5 ms·

> 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 high

> 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.

bmitc 4y ago
I would argue that all of that is somewhat wishful thinking. I highly doubt it comes to be. And even if it would, it would still be less efficient than public transportation systems (possibly operated partially privately).
- weavejester 4y ago
  It's certainly the case that societal changes are hard to predict. It might be the case that self-driving vehicles will encourage longer drives, for example. That said, I think my own personal carbon footprint would likely fall, because most of the time I could use a much smaller vehicle. Unless I doubled the amount of time I spent on the road, I'd probably use less energy overall, as I could use a 2 seater car with half the mass. Public transport is, of course, much more efficient; but it's also much less convenient, and at least in my country, more expensive. It costs less to run my car for a year than it would be to pay the equivalent bus fare for a year. If buses were self-driving, maybe the opposite would be true.
morpheos137 4y ago
Ever consider if the effective duty cycle of your car is increased the vehicle wears out quicker? The whole idea of autonomous robo taxis is bad on its face for many, many reasons. When will we grow up and admit it?
- weavejester 4y ago
  > Ever consider if the effective duty cycle of your car is increased the vehicle wears out quicker? Sure, but by how much? What's the average extra overhead per person? By that I mean, what's the average distance that a taxi would need to drive between dropping one person off, and picking the next person up. The more taxis there are, the lower the overhead, as the more likely it is a taxi will happen be nearby to someone who wants one. We're used to taxis being rare, especially outside of major cities, but if taxis were common, the overhead might be very low. I can look outside right now, and see maybe 20 vehicles parked within 50m of my home. If that were 5 self-driving taxis instead, that would be easily be enough capacity for my immediate neighborhood, at least most of the time. So you could likely reduce the amount of cars locally by a factor of 4 or 5, and I'd still have a vehicle less than a minute away at most locations. Yes, if you had a 5th of the cars they'd have to do 5 times the work; but likely not much more than that. In other words, the maintenance cost wouldn't significantly worsen, and may even improve; cars aren't immune to entropy while stationary. The other advantage of having self-driving taxis is that you can more easily specialize. I have a pretty typical 5 seater car because I sometimes need that space. But most of the time, I could make do with a 2 seater with half the mass. My choice of car is determined by the edge cases, but my choice of taxi would be determined by what I needed at the time.
  - morpheos137 4y ago
    Overhead is the wrong metric. Depreciation over fixed costs, marginal variable cost (e.g. fuel, oil, etc), and opportunity cost are what you want to look at. If you use a car more it wears out faster and needs to be replaced sooner. It needs more fuel and more frequent preventative maintenance. If the average trip is short the rob taxi does more trips and the effect is the same. Who cleans up the car when a drunk stranger pukes in it while you are sleeping? Who fuels it or charges it? There are many reasons people don't share cars. Lacking proper control software is not one.

bmitc 4y ago

I would argue that all of that is somewhat wishful thinking. I highly doubt it comes to be. And even if it would, it would still be less efficient than public transportation systems (possibly operated partially privately).

weavejester 4y ago
It's certainly the case that societal changes are hard to predict. It might be the case that self-driving vehicles will encourage longer drives, for example. That said, I think my own personal carbon footprint would likely fall, because most of the time I could use a much smaller vehicle. Unless I doubled the amount of time I spent on the road, I'd probably use less energy overall, as I could use a 2 seater car with half the mass. Public transport is, of course, much more efficient; but it's also much less convenient, and at least in my country, more expensive. It costs less to run my car for a year than it would be to pay the equivalent bus fare for a year. If buses were self-driving, maybe the opposite would be true.

morpheos137 4y ago

Ever consider if the effective duty cycle of your car is increased the vehicle wears out quicker? The whole idea of autonomous robo taxis is bad on its face for many, many reasons. When will we grow up and admit it?

weavejester 4y ago
> Ever consider if the effective duty cycle of your car is increased the vehicle wears out quicker? Sure, but by how much? What's the average extra overhead per person? By that I mean, what's the average distance that a taxi would need to drive between dropping one person off, and picking the next person up. The more taxis there are, the lower the overhead, as the more likely it is a taxi will happen be nearby to someone who wants one. We're used to taxis being rare, especially outside of major cities, but if taxis were common, the overhead might be very low. I can look outside right now, and see maybe 20 vehicles parked within 50m of my home. If that were 5 self-driving taxis instead, that would be easily be enough capacity for my immediate neighborhood, at least most of the time. So you could likely reduce the amount of cars locally by a factor of 4 or 5, and I'd still have a vehicle less than a minute away at most locations. Yes, if you had a 5th of the cars they'd have to do 5 times the work; but likely not much more than that. In other words, the maintenance cost wouldn't significantly worsen, and may even improve; cars aren't immune to entropy while stationary. The other advantage of having self-driving taxis is that you can more easily specialize. I have a pretty typical 5 seater car because I sometimes need that space. But most of the time, I could make do with a 2 seater with half the mass. My choice of car is determined by the edge cases, but my choice of taxi would be determined by what I needed at the time.
- morpheos137 4y ago
  Overhead is the wrong metric. Depreciation over fixed costs, marginal variable cost (e.g. fuel, oil, etc), and opportunity cost are what you want to look at. If you use a car more it wears out faster and needs to be replaced sooner. It needs more fuel and more frequent preventative maintenance. If the average trip is short the rob taxi does more trips and the effect is the same. Who cleans up the car when a drunk stranger pukes in it while you are sleeping? Who fuels it or charges it? There are many reasons people don't share cars. Lacking proper control software is not one.