11 ms·
> What do we want from self driving cars? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. I want public transportation infrastructure and far, far, FAR fewer cars. I think the US
by 0xr0kk3r 3y ago
> What do we want from self driving cars?
Nothing. Absolutely nothing. I want public transportation infrastructure and far, far, FAR fewer cars. I think the US should strive to reduce car ownership by 75% over the next 20 years, at least in cities over a certain population size. I don't want any more money invested in self-driving cars. But I'm also a grown-up of a certain age and realize the bright-eyed 20-somethings don't understand the meaning of the word "consequences".
- xigency 3y agoYeah, self driving cars would be a step backward as currently imagined. We need high speed rail to connect our cities.
- vkou 3y agoThey wouldn't be a step backwards, they'd be a step sideways.
- DiggyJohnson 3y agoWhat about inside those cities? Like from my apartment on this side of town to the other side.
- satvikpendem 3y agoWhat about the inside? I live in NYC and its metro and bus system is amazing, and even then it's still worse than what I experienced in Asia, we're for example in Seoul, I did not have to walk more than five minutes to be able to get on a train or bus and when I got off, I similarly did not have to walk more than five minutes to get to my end destination.
- valval 3y agoWhat about someone who doesn’t want to travel with other people in public transport, and also doesn’t want to walk the 10 minutes of the journey?
- satvikpendem 3y agoThen I guess it's their loss. Unless they're unable to use public transport, I shouldn't have to have the externalities of them using cars, such as carbon emissions, parking space that would otherwise be used, noise and light pollution, etc.
- valval 3y agoI guess the people having to deal with the externalities could consider them their loss.
- LikesPwsh 3y agoThey could pay more to cover the externalities, and enjoy relatively empty roads. Town centers will soon be inaccessible by car, so they'll still need public transport occasionally for that.
- oblio 3y ago> and also doesn’t want to walk the 10 minutes of the journey? If they have a pre-existing medical condition: sure, they can use an alternative method of transportation. If they don't want to walk for 10 minutes, they're bound to have a medical condition soon-ish.
- pharmakom 3y agoIf you want avoid other people like that you probably shouldn’t live in a city.
- adgjlsfhk1 3y agosubways, trams and buses. good systems can easily be faster than cars dinner thru don't have traffic and you don't need to find parking. for short distances, bikes are also great.
- josephcsible 3y agoI know I'm just one data point, but for my commute to work, taking public transit is about 30 minutes slower than driving at rush hour.
- coutego 3y agoJust another data point: walking to work takes 15 minutes for me. Same time by metro. Driving is 45-60 minutes.
- someweirdperson 3y agoSound as if bike-roads are missing, a bike would reduce it to 5 minutes.
- worik 3y ago> We need high speed rail to connect our cities. Perhaps we need to slow down a bit, in general?
- afavour 3y agoIf the rail isn’t faster than the car then it won’t ever see wide scale adoption. It’s not even remotely difficult to clear this bar when the political will exists. Why slow down when there’s no actual need to?
- systemtest 3y agoA car can go faster from Amsterdam to Berlin than the train, yet I still see people on the train.
- psd1 3y agoI've paid more to take longer by train, for greater convenience and comfort. I agree with your point in general, I'm just quibbling that speed is the decider.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Closi 3y agoFuture transport is unlikely to be single mode - it’s almost definitely multimodal and will include both cars (why not self driving?) and rail.
- rcxdude 3y agoSelf driving cars are much more likely to be public transport than individually owned. It's also extremely likely that it requires ride-sharing to be viable, which will substantially reduce traffic as well as car ownership (I suspect there may be enough cost pressure that most self-driving vehicles are more like minibuses than cars, which would also help a lot with pollution and congestion, but this may require regulatory pressure). Every conversation about the transition to EVs should be caveated with 'assuming car ownership stays the same because self-driving doesn't work (and that most of the world still does not manage to provide traditional public transport options good enough to replace cars)'. (And yes, all of this means that Tesla and most other traditional automotive company's stated commercial strategy for self driving makes little sense)
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- nradov 3y agoAutonomous driving is just another safety and convenience feature, like cruise control or anti-lock brakes. It won't fundamentally change anything. I see no reason to give up owning my own cars even if they can drive themselves. The biggest reason is that I use my cars like a rolling storage locker or mobile base of operations when I'm out doing stuff. There's no way I'm going to deal with the hassle of shared vehicles.
- afavour 3y agoYou may not want to deal with the hassle but I wouldn’t assume that applies to everyone. A fully autonomous car (however unrealistic it may be) would be a game changer simply for the economics alone. Not paying full tax, insurance etc for a vehicle while retaining all of the transport possibility would be incredibly tempting to anyone on a budget. Not having to build housing with parking included could do great things for housing availability. I’m not saying any of this will happen but fully autonomous cars definitely would open the door to a lot of opportunities.
- 3y ago
- lost_tourist 3y agoThis isn't what we need. I don't want to depend on the government for my primary means of travel or be limited by it.
- ves 3y agoGood thing all those roads aren’t planned, built, and maintained by the government!
- ajmurmann 3y agoThe "Libertarians are like house cats" meme comes to mind
- Y_Y 3y agoWhat about a taxi? What about a private bus company? I'd argue that even if you don't like or trust your government there are environmental, economic, and infrastructure issues affecting the whole world that result from an overreliance on private cars. Surely you can find a way to maintain your liberty without having a car sitting in your driveway all day.
- pavlov 3y agoWho builds and maintains the roads for your car?
- kaliqt 3y agoNot quite the same because they don't control as easily who drives on the roads. They can easily stop you from getting on the train though.
- davchana 3y ago"They" routinely close or cordon off the roads & sections. They also suspend license privilege (obviously as allowed under laws & regulations). This would be no different than cancelling the whole train or train route; & stopping or cancelling one's entrance pass to train station.
- Consultant32452 3y ago[flagged]
- ozzydave 3y agoCities are much more energy efficient than anything else with the same standard of living.
- TheMode 3y agoPerhaps that we do not need the same standard of living
- oblio 3y agoSure, you give up your fridge and your washing machine first and I'll do it next. What's that? Silence?
- TheMode 3y agoI do not use a washing machine, but that's not the point. Do I need to have some sort of primitive lifestyle to dare say a lot of what we have shouldn't be a guarantee? Don't understand why you need to get aggressive. I didn't even mention these which are likely far from the priority or realistic, what about one day shipping?
- avastmick 3y agoSorry cities are much more efficient than any other form of human living [0]. It is suburbs and rural sprawl that creates the energy waste. Population drift towards the latter may cause the hollowing of cities which lead to crime and transport inefficiency. [0] https://theconversation.com/suburban-living-the-worst-for-carbon-emissions-new-research-149332# https://theconversation.com/suburban-living-the-worst-for-ca...
- blq10 3y ago"Cities are more efficient, suburbs and rural sprawl are inefficient and bad" depends on: A: the design of the suburb B: the underlying economy they're built in C: cultural factors. When the US contained major manufacturing, it was efficient to have large suburban sprawl - you could build spread out industrial hubs on the outskirts of town. When the cities were not safe, it did not matter what you said - people left. "Efficiency" is not a magic word, it has to apply to a particular resource, and does have to consider all costs. Cities are in fact, more efficient in terms of transit costs (of all types).
- atyppo 3y agoAs someone who feels the same way, I’ve lost all hope for the US in this regard. SUV/truck sales have continued increasing with absolutely zero mainstream discussion about preventing pedestrian deaths. It’s legal to have push bars and tow hitches (thus inhibiting crumple zones) with no purpose other than “protecting” your vehicle at the expense of lives. Even ostensibly pedestrian friendly cities don’t have sufficient political willpower to hand street space over to other modes of transit at anything resembling a fast enough rate. Everything needs to sit in a “pilot” for two years before action is taken.
- gtop3 3y agoExcuse me, tow hitches are commonly used for practical purposes. I'm really interested in the case for making tow hitches illegal.
- anon7725 3y agoI think they mean hitches that people leave on their vehicles when not towing. I agree that people should stow their hitches if not actively towing for a variety of reasons.
- atyppo 3y agoYeah, I’m not referring to useful ones being actively used for towing. I’m referring to people that leave them in while driving around not towing anything. Some are designed to extend upward as well with no practical towing purpose. Look up pictures of collisions after someone has a tow hitch in and you’ll see what I mean.
- dvt 3y agoThis ship sailed like 60 years ago (blame your parents, speaking of consequences). At this point, autonomous driving is the best we can do in places like Los Angeles or San Diego.
- jsnjdjdjdnd 3y ago[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- gearsandbeers 3y agoThe ship hasn't sailed, it will just take a very long time to come back to port
- canadianfella 3y ago[dead]
- patrick451 3y agoIf it's not out sailing, why are we waiting for the ship to return to port?
- Fronzie 3y agoIn the 70's, the city of Utrecht in the Netherlands was renovated from car central to bike central. That only took a few years, bike paths aren't that expensive.
- dataviz1000 3y agoI've been traveling around visiting US cities. Cities like San Antonio, TX with its Riverwalk and Atlanta with its Beltline not only show every other city a path towards walkable and sustainable future but also how a city can invest tens of millions in walkable infrastructure that yields billions in economic investment and development. Also, I don't have a car so I've been taking bus, train, plane, and occasional car rental to travel between towns and cities. Recently I've started taking buses. What I've discovered is that I can get on the bus in the morning, plug in my phone and laptop to AC power, and using my mobile hot spot work all day while on the bus. The buses travel on interstate highways which have excellent continuous mobile service. Amtrak trains are awful for working because lack of stable internet connection.
- mk81 3y ago[dead]
- mym1990 3y agoJust off the cuff saying things like this makes it seem you are the one that doesn’t understand consequences. The American economy is unfortunately driven by car ownership. So unless you also have a way to change almost every facet of American life in the next 20 years, you’re just blowing smoke. That being said, I would love it if car reliance was drastically reduced. But it’s not going to happen.
- switch007 3y agoIf the US wanted to become less car dependent and a world leader in public transport, it could and would. It won’t be easy, it will take decades, but it can certainly happen. And without a doubt the economy would be just fine in the long run. It’s survived a depression, WW2, bailing out Europe, Cold War, Vietnam, Iraq, 9/11, Afghanistan and the 2008 crash after all.
- mym1990 3y agoSure, not arguing that, but it would take an overhaul of almost everything, that will not happen in a span of 20 years. But at the end of the day, the US doesn’t want this, at either the policy or the civilian level. We like going into 60k of debt to drive our big SUVs just a little too much.
- throwawaypoll 3y ago[flagged]
- IOT_Apprentice 3y agoWell sure. We can’t get high speed rail in the country or even in California. I’ve heard the arguments & it is all weak sauce. The major industrial countries have it. Here is is automakers who fight this, nowadays it is Elon Musk, who distracts with BS single file tunnels (Boring Company pushing Teslas in a tunnel) or hyperloop nonsense. This needs to be a federal infrastructure along the lines of the federal highway system. This country lacks the national drive and will, which is impeded by Corporate & affiliates like NADA your local 1% in every county in the US. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/05/rich-republicans-party-car-dealers-2024-desantis.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/05/rich-republicans...
- someweirdperson 3y ago> I want public transportation infrastructure and far, far, FAR fewer cars. I think the US should strive to reduce car ownership by 75% over the next 20 years, at least in cities over a certain population size. Do you want to limit the cars people own or do you want to limit how much cars are used? I could reduce the number of my cars to 1 and wouldn't be driving any less. Or I could buy more cars and still would not be driving more than I do today (but might be able to choose a smaller more efficient one for a trip).
- 9dev 3y agoBoth, hopefully? Manufacturing cars comes with a lot of environmental impact, too.
- concordDance 3y agoI'm not sure you really do. I live in the UK and public transport is actually very unreliable. Cancellations and delays are frequent, strikes happen a dozen times a year, many services have an hour between trains... public transport will take you much linger to get anywhere and you'll be able to transport much less. The car has been a blessing when shopping.
- jamiegreen 3y agoThis seems more a problem in how this specific public transport is run, than with public transport in general.
- concordDance 3y agoI think it's more general, trains have lots of single points of failure while there are normally many roads that can be used to get to a destination. My experience in Germany is that the trains there are even worse. Every single one was delayed by up to half an hour.
- isykt 3y agoThis will never, and I mean absolutely never, happen in the United States, for three reasons: (1) Weak Federal Government. The US is more a close collection of small nation states than a single country. The kind of infrastructure you’re talking about takes the kind of planning and funding that only a strong federal government can demand. (2) Strong respect for property rights. In the US, it takes a lot to take away someone’s private property in order re-allocate it to a public good. By now, all of the cities have vested interests speaking for every square inch of viable property. (3) Weak labor protections. This is a big one. Labor protections are so weak in the private sector that no one in their right mind would depend on public transport if they could help it. Most Americans are one illness away from being bankrupt, fired, and foreclosed on. To make it in America, by any definition, for a vast majority of Americans (and that includes people not traditionally called Americans, like undocumented immigrants) you must have access to a private vehicle because your work place could change in a heartbeat. You could have to move because your town no longer has any jobs for you. You could have to move into your car because of divorce/eviction/foreclosure etc… People make fun of the F150 drivers with spotless beds because they’re used as glorified, cramped minivans but the truth is every one of those drivers has made that investment because they’re acutely aware of how precariously close they are having to use that truck to do hard labor.
- idopmstuff 3y ago> I want public transportation infrastructure and far, far, FAR fewer cars. I also want this, but I grew up in LA and thus realize that there are places where this won't happen. > I don't want any more money invested in self-driving cars. I would take money invested in self-driving cars over money "invested" in public transit in wildly inefficient ways that's less investment and more waste. The problem with the position that money should go to transit instead of self-driving cars is that transit is a largely intractable problem because it's a political one, where self-driving cars are very much not an intractable problem because they're a technical one. 40,000+ people die every year in the US in car accidents. Self-driving cars have the potential to stop many of those deaths (and the injuries not counted in that). Investment in public transit, when you consider the practical realities, largely doesn't. I understand why folks prefer public transit as a solution, but self-driving cars will be a lifesaving technology, and on that basis they seem clearly worthy of investment. And this is all doubly true since this isn't government money - it's VCs and private companies putting their cash towards solving a problem that's beneficial towards society. Why hold up public transit as the alternative to self-driving investment when there is absolutely no chance that these dollars would ever go to public transit?
- jerojero 3y agoThis makes little sense to me? Investing in public transportation is a much more means tested way of reducing traffic accidents. Countries with good public transportation infrastructure have much less traffic deaths per 100k than car focused countries. Why? Well it makes sense. Public transportation is much more safe all around as you are greatly reducing the amount of people in charge of machines capable of easily killing others. So when you say "investing in self driving cars is investing in saving lives" you are right. It's just a much more inefficient way of doing it. Funny that you would consider public transportation a waste of money when looking at the actual data shows it's the most efficient way of moving people.
- idopmstuff 3y ago> Investing in public transportation is a much more means tested way of reducing traffic accidents. Selection bias. By definition, you're looking at public transportation that exists. How many traffic accidents have been reduced by the bullet train in CA that has had $80 billion in investment so far? Zero. > So when you say "investing in self driving cars is investing in saving lives" you are right. It's just a much more inefficient way of doing it. In the cases in which money can be efficiently deployed, you are correct. But has the $80 billion (let's say that again - $80,000,000,000) spent on the CA bullet been more efficient than $80 billion of spending on self-driving cars? Clearly not. The problem is that there are limits to how much money you can deploy towards public transit at any reasonable level of efficiency. This is true because of geography, and it's true because of politics. In those places where you can use money well on transit, I fully support it, but once you've exhausted those, you're still going to be left with five figures of traffic deaths a year that can be saved by self driving cars. Also, you ignored my last paragraph - the comparison of spending money on transit vs. self-driving is not one that makes sense, because the money comes from two different places. VCs don't invest in public transit. Google doesn't invest in public transit. Self-driving cars are something that will provide a huge societal benefit at no cost to taxpayers. If you're a member of the general public, spending money on public transit is infinitely more inefficient than spending money on self-driving cars, because that transit money could be used to benefit you in other ways, whereas the private funding to self-driving cars would probably just be returned to shareholders or invested in other tech companies if it weren't spent there.