3 ms·
Thank God! Self driving cars are not a solution to the world's problems. Better public transport is. Why can't we have self driving buses that replace trams? Th
by akrymski 7y ago
Thank God! Self driving cars are not a solution to the world's problems. Better public transport is. Why can't we have self driving buses that replace trams? The level of AI needed for that is already there. As the population of major cities grows, we can't expect everyone riding around in their own car. Public transport is better for citizens and the environment. We need to be reducing the number of vehicles on the roads and ideally not covering the planet with asphalt altogether. Trams in cities like Amsterdam and the London underground are much more efficient modes of transportation than self driving cars will ever be.
- m0zg 7y agoThey are _a_ solution, for sure. They just aren't _the_ solution. I'm not sure dense cities are _the_ solution either, especially as more and more work is done remotely. I think humans weren't meant to be cooped up in a tiny concrete box. I like my backyard, and the forest behind my back yard. One size does not fit all, and it's not really feasible to tackle lower density living setups with "public transport", at least not in a large country like US. Moreover, this isn't "either-or" thing. I'd love it if my car could drop me off at the train station and then parked itself at home, then picked me up on my way back.
- akrymski 7y agoUS is a special place. Even Russia has better public transport. I don't think lack of public parking at a train station is a good enough reason to develop self-driving cars. It's easier to build a car park.
- ryukafalz 7y agoNot everyone lives in a major city though. Certainly self-driving cars are less efficient than buses for transport within a denser city, but go a few miles outside the city (at least in the US) and you’ll find yourself far from practical bus range. The situation may be different in Europe, but I think self-driving cars could be useful for navigating the sprawling American suburbs or less-dense cities. But yes, we shouldn’t attempt to replace perfectly functional and more efficient public transport within cities, only supplement where public transit isn’t (yet) practical.
- akrymski 7y agoThere's no reason you can't have buses outside major cities - most EU countries do this fine. Self driving, self-recharging buses, that you can track and hail on-demand would be much more efficient than self driving cars. It means you may have to walk the last mile, but I can only see that as a benefit in a country where obesity is one of the biggest problems. People with disabilities or those living in extremely remote areas are the only ones that should have their own cars.
- ryukafalz 7y agoMaybe, provided they run 24/7 and have very good coverage. Europe has much higher population density than all but the most populous regions of the US, though. Perhaps self-driving buses could do an amazingly better job than our current transit infrastructure, but I'd have to see some really convincing estimates. For some context here: it would take on average 1.5 hours for me to get to a friend's house by bus/train, when that's ordinarily about a 30 minute drive. That's highly variable too; if I miss one bus with a 1.5 hour route, there's another one a few minutes later, but that one would take 2 hours. If I didn't leave before 8pm for the return trip, I'd be stuck there until morning, as the buses stop running around then. And Google Maps won't even give me transit directions to the venue for a friend's recent wedding, which I interpret as "don't even try."
- rmtech 7y ago> Why can't we have self driving buses that replace trams? Why can't we have both, and sizes in between, and then dispatch whichever vehicle size is most appropriate for the situation?