11 ms·

Driverless cars won’t be good for the environment if they lead to more auto use

ahoy 5y ago
driverless/electric/etc cars are a lot like filtered cigarettes. They're a somewhat improved way to keep up an unhealthy habit.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago
> Research has previously suggested that automated vehicles could cause people to drive more than they currently do, Even without full self driving, having lane keeping assist and adaptive cruise control greatly increases my enjoyment on long trips. Often I will put on a podcast or audiobook and drive. Before, traffic jams used to be a pain because you were constantly having to shift your foot from brake to accelerator, but with adaptive cruise control, the car handles all that allowing to relax and enjoy the ride.
- adolph 5y ago
  The promise of a relaxed, comfortable commute to work could even make some people move farther away from their workplaces and accelerate suburban sprawl trends. Clearly "relax and enjoy" is problematic. Maybe there should be regulations for comfort offsets in vehicles with automation capability. Maybe seats that are unadjustable and too upright, reduced sound damping or reduced audio offerings. Uncomfortable chairs would become known in the restaurant industry as “15-minute chairs.” Charles Eames’ fiberglass scoop chair (shown above) might be an example, offering little possibility of posture realignment. https://restaurant-ingthroughhistory.com/2012/04/09/eat-and-run-please/ https://restaurant-ingthroughhistory.com/2012/04/09/eat-and-...
  - RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago
    This sounds a lot like abstinence only sex education. “If we make sex less dangerous by reducing the risk of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, then more people will engage in sex.” Deliberately trying to make things uncomfortable or dangerous because you don’t like people’s choices is a very authoritarian mindset.
    - CalRobert 5y ago
      True, anyone trying to cycle to work will know well how it feels when people make your choices uncomfortable and dangerous.
situationista 5y ago
This is also known as the Jevons Paradox - increased efficiency leads to increased and not reduced use.
spaetzleesser 5y ago
I always thought that self driving cars would make commutes longer and there is probably a temptation to let the car circle around cities while you do something if there is no parking.
- Steltek 5y ago
  The specific concern is that your car will drive you to work, turn around, then drive home again to park in your driveway. Doubling the trips will result in twice the congestion.
  - bagacrap 5y ago
    maybe, but is this worse than the alternative of needing to allocate precious space in dense urban areas to car storage? It seems like getting rid of on street parking and thus opening up ~2 more lanes per road would be a win even with increased commuter miles.
    - spaetzleesser 5y ago
      Both are bad.
- bagacrap 5y ago
  it seems more likely the car will park a mile away where space is more abundant, rather than using the roads as a mobile parking space. In some cases it will make sense to build a self-driving specific parking structure that doesn't need to accommodate human traffic, a la the car vending machines you see in NY and Tokyo etc. And of course there are the romantics who think we'll be able to convince people to give up individual car ownership and therefore do away with parking.
onion2k 5y ago
Driverless cars might not lead to a reduction in car use but they probably will lead to a reduction in the number of cars. Rather than people owning a car they'll request one via an app, it'll turn up and drive them where they want to be, and then it'll go off to the next customer. Car utilization will go up significantly. It'll be like all cars are taxis. That will probably mean more car journeys. But... The manufacturing of a car is responsible for a very significant amount of the emissions it produces over its life. If we can greatly reduce the number of cars then there'll be a huge reduction in emissions simply because we won't make as many of them. That's always going to be a massive win for the environment, even if each individual car is being used more.
- thrwyoilarticle 5y ago
  >Rather than people owning a car they'll request one via an app, it'll turn up and drive them where they want to be Which will mean turning up to the suburbs at 8am to drive downtown by 9am. Without a drastic, permanent change in working hours & commuting (or permanent WFH) the minimum number of cars will barely change.
  - onion2k 5y ago
    Without a drastic, permanent change in working hours & commuting (or permanent WFH)... That's already happening.
    - oblio 5y ago
      > That's already happening. Because of a worldwide pandemic. There's no guarantee that these changes will last.
      - onion2k 5y ago
        It was happening long before Covid. Covid just accelerated it.
        5y ago
JoeAltmaier 5y ago
Not sure how the environment would be affected by electric car use. Because all driverless cars are electric so far. They strangely talk around this in the article, without mentioning this fundamental issue. I think the whole article is clickbait.
- thrwyoilarticle 5y ago
  Electric cars still give of noise pollution & brake dust while taking up a disproportionate amount of space, time and money.
  - JoeAltmaier 5y ago
    Perhaps. I was thinking of real damage to the ecosystem, not 'its ugly for people' kind of eco-theatre issues. And if those were real issues, they are also much mitigated by electric vehicles. Again, its a non-issue looking for relevance in my opinion.
    - thrwyoilarticle 5y ago
      You are part of the ecosystem & should probably avoid inhaling carcinogenic materials.
      - JoeAltmaier 5y ago
        Again with the breathless hype. Electric cars often use regenerative braking. For every old-style car replaced by an electric car, that is reduced. Not increased.
    - ahoy 5y ago
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4608916/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4608916/ Your opinion isn't in agreement with the research. And before you come tell us that electric cars are quieter (they are, for the occupants), the great majority of automobile noise is from friction between the tires and the road.
  - 5y ago
jkingsbery 5y ago
I know this is meant to be a short article, but there are several points that I think are more complicated in reality. > The promise of a relaxed, comfortable commute to work could even make some people move farther away from their workplaces and accelerate suburban sprawl trends. At least where I live (suburbs outside of NY), more self-driving cars will not likely lead to more people commuting from farther away. The road capacity is already maxed out. Everyone I know either takes mass transit. In most other cities where I have coworkers, the roads were not built for the number of commuters, and again whether it's comfortable or not, people would rather not be commuting an hour and a half by car each way. This is especially true now in a world where we've all gotten used to a commute of walking down the hallway. > it’s unlikely to evolve that way on its own. They don't really explain why. They mention the idea of having shared fleets of cars, which would greatly reduce the cost of ownership and which become more plausible when cars are driverless. It seems like most people would have sufficient financial incentives (saving hundreds of dollars per month) to move in that direction. The article also doesn't explore the downstream impact from moving to shared fleets, and how great that would be for the environment. We dedicate a huge amount of resources, both real estate and financial, just to parking. If we have fewer total cars in existence, we would have less need for parking. There's also environmental impact of battery production [1], and as we move to electric vehicles having fewer total cars on the road will mean we need to produce fewer batteries, creating fewer mines for metals needed and using up less water which is needed by mining processes. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dnN82DsQ2k&t=814s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dnN82DsQ2k&t=814s
- Xylakant 5y ago
  > The article also doesn't explore the downstream impact from moving to shared fleets, and how great that would be for the environment. I really question whether that will happen. Floating car-sharing does not seem to have affected car ownership significantly, and it provides similar benefits. People obviously still want to own their specific car.
- JamisonM 5y ago
  Not to derail the conversation but I really am genuinely confused about the high level of concern about cobalt and lithium mining I often see in comments on HN. I understand that it is a dirty and difficult process but the entire petroleum-based supply chain is dirty and difficult. Is there some solid research out there that indicates that the footprint of this mining practice is much worse?
throwaway22032 5y ago
The concept of whether something is "good for the environment" is fundamentally flawed because there really exist only degrees. Literally anything we do modifies the environment. We generally tend to define "reversion to nature" as being a good thing, e.g. things that allow ecosystems to function independent of our fiddlings. I think that the primary contribution to "ecosystem change" is not actually fossil fuel use (e.g. CO2 emission), but land use. There is no Amazon if you cut it down, the Swedish wilderness isn't wild if you criss cross it with roads, the lakes aren't the same if you dam them for hydro, etc. We can't exist as a species of seven billion individuals that each seek to exact some amount of change that sums to an enormous difference without changing the planet. Regardless of whether you think it's a good or a bad thing, it just is, we do things. We could create a car that runs on water and has tyres made of biodegradable leaves and it still can't go anywhere without roads that cause wildlife corridors.
- JamisonM 5y ago
  People have been talking about conservation and re-foresting, and preserving the Amazon for at least 80 years. Governments all over the world establish national parks and I know some are actively working on wildlife corridors to improve ecosystems. If we existed as a species at only slightly higher density and energy efficiency there would be a lot more space for wilderness - the good news is that climate change mitigation is also consistent with that goal!
  - throwaway22032 5y ago
    Right. I suppose my main argument is that I'm unconvinced that the quantity of driving is really that relevant. We can fix that via clean energy. What we can't really 'fix' in the car based model is the fact that you need roads from every point to every point and you're also allowing people to live basically anywhere they want as long as there's a road to it.
    - JamisonM 5y ago
      I agree, if I understand you correctly. We are on the path to making driving n-times more energy efficient, fussing over if that results is 30 or 40% more driving is missing the forest for the trees. Rebuilding car culture from the ground up in a way that is more ecologically sound is a longer term project!
Aromasin 5y ago
Presumably the dawn of driverless cars is coupled with driverless mass transport, which would offset the environmental impact to some degree? Drivers of these vehicles are often - if not always - the most expensive part of the system. They can only work for so long, often only during daylight hours without a significant pay rise in most first world countries, and it's not a desirable job so very few people train into it. As such, most bus transport as an example is limited in both routes and hours run. The use of public transport is directly linked with how accessible and affordable it is. If I have to get 4 different routes to get to my destination in 3 times the time as it takes to drive, I'll drive any day of the week. I spend thousands on insurance, servicing, repair, etcetera. If there are hundreds of busses, running just as many routes, at all hours of the day, you bet I'd ditch my car in an instant; driverless or not.
- aqme28 5y ago
  > Drivers of these vehicles are often - if not always - the most expensive part of the system. Is that true? I expected the exact opposite. edit: This seems to be true for buses (see replies), but what about for trains? I'd be very surprised.
  - dahfizz 5y ago
    Some quick math: A city bus costs ~$250k[1] and should last ~10 years[1]. If the bus runs 12 hours a day, that is ~43000 hours of driving you have to pay for. So even if drivers earn minimum wage (I assume a CDL'd driver would earn significantly more), you end up paying more for the driver than the bus. [1] https://www.codot.gov/programs/innovativemobility/assets/commuterchoices/documents/trandir_transit.pdf https://www.codot.gov/programs/innovativemobility/assets/com...
    - aqme28 5y ago
      Yeah that works out for buses to my surprise, but I'd be even more surprised if it held up for trains of any form.
    - aurizon 5y ago
jayolden 5y ago
It depends; it utilizes car automation transportation to help travel hope from one place to another without any worry. It will reduce the traffic and amount of cars in use.
rr808 5y ago
Driverless cars will mean I wont have to pay for parking any more, my car can just keep circling the block.
- noobermin 5y ago
  That does seem worse for the environment.
- aurizon 5y ago
  Empty driverless vehicles in endless circulation is a form of in motion idling. I expect anti-idling laws will expand to cover this as the machine has zero rights and a robot police car can ask it and it will confess and pay the fine. They could be made to refuse 'idling' behaviour.
mlac 5y ago
I think U-Haul is perfectly positioned for driverless truck beds and van bodies (with a remote control that pops out for precision parking), but depending on the cost I would buy one myself. You could remove people from delivery trucks, have groceries delivered (just use curbside and have the people drop it in your vehicle), and all sorts of other pickup (Best Buy, target, Walmart). You could send them ahead on road trips, have it tag along on camping trips, sag wagon yourself on hiking or biking trips, all while having a lot more efficient vehicle for normal travel. They would also make for a good courier / last mile solution for b2b and shipments to downtown locations. It also solves the trolly problem in that it could drive cautiously and sacrifice itself over anything else. Would it increase traffic? Maybe. But it might also be shared between multiple families or friends.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  Some highfalutin fleet operator with fat margins to match will do it first. These sorts of tech things always start at the top and trickle down. Uhaul is really optimized for what they do and doing it cheaply. Unless Ford and GM start making driverless vehicles Uhaul won't be going driverless.
variant 5y ago
It doesn't matter. The only thing that might help the environment is if we ceased the vast majority of travel and went back to walking.
siskiyou 5y ago
One thing I've been wondering is whether self driving cars could result in lower emissions by never exceeding the speed limit, and by driving more smoothly than a human operator. Additionally, I wonder if having even say 10% of cars on the road that never exceed the speed limit would result in most other cars nearby driving the speed limit as well, since they would effectively block non-self-driving cars from speeding in many areas. Speeding is dangerous for all other road users, so there should be safety benefits as well. Why not require all self driving cars to drive at legal speeds?
- Rayhem 5y ago
  There's also something to be said for automated "road trains". There are enormous aerodynamic benefits if 20 or 30 (autonomous) vehicles can communicate and link up with each other to drive at exactly the same speed.
- bagacrap 5y ago
  why not? Because some people would choose not to buy the car if they had to drive it at the speed limit across the empty expanses that make up their favorite road trip, or through areas where the limit is lower than it "ought" to be. I think speed limits are set based on safety concerns more than environmental ones, and in that sense self driving cars should probably be allowed more speed not less. I claim without evidence that the greater contributor to inefficient fuel use is needlessly abrupt acceleration and deceleration, rather than top speed, and hopefully self driving cars do help with that.
xorfish 5y ago
Cars are a really inefficient mode of transport. Walking, bikes and public transport are far better modes of transport for the vast majority of the demand. Cities that prioritize these modes of transport offer a higher quality of living with lower impact on the environment and reduce inequality by making necessary transportation accessible to more people.
Jeff_Brown 5y ago
They might lead to more use but fewer cars, leaving the net effect ambiguous, if people rent out their auto-cars ala Uber.
robofanatic 5y ago
"Driverless cars" is about creating an infinite labour pool. Environmental benefits are just a by-product.
perryizgr8 5y ago
Is anybody justifying driverless car research by saying it is good for the environment? I certainly haven't heard that reason before.
steve_taylor 5y ago
> Automated vehicles hold tremendous promise. Cars that handle most or all of the driving tasks could be safer than human drivers, operate more efficiently and open up new opportunities for seniors, people with disabilities and others who can’t drive themselves. But while attention has understandably focused on safety, the potential environmental impacts of automated vehicles have largely taken a back seat. It’s OK to keep making and driving cars, but if the elderly and disabed can now use them, this is where we draw the line on environmental impact?
yoav 5y ago
They also won’t be good for the environment if they lead to fewer fatalities. If you can prevent 30k/year car collision related deaths at 20 metric tons of CO2 per year per person that’s roughly 600,000 metric tons of CO2 per year compounding and just in the US. But of course it’s silly to discuss the environmental impact of self-driving technology like discussing its impact on baking cakes or puppet shows. The same technology can be used for driverless car share or driverless busses that run on renewables. https://www.inspirecleanenergy.com/blog/clean-energy-101/average-american-carbon-footprint https://www.inspirecleanenergy.com/blog/clean-energy-101/ave... https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/2020-fatality-data-show-increased-traffic-fatalities-during-pandemic https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/2020-fatality-data-show...

ahoy 5y ago

driverless/electric/etc cars are a lot like filtered cigarettes. They're a somewhat improved way to keep up an unhealthy habit.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago

> Research has previously suggested that automated vehicles could cause people to drive more than they currently do, Even without full self driving, having lane keeping assist and adaptive cruise control greatly increases my enjoyment on long trips. Often I will put on a podcast or audiobook and drive. Before, traffic jams used to be a pain because you were constantly having to shift your foot from brake to accelerator, but with adaptive cruise control, the car handles all that allowing to relax and enjoy the ride.

adolph 5y ago
The promise of a relaxed, comfortable commute to work could even make some people move farther away from their workplaces and accelerate suburban sprawl trends. Clearly "relax and enjoy" is problematic. Maybe there should be regulations for comfort offsets in vehicles with automation capability. Maybe seats that are unadjustable and too upright, reduced sound damping or reduced audio offerings. Uncomfortable chairs would become known in the restaurant industry as “15-minute chairs.” Charles Eames’ fiberglass scoop chair (shown above) might be an example, offering little possibility of posture realignment. https://restaurant-ingthroughhistory.com/2012/04/09/eat-and-run-please/ https://restaurant-ingthroughhistory.com/2012/04/09/eat-and-...
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago
  This sounds a lot like abstinence only sex education. “If we make sex less dangerous by reducing the risk of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, then more people will engage in sex.” Deliberately trying to make things uncomfortable or dangerous because you don’t like people’s choices is a very authoritarian mindset.
  - CalRobert 5y ago
    True, anyone trying to cycle to work will know well how it feels when people make your choices uncomfortable and dangerous.

situationista 5y ago

This is also known as the Jevons Paradox - increased efficiency leads to increased and not reduced use.

spaetzleesser 5y ago

I always thought that self driving cars would make commutes longer and there is probably a temptation to let the car circle around cities while you do something if there is no parking.

Steltek 5y ago
The specific concern is that your car will drive you to work, turn around, then drive home again to park in your driveway. Doubling the trips will result in twice the congestion.
- bagacrap 5y ago
  maybe, but is this worse than the alternative of needing to allocate precious space in dense urban areas to car storage? It seems like getting rid of on street parking and thus opening up ~2 more lanes per road would be a win even with increased commuter miles.
  - spaetzleesser 5y ago
    Both are bad.
bagacrap 5y ago
it seems more likely the car will park a mile away where space is more abundant, rather than using the roads as a mobile parking space. In some cases it will make sense to build a self-driving specific parking structure that doesn't need to accommodate human traffic, a la the car vending machines you see in NY and Tokyo etc. And of course there are the romantics who think we'll be able to convince people to give up individual car ownership and therefore do away with parking.

onion2k 5y ago

Driverless cars might not lead to a reduction in car use but they probably will lead to a reduction in the number of cars. Rather than people owning a car they'll request one via an app, it'll turn up and drive them where they want to be, and then it'll go off to the next customer. Car utilization will go up significantly. It'll be like all cars are taxis. That will probably mean more car journeys. But... The manufacturing of a car is responsible for a very significant amount of the emissions it produces over its life. If we can greatly reduce the number of cars then there'll be a huge reduction in emissions simply because we won't make as many of them. That's always going to be a massive win for the environment, even if each individual car is being used more.

thrwyoilarticle 5y ago
>Rather than people owning a car they'll request one via an app, it'll turn up and drive them where they want to be Which will mean turning up to the suburbs at 8am to drive downtown by 9am. Without a drastic, permanent change in working hours & commuting (or permanent WFH) the minimum number of cars will barely change.
- onion2k 5y ago
  Without a drastic, permanent change in working hours & commuting (or permanent WFH)... That's already happening.
  - oblio 5y ago
    > That's already happening. Because of a worldwide pandemic. There's no guarantee that these changes will last.
    - onion2k 5y ago
      It was happening long before Covid. Covid just accelerated it.
      - 5y ago

JoeAltmaier 5y ago

Not sure how the environment would be affected by electric car use. Because all driverless cars are electric so far. They strangely talk around this in the article, without mentioning this fundamental issue. I think the whole article is clickbait.

thrwyoilarticle 5y ago
Electric cars still give of noise pollution & brake dust while taking up a disproportionate amount of space, time and money.
- JoeAltmaier 5y ago
  Perhaps. I was thinking of real damage to the ecosystem, not 'its ugly for people' kind of eco-theatre issues. And if those were real issues, they are also much mitigated by electric vehicles. Again, its a non-issue looking for relevance in my opinion.
  - thrwyoilarticle 5y ago
    You are part of the ecosystem & should probably avoid inhaling carcinogenic materials.
    - JoeAltmaier 5y ago
      Again with the breathless hype. Electric cars often use regenerative braking. For every old-style car replaced by an electric car, that is reduced. Not increased.
  - ahoy 5y ago
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4608916/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4608916/ Your opinion isn't in agreement with the research. And before you come tell us that electric cars are quieter (they are, for the occupants), the great majority of automobile noise is from friction between the tires and the road.
- 5y ago

jkingsbery 5y ago

I know this is meant to be a short article, but there are several points that I think are more complicated in reality. > The promise of a relaxed, comfortable commute to work could even make some people move farther away from their workplaces and accelerate suburban sprawl trends. At least where I live (suburbs outside of NY), more self-driving cars will not likely lead to more people commuting from farther away. The road capacity is already maxed out. Everyone I know either takes mass transit. In most other cities where I have coworkers, the roads were not built for the number of commuters, and again whether it's comfortable or not, people would rather not be commuting an hour and a half by car each way. This is especially true now in a world where we've all gotten used to a commute of walking down the hallway. > it’s unlikely to evolve that way on its own. They don't really explain why. They mention the idea of having shared fleets of cars, which would greatly reduce the cost of ownership and which become more plausible when cars are driverless. It seems like most people would have sufficient financial incentives (saving hundreds of dollars per month) to move in that direction. The article also doesn't explore the downstream impact from moving to shared fleets, and how great that would be for the environment. We dedicate a huge amount of resources, both real estate and financial, just to parking. If we have fewer total cars in existence, we would have less need for parking. There's also environmental impact of battery production [1], and as we move to electric vehicles having fewer total cars on the road will mean we need to produce fewer batteries, creating fewer mines for metals needed and using up less water which is needed by mining processes. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dnN82DsQ2k&t=814s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dnN82DsQ2k&t=814s

Xylakant 5y ago
> The article also doesn't explore the downstream impact from moving to shared fleets, and how great that would be for the environment. I really question whether that will happen. Floating car-sharing does not seem to have affected car ownership significantly, and it provides similar benefits. People obviously still want to own their specific car.
JamisonM 5y ago
Not to derail the conversation but I really am genuinely confused about the high level of concern about cobalt and lithium mining I often see in comments on HN. I understand that it is a dirty and difficult process but the entire petroleum-based supply chain is dirty and difficult. Is there some solid research out there that indicates that the footprint of this mining practice is much worse?

throwaway22032 5y ago

The concept of whether something is "good for the environment" is fundamentally flawed because there really exist only degrees. Literally anything we do modifies the environment. We generally tend to define "reversion to nature" as being a good thing, e.g. things that allow ecosystems to function independent of our fiddlings. I think that the primary contribution to "ecosystem change" is not actually fossil fuel use (e.g. CO2 emission), but land use. There is no Amazon if you cut it down, the Swedish wilderness isn't wild if you criss cross it with roads, the lakes aren't the same if you dam them for hydro, etc. We can't exist as a species of seven billion individuals that each seek to exact some amount of change that sums to an enormous difference without changing the planet. Regardless of whether you think it's a good or a bad thing, it just is, we do things. We could create a car that runs on water and has tyres made of biodegradable leaves and it still can't go anywhere without roads that cause wildlife corridors.

JamisonM 5y ago
People have been talking about conservation and re-foresting, and preserving the Amazon for at least 80 years. Governments all over the world establish national parks and I know some are actively working on wildlife corridors to improve ecosystems. If we existed as a species at only slightly higher density and energy efficiency there would be a lot more space for wilderness - the good news is that climate change mitigation is also consistent with that goal!
- throwaway22032 5y ago
  Right. I suppose my main argument is that I'm unconvinced that the quantity of driving is really that relevant. We can fix that via clean energy. What we can't really 'fix' in the car based model is the fact that you need roads from every point to every point and you're also allowing people to live basically anywhere they want as long as there's a road to it.
  - JamisonM 5y ago
    I agree, if I understand you correctly. We are on the path to making driving n-times more energy efficient, fussing over if that results is 30 or 40% more driving is missing the forest for the trees. Rebuilding car culture from the ground up in a way that is more ecologically sound is a longer term project!

Aromasin 5y ago

Presumably the dawn of driverless cars is coupled with driverless mass transport, which would offset the environmental impact to some degree? Drivers of these vehicles are often - if not always - the most expensive part of the system. They can only work for so long, often only during daylight hours without a significant pay rise in most first world countries, and it's not a desirable job so very few people train into it. As such, most bus transport as an example is limited in both routes and hours run. The use of public transport is directly linked with how accessible and affordable it is. If I have to get 4 different routes to get to my destination in 3 times the time as it takes to drive, I'll drive any day of the week. I spend thousands on insurance, servicing, repair, etcetera. If there are hundreds of busses, running just as many routes, at all hours of the day, you bet I'd ditch my car in an instant; driverless or not.

aqme28 5y ago
> Drivers of these vehicles are often - if not always - the most expensive part of the system. Is that true? I expected the exact opposite. edit: This seems to be true for buses (see replies), but what about for trains? I'd be very surprised.
- dahfizz 5y ago
  Some quick math: A city bus costs ~$250k[1] and should last ~10 years[1]. If the bus runs 12 hours a day, that is ~43000 hours of driving you have to pay for. So even if drivers earn minimum wage (I assume a CDL'd driver would earn significantly more), you end up paying more for the driver than the bus. [1] https://www.codot.gov/programs/innovativemobility/assets/commuterchoices/documents/trandir_transit.pdf https://www.codot.gov/programs/innovativemobility/assets/com...
  - aqme28 5y ago
    Yeah that works out for buses to my surprise, but I'd be even more surprised if it held up for trains of any form.
  - aurizon 5y ago

jayolden 5y ago

It depends; it utilizes car automation transportation to help travel hope from one place to another without any worry. It will reduce the traffic and amount of cars in use.

rr808 5y ago

Driverless cars will mean I wont have to pay for parking any more, my car can just keep circling the block.

noobermin 5y ago
That does seem worse for the environment.
aurizon 5y ago
Empty driverless vehicles in endless circulation is a form of in motion idling. I expect anti-idling laws will expand to cover this as the machine has zero rights and a robot police car can ask it and it will confess and pay the fine. They could be made to refuse 'idling' behaviour.

mlac 5y ago

I think U-Haul is perfectly positioned for driverless truck beds and van bodies (with a remote control that pops out for precision parking), but depending on the cost I would buy one myself. You could remove people from delivery trucks, have groceries delivered (just use curbside and have the people drop it in your vehicle), and all sorts of other pickup (Best Buy, target, Walmart). You could send them ahead on road trips, have it tag along on camping trips, sag wagon yourself on hiking or biking trips, all while having a lot more efficient vehicle for normal travel. They would also make for a good courier / last mile solution for b2b and shipments to downtown locations. It also solves the trolly problem in that it could drive cautiously and sacrifice itself over anything else. Would it increase traffic? Maybe. But it might also be shared between multiple families or friends.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
Some highfalutin fleet operator with fat margins to match will do it first. These sorts of tech things always start at the top and trickle down. Uhaul is really optimized for what they do and doing it cheaply. Unless Ford and GM start making driverless vehicles Uhaul won't be going driverless.

variant 5y ago

It doesn't matter. The only thing that might help the environment is if we ceased the vast majority of travel and went back to walking.

siskiyou 5y ago

One thing I've been wondering is whether self driving cars could result in lower emissions by never exceeding the speed limit, and by driving more smoothly than a human operator. Additionally, I wonder if having even say 10% of cars on the road that never exceed the speed limit would result in most other cars nearby driving the speed limit as well, since they would effectively block non-self-driving cars from speeding in many areas. Speeding is dangerous for all other road users, so there should be safety benefits as well. Why not require all self driving cars to drive at legal speeds?

Rayhem 5y ago
There's also something to be said for automated "road trains". There are enormous aerodynamic benefits if 20 or 30 (autonomous) vehicles can communicate and link up with each other to drive at exactly the same speed.
bagacrap 5y ago
why not? Because some people would choose not to buy the car if they had to drive it at the speed limit across the empty expanses that make up their favorite road trip, or through areas where the limit is lower than it "ought" to be. I think speed limits are set based on safety concerns more than environmental ones, and in that sense self driving cars should probably be allowed more speed not less. I claim without evidence that the greater contributor to inefficient fuel use is needlessly abrupt acceleration and deceleration, rather than top speed, and hopefully self driving cars do help with that.

xorfish 5y ago

Cars are a really inefficient mode of transport. Walking, bikes and public transport are far better modes of transport for the vast majority of the demand. Cities that prioritize these modes of transport offer a higher quality of living with lower impact on the environment and reduce inequality by making necessary transportation accessible to more people.

Jeff_Brown 5y ago

They might lead to more use but fewer cars, leaving the net effect ambiguous, if people rent out their auto-cars ala Uber.

robofanatic 5y ago

"Driverless cars" is about creating an infinite labour pool. Environmental benefits are just a by-product.

perryizgr8 5y ago

Is anybody justifying driverless car research by saying it is good for the environment? I certainly haven't heard that reason before.

steve_taylor 5y ago

> Automated vehicles hold tremendous promise. Cars that handle most or all of the driving tasks could be safer than human drivers, operate more efficiently and open up new opportunities for seniors, people with disabilities and others who can’t drive themselves. But while attention has understandably focused on safety, the potential environmental impacts of automated vehicles have largely taken a back seat. It’s OK to keep making and driving cars, but if the elderly and disabed can now use them, this is where we draw the line on environmental impact?

yoav 5y ago

They also won’t be good for the environment if they lead to fewer fatalities. If you can prevent 30k/year car collision related deaths at 20 metric tons of CO2 per year per person that’s roughly 600,000 metric tons of CO2 per year compounding and just in the US. But of course it’s silly to discuss the environmental impact of self-driving technology like discussing its impact on baking cakes or puppet shows. The same technology can be used for driverless car share or driverless busses that run on renewables. https://www.inspirecleanenergy.com/blog/clean-energy-101/average-american-carbon-footprint https://www.inspirecleanenergy.com/blog/clean-energy-101/ave... https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/2020-fatality-data-show-increased-traffic-fatalities-during-pandemic https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/2020-fatality-data-show...