6 ms·

I really believe that with that attitude, we'll never be "ready" for driverless cars. > We are not curing cancer or feeding the world here, we are trying to ma

I really believe that with that attitude, we'll never be "ready" for driverless cars. > We are not curing cancer or feeding the world here, we are trying to make people get rich by eliminating the cost of labour for a human driver. No way this calculus should prioritize investors over human lives in any sane society. How about, we're trying to make transportation cheaper for everyone by eliminating the most expensive part of taxi cabs (human labor)? Transportation being cheaper means people can get better jobs further away from where they live, see family more often, etc. Before you mention public transportation, realize that it would benefit from driverless technologies as well (aka, not zero sum).

zimpenfish 4y ago
> Before you mention public transportation, realize that it would benefit from driverless technologies as well Which has been in place for years in some places (ie Docklands Light Railway). > we're trying to make transportation cheaper for everyone Call me an old cynic but I'll believe it when I see it - I'm old enough to have seen many, many events where the supply cost of something has gone down but the consumer cost has not (or even gone up in some cases.) Why will driverless taxis be any different?
- frosted-flakes 4y ago
  Not just years—decades. The Victoria Line in London has had automatic train operation since it opened in 1968 (unlike the DRL, there's still someone in the driver's seat, but they do little more than shut the doors).
chordalkeyboard 4y ago
> I really believe that with that attitude, we'll never be "ready" for driverless cars. no great loss there.
a4isms 4y ago
> I really believe that with that attitude, we'll never be "ready" for driverless cars. Is that a problem? And if it is, are you implying that we cannot one day have driverless cars without imposing life-threatening externalities on citizens who did not give informed consent to participate in the testing of driverless cars?
- buzzert 4y ago
  > And if it is, are you implying that we cannot one day have driverless cars without imposing life-threatening externalities on citizens who did not give informed consent to participate in the testing of driverless cars? I'd much rather be around a driverless car today, which drives overly cautious and comes to a complete stop at every stop sign, than a car driven by a human driver. So that's my "informed consent", and I suspect many others agree. Is that how democracy works?
bmitc 4y ago
It's not an attitude. It's reality. Self-driving cars, if even attainable (which is questionable), don't solve any real problems besides bolstering the want for cars and thus more roads and highways, which are primary contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. That is, other than creating "cool" jobs and supporting get rich schemes and startups. If we cared about transportation and climate change, we'd be investing into buses, trams, trains, biking and walking paths, and other such solutions. The attitude designation belongs with self-driving car enthusiasts, who are perfectly happy throwing out decades of safety research and progress.
- psychomugs 4y ago
  I'm of this attitude as well, that the Jevon's paradox would kick in for cars again and lead to more use, like how ride-hailing apps worsened congestion.
  - bmitc 4y ago
    Agreed. And thank you for the reference to Jevon's paradox. I haven't heard of it before, but I've been looking for things like this.
    - psychomugs 4y ago
      I've recently been listening to some talks from Matthew Crawford and his arguments for protecting manual, human tasks from automation and safetyism. I find his stance to be a good middle ground between technocratic progress and luddite wariness. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxONOUwOX80 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxONOUwOX80
- weavejester 4y ago
  > Self-driving cars, if even attainable (which is questionable), don't solve any real problems besides bolstering the want for cars and thus more roads and highways, which are primary contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. It may be the opposite, as driverless cars can potentially be utilized more efficiently. If I drive to a destination, my car will sit in a parking space doing nothing and wasting space. A driverless car could drop me off, then drive away to taxi other people around. There's much less need for parking lots, freeing up valuable urban land. It may reduce car ownership overall. I have a car because it's more convenient than public transport, and far cheaper than a taxi. If I could have a self-driving car at my door in, say, 15 minutes, and it was competitively priced, then I probably wouldn't bother owning a car. Another advantage would be that if I needed more seats, or more space, I could order a vehicle to my specifications. It may increase utilization of roads, as self-driving cars that can communicate with each other can make more efficient use of them. Less need for stopping distances if all cars can brake simultaneously, and being able to slow down in advance reduces the impact of traffic jams.
zinekeller 4y ago
> Before you mention public transportation, realize that it would benefit from driverless technologies as well (aka, not zero sum). The problems from autonomously operating trains are limited owing to them being a separate, nearly-independent system. Anyways, some parts of the world has fully-autonomous trains with centrally-located operators on bay for overriding if anything unexpected (usually someone jumped into the rails) happens. Airplanes have significant automation built-in (and in theory can even land without input) but at the end of the day we have pilots that can override just in case that an engine became unexpectedly loose or someone on board suffered a heart attack. The problem with autonomous cars is that a) it's specifically on a mixed-used location and b) often most of the developers want to fully abdicate any control, unlike on other systems where how operators are in standby just something unexpected happens. If both Waymo and Cruise are willing to have an operator-standby system a) might be mitigated. Until I hear that these vehicles are supervised just in case they have encountered something unexpected you will see a lot of similar nuisance issues.
gambiting 4y ago
>>How about, we're trying to make transportation cheaper for everyone by eliminating the most expensive part of taxi cabs (human labor)? Does anyone really believe that? Right now I could commute to work by taking an Uber - it costs about £10 for a one way trip. Now you're telling me that a company somewhere, would send a state of the art car equipped with incredibly advanced computers and sensors, car which they need to insure, which needs constant communication and backup emergency controls ready on standby, for which they need to cover maintenance, depreciation and other costs, and would charge me less than £10 for the priviledge? How little exactly? It's nonsense, that's what it is. Human taxis have pretty much reached the bottom of pricing through gig economy - you are hardly paying for maintenance and fuel at this point with the way rides are structured. What sort of possible margin is there for self driving taxis, which will inevitably end up being incredibly expensive assets until the technology becomes common place and cheaper?
- buzzert 4y ago
  That £10 trip is "artificially" cheap. Uber/Lyft are effectively tricking drivers into thinking it's a good deal to use their own cars (and thus their own fuel and pay for their own maintenance), and are partially subsidized by venture capital. This, in my opinion, is unsustainable. Soon there won't be any new "suckers" in the pipeline, and it will suddenly get a lot more expensive as these rideshare companies need to reckon with the actual cost of human labor and leasing their own cars. Investing in driverless technology, which can be replicated and will eventually become cheaper as it's mass-produced, is a very smart move. These costs will eventually get passed down to consumers as well once there's enough competition, and then everyone wins.
goodpoint 4y ago
> Before you mention public transportation, realize that it would benefit from driverless technologies as well (aka, not zero sum). No, public transportation has completely different technological needs.
AlexandrB 4y ago
> How about, we're trying to make transportation cheaper for everyone by eliminating the most expensive part of taxi cabs (human labor)? Transportation being cheaper means people can get better jobs further away from where they live, see family more often, etc. Is this going to make people's lives better (shorter work week and/or better pay) or worse (longer commute and expectation that you work in your car)?

zimpenfish 4y ago

> Before you mention public transportation, realize that it would benefit from driverless technologies as well Which has been in place for years in some places (ie Docklands Light Railway). > we're trying to make transportation cheaper for everyone Call me an old cynic but I'll believe it when I see it - I'm old enough to have seen many, many events where the supply cost of something has gone down but the consumer cost has not (or even gone up in some cases.) Why will driverless taxis be any different?

frosted-flakes 4y ago
Not just years—decades. The Victoria Line in London has had automatic train operation since it opened in 1968 (unlike the DRL, there's still someone in the driver's seat, but they do little more than shut the doors).

chordalkeyboard 4y ago

> I really believe that with that attitude, we'll never be "ready" for driverless cars. no great loss there.

a4isms 4y ago

> I really believe that with that attitude, we'll never be "ready" for driverless cars. Is that a problem? And if it is, are you implying that we cannot one day have driverless cars without imposing life-threatening externalities on citizens who did not give informed consent to participate in the testing of driverless cars?

buzzert 4y ago
> And if it is, are you implying that we cannot one day have driverless cars without imposing life-threatening externalities on citizens who did not give informed consent to participate in the testing of driverless cars? I'd much rather be around a driverless car today, which drives overly cautious and comes to a complete stop at every stop sign, than a car driven by a human driver. So that's my "informed consent", and I suspect many others agree. Is that how democracy works?

bmitc 4y ago

It's not an attitude. It's reality. Self-driving cars, if even attainable (which is questionable), don't solve any real problems besides bolstering the want for cars and thus more roads and highways, which are primary contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. That is, other than creating "cool" jobs and supporting get rich schemes and startups. If we cared about transportation and climate change, we'd be investing into buses, trams, trains, biking and walking paths, and other such solutions. The attitude designation belongs with self-driving car enthusiasts, who are perfectly happy throwing out decades of safety research and progress.

psychomugs 4y ago
I'm of this attitude as well, that the Jevon's paradox would kick in for cars again and lead to more use, like how ride-hailing apps worsened congestion.
- bmitc 4y ago
  Agreed. And thank you for the reference to Jevon's paradox. I haven't heard of it before, but I've been looking for things like this.
  - psychomugs 4y ago
    I've recently been listening to some talks from Matthew Crawford and his arguments for protecting manual, human tasks from automation and safetyism. I find his stance to be a good middle ground between technocratic progress and luddite wariness. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxONOUwOX80 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxONOUwOX80
weavejester 4y ago
> Self-driving cars, if even attainable (which is questionable), don't solve any real problems besides bolstering the want for cars and thus more roads and highways, which are primary contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. It may be the opposite, as driverless cars can potentially be utilized more efficiently. If I drive to a destination, my car will sit in a parking space doing nothing and wasting space. A driverless car could drop me off, then drive away to taxi other people around. There's much less need for parking lots, freeing up valuable urban land. It may reduce car ownership overall. I have a car because it's more convenient than public transport, and far cheaper than a taxi. If I could have a self-driving car at my door in, say, 15 minutes, and it was competitively priced, then I probably wouldn't bother owning a car. Another advantage would be that if I needed more seats, or more space, I could order a vehicle to my specifications. It may increase utilization of roads, as self-driving cars that can communicate with each other can make more efficient use of them. Less need for stopping distances if all cars can brake simultaneously, and being able to slow down in advance reduces the impact of traffic jams.

zinekeller 4y ago

> Before you mention public transportation, realize that it would benefit from driverless technologies as well (aka, not zero sum). The problems from autonomously operating trains are limited owing to them being a separate, nearly-independent system. Anyways, some parts of the world has fully-autonomous trains with centrally-located operators on bay for overriding if anything unexpected (usually someone jumped into the rails) happens. Airplanes have significant automation built-in (and in theory can even land without input) but at the end of the day we have pilots that can override just in case that an engine became unexpectedly loose or someone on board suffered a heart attack. The problem with autonomous cars is that a) it's specifically on a mixed-used location and b) often most of the developers want to fully abdicate any control, unlike on other systems where how operators are in standby just something unexpected happens. If both Waymo and Cruise are willing to have an operator-standby system a) might be mitigated. Until I hear that these vehicles are supervised just in case they have encountered something unexpected you will see a lot of similar nuisance issues.

gambiting 4y ago

>>How about, we're trying to make transportation cheaper for everyone by eliminating the most expensive part of taxi cabs (human labor)? Does anyone really believe that? Right now I could commute to work by taking an Uber - it costs about £10 for a one way trip. Now you're telling me that a company somewhere, would send a state of the art car equipped with incredibly advanced computers and sensors, car which they need to insure, which needs constant communication and backup emergency controls ready on standby, for which they need to cover maintenance, depreciation and other costs, and would charge me less than £10 for the priviledge? How little exactly? It's nonsense, that's what it is. Human taxis have pretty much reached the bottom of pricing through gig economy - you are hardly paying for maintenance and fuel at this point with the way rides are structured. What sort of possible margin is there for self driving taxis, which will inevitably end up being incredibly expensive assets until the technology becomes common place and cheaper?

buzzert 4y ago
That £10 trip is "artificially" cheap. Uber/Lyft are effectively tricking drivers into thinking it's a good deal to use their own cars (and thus their own fuel and pay for their own maintenance), and are partially subsidized by venture capital. This, in my opinion, is unsustainable. Soon there won't be any new "suckers" in the pipeline, and it will suddenly get a lot more expensive as these rideshare companies need to reckon with the actual cost of human labor and leasing their own cars. Investing in driverless technology, which can be replicated and will eventually become cheaper as it's mass-produced, is a very smart move. These costs will eventually get passed down to consumers as well once there's enough competition, and then everyone wins.

goodpoint 4y ago

> Before you mention public transportation, realize that it would benefit from driverless technologies as well (aka, not zero sum). No, public transportation has completely different technological needs.

AlexandrB 4y ago

> How about, we're trying to make transportation cheaper for everyone by eliminating the most expensive part of taxi cabs (human labor)? Transportation being cheaper means people can get better jobs further away from where they live, see family more often, etc. Is this going to make people's lives better (shorter work week and/or better pay) or worse (longer commute and expectation that you work in your car)?