared rides far more viable. Meaning millions of people have a better commute and collectively save many lifetimes worth of time. It can also mean less air pollution, due to less traffic congestion (this only applies if congestion pricing is done), which will also save lives. IMO autonomous vehicles are just going to further push public transit into something just for the poor. All the convenience and comfort and privacy of sitting in your own vehicle, but now you don't have to drive yourself! Why would you choose anything else?

anchpop 7y ago
Sure, but but buses would be cheaper to run if they didn't need a driver. My university runs a bus that you have to call and it drives directly to you and picks you up, I could imagine something like that being more common (for public transit)
- masonic 7y ago
  buses would be cheaper to run if they didn't need a driver But those drivers will be paid regardless, given the strength of public sector unions. So, no savings.
  - jodrellblank 7y ago
    But the buses wouldn't need windscreens or wipers or chairs or steering wheels or pedals or payment/coin handling, and the drivers wouldn't need uniforms or eye tests or retraining on routes or overtime or time and a half for holidays. Bus companies won't have to insure the busses for human drivers. So, yes savings. Nyah on your "unions defending humans against exploitation are the worst thing ever" narrative.
triceratops 7y ago
That's why I mentioned congestion pricing. Or inverting the carpool/non-carpool lane ratios i.e. every lane is carpool-only except those designated as single-occupant-allowed, which makes driving by yourself expensive in terms of time. Also, if you don't have to accommodate a human driver and controls, many safety features, bulky gasoline tank, and trunk space, automobile design could change radically. Self-driving taxicabs that look like small pods, or covered golf carts, could be used for individual travel, increasing space efficiency.

anchpop 7y ago

Sure, but but buses would be cheaper to run if they didn't need a driver. My university runs a bus that you have to call and it drives directly to you and picks you up, I could imagine something like that being more common (for public transit)

masonic 7y ago
buses would be cheaper to run if they didn't need a driver But those drivers will be paid regardless, given the strength of public sector unions. So, no savings.
- jodrellblank 7y ago
  But the buses wouldn't need windscreens or wipers or chairs or steering wheels or pedals or payment/coin handling, and the drivers wouldn't need uniforms or eye tests or retraining on routes or overtime or time and a half for holidays. Bus companies won't have to insure the busses for human drivers. So, yes savings. Nyah on your "unions defending humans against exploitation are the worst thing ever" narrative.

triceratops 7y ago

That's why I mentioned congestion pricing. Or inverting the carpool/non-carpool lane ratios i.e. every lane is carpool-only except those designated as single-occupant-allowed, which makes driving by yourself expensive in terms of time. Also, if you don't have to accommodate a human driver and controls, many safety features, bulky gasoline tank, and trunk space, automobile design could change radically. Self-driving taxicabs that look like small pods, or covered golf carts, could be used for individual travel, increasing space efficiency.