5 ms·

I tend to agree that autonomous vehicles will revolutionize not only transport but society. That's how big I think they'll be. Say goodbye to the vast majority

by cletus 15y ago

I tend to agree that autonomous vehicles will revolutionize not only transport but society. That's how big I think they'll be. Say goodbye to the vast majority of automobile deaths every year. But that still doesn't address the problem facing most large cities: gridlock. Whether the cars are automated or not won't drastically change that (although it may well reduce arterial traffic clogs due to accidents and rubbernecking) because there are still more cars than the roads can handle. I really don't know why California is pursuing this. Planes are entirely valid solution to the problem of travelling between LA and SF. Why spend billions on an alternative that's going to take twenty years? If anything, spend the money on public transport to reduce reliance on cars. The situation is decent in SF, poor in the Valley (Caltrain covers a limited area and runs quite infrequently) and woeful in LA. The 101 out of SF tends to be a car park at certain times (although not as bad as LA). The big problem is that LA isn't really space-constrained. It has the ocean on the west but has sprawled far north, south and east. People like their big homes and that's a recipe for disaster when it comes to public transport. The only places public transport seems to work at all are those areas densely population or that have existing infrastructure (eg the commuter belt around NYC). But Dallas? Atlanta? LA? Chicago? Very limited public transport.

stretchwithme 15y ago
Actually, the robotic car will make for very cheap cabs that can be much smaller. Most will only need to carry a passenger and can have a much smaller engine without the need for speed that human drivers have. So, smaller vehicles almost always moving and not parking will take up a lot less room per person-mile.
- ars 15y ago
  Why would it need a smaller engine? The load and cargo of the car is identical. (i.e. one passenger, and one driver weigh exactly the same.)
  - surrealize 15y ago
    The assumption is that autonomous cars would decrease the cost of taxi-style usage to the point where it competes with ownership, since you wouldn't have to pay for a driver. When I buy a (non-autonomous) car, I size it for the maximum load I might want to carry. For the autonomous taxi, I can just rent the minimally-sized car for the trip that I'm currently on. If I'm by myself, the autonomous cab could even be a one-seater. Plus, I don't have to park it.
    - ars 15y ago
      I still don't get what the difference autonomous makes. You can rent a car today. If one seaters were practical they would be rentable. Autonomous isn't going to change that. Autonomous sounds great - but not because of car or engine size.
      - easp 15y ago
        An autonomous single seater comes to you where you need it. A single seat, non-autonomous rental car doesn't come to you unless there is a driver, or a delivery vehicle with a driver, to bring it to you. The economics aren't going to be the same.
      - stretchwithme 15y ago
        Its simply too costly to get the optimal size cab to a customer today. So cabs are usually much bigger than the average car. Flexibility is more important. And cabs make up a small percentage of the overall market. And most of the cost of a cab ride is labor. But if automated cabs become the norm, the cost of a cab ride will be governed by the size of the vehicle. And if a car costs 25 cents a mile to operate, a cab ride from my house to San Francisco will still cost me $11. If a 1-seater with barely an engine and no trunk can do it for 10 cents a mile or $4.50, there will be demand. That's the commuter, the guy making 40 trips a month, who'd save $260 a month for giving up empty space. Of course, we really don't know how this will all play out. But it will be fun to find out.
        15y ago
Anechoic 15y ago
>Planes are entirely valid solution to the problem of traveling between LA and SF The problem is that LA and SF-area airports are almost at capacity and increasing that capacity through adding runways or building new airports would be a significant undertaking (several 10s of $billions) that would face a number of hurdles. Air travel is also affected by weather issues that don't affect HSR.
- oconnore 15y ago
  And air travel is less efficient, noisier, and dependent on fossil fuels than gliding over a maglev track.
  - cshesse 15y ago
    As far as I know, the High Speed Rail system is not maglev and modern trains have roughly them same energy efficiency as modern planes.
    - nkurz 15y ago
      That's interesting. I'd instinctively presumed that HSR would be much more energy efficient than flying, but the quick research I did indicates you are right. Electric HSR probably has the edge if you are willing to assume hydroelectric generation, but it mostly comes down to projected ridership. A full plane beats and empty train, and vice versa.
rayiner 15y ago
Chicago isn't land constrained, but has a dense urban core (roughly comparable in overall density to London) and has great public transportation, both within the city and within the larger metro area (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Metra-System.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Metra-Sys...). Proper urban planning can go a long way.
- easp 15y ago
  "Proper" urban planning is helped tremendously when the city was planned and reached critical mass in the days before the automobile and freeway systems really took hold.
dpres 15y ago
> Whether the cars are automated or not won't drastically change that because there are still more cars than the roads can handle. Automated taxi cabs + existing public transit would solve gridlock... go outside to your auto-cab, take it to the rail, get off the rail into a different auto-cab, arrive at work.
temphn 15y ago
> But that still doesn't address the problem facing most large cities: gridlock. Whether the cars are automated or not won't drastically change that (although it may well reduce arterial traffic clogs due to accidents and rubbernecking) because there are still more cars than the roads can handle. Humans are going to be a lot less efficient than computers in driving cars. With proper networking, you could have cars doing 60mph while only a few car lengths from each other, vastly increasing the capacity of any segment of road. For example, the presence of an unexpected crash or obstruction down the road can be relayed back at the speed of light via networked cars, and the entire wave of cars behind the crash can slow down and reroute. There have been some simulation papers on this, comparing humans vs. automatic driving algorithms. It's similar to automatic control in other areas.
- Anechoic 15y ago
  >With proper networking, you could have cars doing 60mph while only a few car lengths from each other, vastly increasing the capacity of any segment of road. That works if 100% of the cars are autonmous. I'm betting that even if automous cars were available tomorrow, it would take longer than 20 years for that to be true.
  - waterlesscloud 15y ago
    I think there's a threshold beyond which it becomes socially mandatory for all cars to be autonomous. The pressures will be enormous at a certain point. Endangering the lives of others when there's an option to not do so, etc etc. What that threshold percentage is and how the transition will be accomplished in practical terms, I don't know. But I do believe the pressures will manifest themselves mightily.
    - Anechoic 15y ago
      >I think there's a threshold beyond which it becomes socially mandatory for all cars to be autonomous. Economics are still going to be the driving factor (no pun intended) for the poor and working class. As long as beater non-automated cars are going to cost less than the (used but still newer) automated cars, and as long as cars are still going to be necessary in much of the USA, there are still going to be normal cars around. At some point (say in 40-50 years, and if "classic" driver cars are outlawed) I think we'll reach that point, but then that weakens the argument of autonomous cars (and its benefits) getting here before the CA HSR project.

by cletus 15y ago

stretchwithme 15y ago

Actually, the robotic car will make for very cheap cabs that can be much smaller. Most will only need to carry a passenger and can have a much smaller engine without the need for speed that human drivers have. So, smaller vehicles almost always moving and not parking will take up a lot less room per person-mile.

ars 15y ago
Why would it need a smaller engine? The load and cargo of the car is identical. (i.e. one passenger, and one driver weigh exactly the same.)
- surrealize 15y ago
  The assumption is that autonomous cars would decrease the cost of taxi-style usage to the point where it competes with ownership, since you wouldn't have to pay for a driver. When I buy a (non-autonomous) car, I size it for the maximum load I might want to carry. For the autonomous taxi, I can just rent the minimally-sized car for the trip that I'm currently on. If I'm by myself, the autonomous cab could even be a one-seater. Plus, I don't have to park it.
  - ars 15y ago
    I still don't get what the difference autonomous makes. You can rent a car today. If one seaters were practical they would be rentable. Autonomous isn't going to change that. Autonomous sounds great - but not because of car or engine size.
    - easp 15y ago
      An autonomous single seater comes to you where you need it. A single seat, non-autonomous rental car doesn't come to you unless there is a driver, or a delivery vehicle with a driver, to bring it to you. The economics aren't going to be the same.
    - stretchwithme 15y ago
      Its simply too costly to get the optimal size cab to a customer today. So cabs are usually much bigger than the average car. Flexibility is more important. And cabs make up a small percentage of the overall market. And most of the cost of a cab ride is labor. But if automated cabs become the norm, the cost of a cab ride will be governed by the size of the vehicle. And if a car costs 25 cents a mile to operate, a cab ride from my house to San Francisco will still cost me $11. If a 1-seater with barely an engine and no trunk can do it for 10 cents a mile or $4.50, there will be demand. That's the commuter, the guy making 40 trips a month, who'd save $260 a month for giving up empty space. Of course, we really don't know how this will all play out. But it will be fun to find out.
      - 15y ago

Anechoic 15y ago

>Planes are entirely valid solution to the problem of traveling between LA and SF The problem is that LA and SF-area airports are almost at capacity and increasing that capacity through adding runways or building new airports would be a significant undertaking (several 10s of $billions) that would face a number of hurdles. Air travel is also affected by weather issues that don't affect HSR.

oconnore 15y ago
And air travel is less efficient, noisier, and dependent on fossil fuels than gliding over a maglev track.
- cshesse 15y ago
  As far as I know, the High Speed Rail system is not maglev and modern trains have roughly them same energy efficiency as modern planes.
  - nkurz 15y ago
    That's interesting. I'd instinctively presumed that HSR would be much more energy efficient than flying, but the quick research I did indicates you are right. Electric HSR probably has the edge if you are willing to assume hydroelectric generation, but it mostly comes down to projected ridership. A full plane beats and empty train, and vice versa.

rayiner 15y ago

Chicago isn't land constrained, but has a dense urban core (roughly comparable in overall density to London) and has great public transportation, both within the city and within the larger metro area (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Metra-System.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Metra-Sys...). Proper urban planning can go a long way.

easp 15y ago
"Proper" urban planning is helped tremendously when the city was planned and reached critical mass in the days before the automobile and freeway systems really took hold.

dpres 15y ago

> Whether the cars are automated or not won't drastically change that because there are still more cars than the roads can handle. Automated taxi cabs + existing public transit would solve gridlock... go outside to your auto-cab, take it to the rail, get off the rail into a different auto-cab, arrive at work.

temphn 15y ago

> But that still doesn't address the problem facing most large cities: gridlock. Whether the cars are automated or not won't drastically change that (although it may well reduce arterial traffic clogs due to accidents and rubbernecking) because there are still more cars than the roads can handle. Humans are going to be a lot less efficient than computers in driving cars. With proper networking, you could have cars doing 60mph while only a few car lengths from each other, vastly increasing the capacity of any segment of road. For example, the presence of an unexpected crash or obstruction down the road can be relayed back at the speed of light via networked cars, and the entire wave of cars behind the crash can slow down and reroute. There have been some simulation papers on this, comparing humans vs. automatic driving algorithms. It's similar to automatic control in other areas.

Anechoic 15y ago
>With proper networking, you could have cars doing 60mph while only a few car lengths from each other, vastly increasing the capacity of any segment of road. That works if 100% of the cars are autonmous. I'm betting that even if automous cars were available tomorrow, it would take longer than 20 years for that to be true.
- waterlesscloud 15y ago
  I think there's a threshold beyond which it becomes socially mandatory for all cars to be autonomous. The pressures will be enormous at a certain point. Endangering the lives of others when there's an option to not do so, etc etc. What that threshold percentage is and how the transition will be accomplished in practical terms, I don't know. But I do believe the pressures will manifest themselves mightily.
  - Anechoic 15y ago
    >I think there's a threshold beyond which it becomes socially mandatory for all cars to be autonomous. Economics are still going to be the driving factor (no pun intended) for the poor and working class. As long as beater non-automated cars are going to cost less than the (used but still newer) automated cars, and as long as cars are still going to be necessary in much of the USA, there are still going to be normal cars around. At some point (say in 40-50 years, and if "classic" driver cars are outlawed) I think we'll reach that point, but then that weakens the argument of autonomous cars (and its benefits) getting here before the CA HSR project.