4 ms·

I prefer to get places in my Coronavirus-ready Autonomous Rover (CAR, for short). Being in it alone or with a few friends, family members, or co-workers means

I prefer to get places in my Coronavirus-ready Autonomous Rover (CAR, for short). Being in it alone or with a few friends, family members, or co-workers means that there's an innate means of social distancing. That's also improved by the way it doesn't require hubs where many people are forced to congregate - for moderately long journeys, I can stay in my CAR all the way from my house to walking distance of my destination. And of course, while not as fully autonomous as the name might suggest, my CAR only requires refueling every three hundred and change miles, and maintenance every five thousand or so. This provides some robustness if the infrastructure is compromised, whether by disease or other issues. It looks like CARs might have a place in the 2020s.

Symbiote 7y ago
These features are useful approximately what, once a century? The cost of infrastructure for cars far, far outweighs the cost of a few weeks of no-one working, and the pollution has caused many more deaths than Coronavirus will.
- TulliusCicero 7y ago
  Yes, but you get to partake of the pollution no matter whether you personally operate a car or not. So, drive away! Externalities are a hell of a drug.
- trothamel 7y ago
  I'd think that the social isolation feature has benefits whenever communicable diseases are in the air, which seems to be every winter. The autonomous nature of the system means each CAR can change from road to road to route around congestion and construction, in a way that mass transit can't. And of course, the time saved by being able to go from point to point rather than through mass transit hubs quickly adds up to many lifetimes. I agree that pollution is something that needs to be addressed, which is why electric and hybrid CARs are being introduced by startups and legacy players in the industry.
  - nicoburns 7y ago
    > each CAR can change from road to road to route around congestion and construction, in a way that mass transit can't. Assuming there is a route without congestion. There typically isn't at rush hour in large cities. On the others hand trains have a dedicated track and thus don't have traffic problems. > And of course, the time saved by being able to go from point to point rather than through mass transit hubs quickly adds up to many lifetimes. If your transport system is good enough this isn't a problem either. In London, you're rarely more than 5-10 minutes from a tube station. And they'll likely be buses even closer. Public transport is much quicker than driving for most journeys. I think I know fewer than 5 people who own a car here.
    - burfog 7y ago
      Finding a route without congestion is literally impossible for trains stuck on a dedicated track. One little traffic problem shuts down the whole line, including all stations along the route. Since lines are typically connected without redundancy, a failure can partition the network into two disconnected halves. All it takes, in one tiny little spot anywhere on the line: derailment, flood, suicide, stuck switch, malfunctioning sensor, failed motor, wrong kind of leaves on the rails, wrong kind of snow on the rails, broken signal, street-running car crash, tracks blocked off for a crime scene investigation, bomb threat...
      - nicoburns 7y ago
        Well sure, but in practice on a well-run line this doesn't happen very often. Especially on underground lines which don't have weather realted problems. This maybe happens to me a couple of times a year. Whereas roads often have traffic jams every day.
  - TulliusCicero 7y ago
    > I'd think that the social isolation feature has benefits whenever communicable diseases are in the air, which seems to be every winter. Probably true, there's an advantage there. But there's also an advantage in walking + transit, in that it helps people stay healthier. Between the car-dominant US vs the more transit-friendly countries of Japan, Korea, and western Europe, one side has a health and lifespan advantage. And it ain't the US. > The autonomous nature of the system means each CAR can change from road to road to route around congestion and construction, in a way that mass transit can't. And yet, commute times in the US are basically average compared to other developed countries. Would you care to explain that? > And of course, the time saved by being able to go from point to point rather than through mass transit hubs quickly adds up to many lifetimes. Source on transportation time actually being lower in car-dominant areas?

Symbiote 7y ago

These features are useful approximately what, once a century? The cost of infrastructure for cars far, far outweighs the cost of a few weeks of no-one working, and the pollution has caused many more deaths than Coronavirus will.

TulliusCicero 7y ago
Yes, but you get to partake of the pollution no matter whether you personally operate a car or not. So, drive away! Externalities are a hell of a drug.
trothamel 7y ago
I'd think that the social isolation feature has benefits whenever communicable diseases are in the air, which seems to be every winter. The autonomous nature of the system means each CAR can change from road to road to route around congestion and construction, in a way that mass transit can't. And of course, the time saved by being able to go from point to point rather than through mass transit hubs quickly adds up to many lifetimes. I agree that pollution is something that needs to be addressed, which is why electric and hybrid CARs are being introduced by startups and legacy players in the industry.
- nicoburns 7y ago
  > each CAR can change from road to road to route around congestion and construction, in a way that mass transit can't. Assuming there is a route without congestion. There typically isn't at rush hour in large cities. On the others hand trains have a dedicated track and thus don't have traffic problems. > And of course, the time saved by being able to go from point to point rather than through mass transit hubs quickly adds up to many lifetimes. If your transport system is good enough this isn't a problem either. In London, you're rarely more than 5-10 minutes from a tube station. And they'll likely be buses even closer. Public transport is much quicker than driving for most journeys. I think I know fewer than 5 people who own a car here.
  - burfog 7y ago
    Finding a route without congestion is literally impossible for trains stuck on a dedicated track. One little traffic problem shuts down the whole line, including all stations along the route. Since lines are typically connected without redundancy, a failure can partition the network into two disconnected halves. All it takes, in one tiny little spot anywhere on the line: derailment, flood, suicide, stuck switch, malfunctioning sensor, failed motor, wrong kind of leaves on the rails, wrong kind of snow on the rails, broken signal, street-running car crash, tracks blocked off for a crime scene investigation, bomb threat...
    - nicoburns 7y ago
      Well sure, but in practice on a well-run line this doesn't happen very often. Especially on underground lines which don't have weather realted problems. This maybe happens to me a couple of times a year. Whereas roads often have traffic jams every day.
- TulliusCicero 7y ago
  > I'd think that the social isolation feature has benefits whenever communicable diseases are in the air, which seems to be every winter. Probably true, there's an advantage there. But there's also an advantage in walking + transit, in that it helps people stay healthier. Between the car-dominant US vs the more transit-friendly countries of Japan, Korea, and western Europe, one side has a health and lifespan advantage. And it ain't the US. > The autonomous nature of the system means each CAR can change from road to road to route around congestion and construction, in a way that mass transit can't. And yet, commute times in the US are basically average compared to other developed countries. Would you care to explain that? > And of course, the time saved by being able to go from point to point rather than through mass transit hubs quickly adds up to many lifetimes. Source on transportation time actually being lower in car-dominant areas?