4 ms·

The question that most people seem to forget to ask: what is the societal benefit of having self-driving cars that could not be had by reducing car dependency i

The question that most people seem to forget to ask: what is the societal benefit of having self-driving cars that could not be had by reducing car dependency in the first place? "Roads will be safer"? Yes, they are safer already on cities with well-functioning public transit. "Less drunk-driving"? Same idea: if teenagers can live in areas where cars are not a necessity, they won't be behind the wheel and still be able to meet their friends, go to a party, etc. "Less space needed for parking slots if cars are FSD"? Also true if people are not car-dependent. To me, self-driving makes sense for trucks on highway roads, not for city traffic. And even then, we could also apply the same idea and think "why not improve the rail infrastructure"?

sokoloff 4y ago
Most of my car trips are random route. Most public transit (and all rail) runs on a fixed path. It’s rare that that fixed path aligns with my random route. The only trip I regularly take that vaguely aligns with a bus route is from 2 blocks away from my house to the grocery. (The grocery is about 4 total blocks from my house meaning walking halfway and then waiting for a bus still makes no sense.)
- rglullis 4y ago
  Do you think that people living in countries that are not car-dependent have all "perfectly aligned routes"? No, they use bicycles, they walk, they rely on better public transit than the one that is available to you. But anyway, how does that relate to the original question? Are you trying to justify your interest in FSD with the argument that would you give you some network of autonomous taxis?
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    Sure. I thought I’d left the dots close enough, but perhaps I didn’t. I believe that full self-driving cars will bring benefits above an area just being less car-dependent in general because of their inherent random route ability, which represents a huge time savings over rail and buses which seem to run in a radial spoke fashion. Take the case of an elderly person with limited personal mobility. They are likely driving today because that’s their best option by far. They’re probably not going to start walking to their doctor; it’s probably not a good idea for them to take up biking. Taking a bus into the city center and another one back out to get to a point that’s radially 2-3 miles away and then reversing that to get home seems wildly less practical than hopping into an FSD ride, whether billed like an uber or privately/family owned. That’s what FSD brings over a status futurus that is less car dependent but lacks FSD.
    - rglullis 4y ago
      Please, please watch the videos I linked. Especially the Not Just Bikes channel. For example, this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQY6WGOoYis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQY6WGOoYis can quickly explain why a transport system flooded with autonomous cars and poor public transit would make the overall system worse for everyone. There is also another video that talks about microcars for people with disability and reduced mobility: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9ly7JjqEb0&t=397 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9ly7JjqEb0&t=397 No rational person can watch those videos and conclude that the best course of action to solve urban transportation requires self-driving cars. Getting FSD cars is just a rich nerd fetish which will not solve anything and likely contribute to make suburban sprawl worse.
      - sokoloff 4y ago
        I’ve watched all the Not Just Bikes videos in the past and just rewatched part of the first one you linked immediately above. The Downs-Thompson paradox may explain exactly what I see. We recently got priority bus lanes in my city (Cambridge, MA). The primary effect is that buses can now more quickly travel to where I didn’t need to go in the first place. Cars are still significantly faster, so people choose them. Regardless of the amount of car traffic, a bus that goes from the outer edge of my city into the center to let me transfer to another bus to go out towards an outer edge at a different radial will never come close to driving point to point, even with parking aggravations. That explains why nearly everyone who is capable to drive and can afford a car has one. I think it’s also why many public transit advocates seem to focus so much energy on penalizing cars to enable public transit to become competitive. If competitively superior public transit existed, people would use it because they aren’t generally stupid. Even if it was roughly equal, people would use it in a lot of cases.
        rglullis 4y ago
        I also lived in the Cambridge, and I am very familiar with the 47 bus leaving from Central. I also biked there a lot, and I can tell you that there were very few times where I needed a car. The only times I needed one was where I was going to the suburbs and the alternative infra is non-existant. For the majority of cases, the T + biking was more than sufficient. It is not about penalizing car driving. It would be a good start if the US did not subsidize car ownership. It the true cost of car ownership was put on those driving, perhaps cities would be able to finance better public transit...

sokoloff 4y ago

Most of my car trips are random route. Most public transit (and all rail) runs on a fixed path. It’s rare that that fixed path aligns with my random route. The only trip I regularly take that vaguely aligns with a bus route is from 2 blocks away from my house to the grocery. (The grocery is about 4 total blocks from my house meaning walking halfway and then waiting for a bus still makes no sense.)

rglullis 4y ago
Do you think that people living in countries that are not car-dependent have all "perfectly aligned routes"? No, they use bicycles, they walk, they rely on better public transit than the one that is available to you. But anyway, how does that relate to the original question? Are you trying to justify your interest in FSD with the argument that would you give you some network of autonomous taxis?
- sokoloff 4y ago
  Sure. I thought I’d left the dots close enough, but perhaps I didn’t. I believe that full self-driving cars will bring benefits above an area just being less car-dependent in general because of their inherent random route ability, which represents a huge time savings over rail and buses which seem to run in a radial spoke fashion. Take the case of an elderly person with limited personal mobility. They are likely driving today because that’s their best option by far. They’re probably not going to start walking to their doctor; it’s probably not a good idea for them to take up biking. Taking a bus into the city center and another one back out to get to a point that’s radially 2-3 miles away and then reversing that to get home seems wildly less practical than hopping into an FSD ride, whether billed like an uber or privately/family owned. That’s what FSD brings over a status futurus that is less car dependent but lacks FSD.
  - rglullis 4y ago
    Please, please watch the videos I linked. Especially the Not Just Bikes channel. For example, this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQY6WGOoYis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQY6WGOoYis can quickly explain why a transport system flooded with autonomous cars and poor public transit would make the overall system worse for everyone. There is also another video that talks about microcars for people with disability and reduced mobility: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9ly7JjqEb0&t=397 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9ly7JjqEb0&t=397 No rational person can watch those videos and conclude that the best course of action to solve urban transportation requires self-driving cars. Getting FSD cars is just a rich nerd fetish which will not solve anything and likely contribute to make suburban sprawl worse.
    - sokoloff 4y ago
      I’ve watched all the Not Just Bikes videos in the past and just rewatched part of the first one you linked immediately above. The Downs-Thompson paradox may explain exactly what I see. We recently got priority bus lanes in my city (Cambridge, MA). The primary effect is that buses can now more quickly travel to where I didn’t need to go in the first place. Cars are still significantly faster, so people choose them. Regardless of the amount of car traffic, a bus that goes from the outer edge of my city into the center to let me transfer to another bus to go out towards an outer edge at a different radial will never come close to driving point to point, even with parking aggravations. That explains why nearly everyone who is capable to drive and can afford a car has one. I think it’s also why many public transit advocates seem to focus so much energy on penalizing cars to enable public transit to become competitive. If competitively superior public transit existed, people would use it because they aren’t generally stupid. Even if it was roughly equal, people would use it in a lot of cases.
      - rglullis 4y ago
        I also lived in the Cambridge, and I am very familiar with the 47 bus leaving from Central. I also biked there a lot, and I can tell you that there were very few times where I needed a car. The only times I needed one was where I was going to the suburbs and the alternative infra is non-existant. For the majority of cases, the T + biking was more than sufficient. It is not about penalizing car driving. It would be a good start if the US did not subsidize car ownership. It the true cost of car ownership was put on those driving, perhaps cities would be able to finance better public transit...