4 ms·

What does organic mean? Everything starts with a small group, and of course the first people to act will be labeled activists. Self-driving cars are not organi

by abeppu 3y ago

What does organic mean? Everything starts with a small group, and of course the first people to act will be labeled activists. Self-driving cars are not organic; they are organized by a tiny group of companies. I think the dumbest thing not mentioned n the video is that when they drive around empty, they're using our roads, contributing to traffic, emitting carbon, and they're not even transporting anything! Who cares if you're safer per mile driven if you're driving miles that serve no purpose other than to demonstrate your ability to drive? I think (a) there should be bans on the vehicles driving empty other than to pick up a passenger, who must be close by and (b) whenever a vehicle blocks an emergency vehicle or transit or inappropriately blocks traffic, that company should be suspended from un-manned operation until they can explain the error and make a plausible argument that they have resolved the issue. If you're trapped in a muni train with 60 others for 20 min bc a vehicle that isn't even transporting anyone refuses to move and their parent company doesn't have an operator close by, that's unacceptable. Until companies demonstrate that they won't disable transit, why shouldn't people disable their vehicles? The driverless cars, wittingly or not, sabotaged transit already; turnabout is fair play.

stemlord 3y ago
There also needs to be a person/people on standby to support riders or pedestrians in case of issue. Last thing the world needs is another supportless automated monolith where you're simply fucked if anything happens
standardUser 3y ago
> "Who cares if you're safer per mile driven if you're driving miles that serve no purpose other than to demonstrate your ability to drive?" You make a very compelling argument against student drivers. You also seem to miss the MAJOR point that once cars are an on-demand service and not a 4,000lb accessory every adult carries with them everywhere they go, we can finally see a reduction in the vast parking lots that have eaten up most of our urban and suburban spaces.
- Kye 3y ago
  There's already a solution to this that doesn't involve replacing personal transportation with private interests that control all movement. San Francisco in particular used to be famous for it.
  - standardUser 3y ago
    Sure, now apply that model to the several thousand sparse suburbs where a hundred million Americans live instead of cherry-picking the 2nd densest city in America (which is still, by the way, VERY car-dependent despite one of the best mass transit systems in the country).
- abeppu 3y ago
  Didn't people say that about Uber a decade ago? Somehow it didn't take. We were supposed to see higher vehicle utilisation and less need for car ownership in the sharing economy. Why should I believe it this time?
  - standardUser 3y ago
    Because ubiquitous autonomous cars is not identical to extra taxis, so comparing the two would be silly.
spacKingChamath 3y ago
There is a strong monetary incentive to make sure every car has a high utilization time. The cars driving around empty are there so they can collect data to prove the safety. No one is targeting transit. Autonomous cars will also have a place in transit. Its highly likely one day you will be relying on an autonomous car to get you somewhere for cheaper than transit does today. AVs have real potential to get people to forgo personal car ownership which actually will reduce traffic, emissions and restore millions of sqft in parking spaces to be reclaimed for parks and housing.
- KennyBlanken 3y ago
  High utilization time is irrelevant; autonomous vehicles further encourage low-occupancy vehicle use (both additional trips and trips that are converted from walking/bicycling/mass transit), and should not have 'a place in transit' except in limited cases like, for example, rural transportation for senior citizens. They have no place in urban environs; there's no need for them beyond profit. Ride-share vehicles crippled the world's cities by causing a massive increase in low-occupancy vehicle trips, increasing vehicle ownership, etc. > No one is targeting transit. Uh, there's been a concerted effort since the 1940's by the automotive industry to kill public transit, but ok. Whether they intend to or not is irrelevant; these self-driving-car companies are clogging up our roads because apparently it's acceptable to "fail fast" https://insideevs.com/news/670739/cruise-robotaxi-stuck-musk-replies/ https://insideevs.com/news/670739/cruise-robotaxi-stuck-musk... https://insideevs.com/news/625602/gm-cruise-chevy-bolt-gets-stuck-in-intersection/ https://insideevs.com/news/625602/gm-cruise-chevy-bolt-gets-... https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/14/22726534/waymo-autonomous-vehicles-stuck-san-francisco-dead-end https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/14/22726534/waymo-autonomou... https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/14/22436584/waymo-driverless-stuck-traffic-roadside-assistance-video https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/14/22436584/waymo-driverless...
  - spacKingChamath 3y ago
    You won't be satisfied until you accept that the public has demonstrated that they want low occupancy vehicles by using there dollars. People enjoy the privacy, flexibility, convenience, and safety of having a vehicle space to themselves vs public transport. Even in economies which have heavily incentivized public transport (Singapore, Japan, Hong Kong), people still pay large costs to get access to the incentives I mentioned above. AVs are much better than personal car ownership and will play a big role in improving transportation. I get throwing conjecture out there makes it seem like you found a real problem, but you have no solution. Even if you increased public transit with more rail lines and busses, you can't solve the privacy, convenience and safety factor with something that is public. There a reason we have locks on our doors and don't share our homes, even though most of our home is empty and we can only occupy one room at a time. We need real solutions (which AVs are a part of) and not people swooning over idealisms.
throwaway9274 3y ago
This is a bad faith argument. Transit is not down because of self-driving cars, but due to remote work. Cell traffic at city center is dramatically lower in SF compared to pre-pandemic baselines as compared to other major cities. That’s not to say WFH is bad. But that’s the reality the city is facing. Transit cars are not being blocked by self-driving vehicles at any appreciable rate. I ride transit every day and have never encounter it. I have encountered transit cars getting stuck due to mentally ill unhoused people refusing to move from the tracks. This head-in-the-sand mentality squandered a decade of tax revenues driven by tech on vanity projects and ineffective non-profits. It is further compounded by a severe lack of safety on public transit. What chief problems people are experiencing on transit are not a result of self-driving vehicles. I can personally name six people who have been assaulted on public transit, been victimized by robbery, or had their homes or vehicles burglarized. The entire mindset espoused in your post a fundamentally unserious attempt to make facts fit a narrative. “Driverless cars sabotaged transit” is a fever dream untethered to reality. The state set targets for safety and interference with services. The companies met those targets. And now the people opposed to tech generally, with no specific reasonable objection to self-driving cars, are trying to modify the agreed standards at the eleventh hour out of simple animus.
- abeppu 3y ago
  Transit overall is down because of remote work and people moving. In specific incidents, failures of self driving cars in the way of transit vehicles, including on muni tracks, have caused delays. For people stuck inside those trains and buses (which won't let them off away from a stop), the frustration at self driving cars is legit ... As it would be towards a human driver that stopped on the tracks and refused to move. A person experiencing a mental health crisis on the tracks can at least be moved. An intentionally stopped vehicle cannot. Theft and burglary, esp of vehicles and homes doesn't seem relevant here. I have also been a victim of theft in the city multiple times. I don't see how self driving cars relates to that at all. "Driverless cars transporting neither people or goods are a departure from wasteful tech vanity projects" is a fever dream untethered to reality.
  - abeppu 3y ago

by abeppu 3y ago

stemlord 3y ago

There also needs to be a person/people on standby to support riders or pedestrians in case of issue. Last thing the world needs is another supportless automated monolith where you're simply fucked if anything happens

standardUser 3y ago

> "Who cares if you're safer per mile driven if you're driving miles that serve no purpose other than to demonstrate your ability to drive?" You make a very compelling argument against student drivers. You also seem to miss the MAJOR point that once cars are an on-demand service and not a 4,000lb accessory every adult carries with them everywhere they go, we can finally see a reduction in the vast parking lots that have eaten up most of our urban and suburban spaces.

Kye 3y ago
There's already a solution to this that doesn't involve replacing personal transportation with private interests that control all movement. San Francisco in particular used to be famous for it.
- standardUser 3y ago
  Sure, now apply that model to the several thousand sparse suburbs where a hundred million Americans live instead of cherry-picking the 2nd densest city in America (which is still, by the way, VERY car-dependent despite one of the best mass transit systems in the country).
abeppu 3y ago
Didn't people say that about Uber a decade ago? Somehow it didn't take. We were supposed to see higher vehicle utilisation and less need for car ownership in the sharing economy. Why should I believe it this time?
- standardUser 3y ago
  Because ubiquitous autonomous cars is not identical to extra taxis, so comparing the two would be silly.

spacKingChamath 3y ago

There is a strong monetary incentive to make sure every car has a high utilization time. The cars driving around empty are there so they can collect data to prove the safety. No one is targeting transit. Autonomous cars will also have a place in transit. Its highly likely one day you will be relying on an autonomous car to get you somewhere for cheaper than transit does today. AVs have real potential to get people to forgo personal car ownership which actually will reduce traffic, emissions and restore millions of sqft in parking spaces to be reclaimed for parks and housing.

KennyBlanken 3y ago
High utilization time is irrelevant; autonomous vehicles further encourage low-occupancy vehicle use (both additional trips and trips that are converted from walking/bicycling/mass transit), and should not have 'a place in transit' except in limited cases like, for example, rural transportation for senior citizens. They have no place in urban environs; there's no need for them beyond profit. Ride-share vehicles crippled the world's cities by causing a massive increase in low-occupancy vehicle trips, increasing vehicle ownership, etc. > No one is targeting transit. Uh, there's been a concerted effort since the 1940's by the automotive industry to kill public transit, but ok. Whether they intend to or not is irrelevant; these self-driving-car companies are clogging up our roads because apparently it's acceptable to "fail fast" https://insideevs.com/news/670739/cruise-robotaxi-stuck-musk-replies/ https://insideevs.com/news/670739/cruise-robotaxi-stuck-musk... https://insideevs.com/news/625602/gm-cruise-chevy-bolt-gets-stuck-in-intersection/ https://insideevs.com/news/625602/gm-cruise-chevy-bolt-gets-... https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/14/22726534/waymo-autonomous-vehicles-stuck-san-francisco-dead-end https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/14/22726534/waymo-autonomou... https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/14/22436584/waymo-driverless-stuck-traffic-roadside-assistance-video https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/14/22436584/waymo-driverless...
- spacKingChamath 3y ago
  You won't be satisfied until you accept that the public has demonstrated that they want low occupancy vehicles by using there dollars. People enjoy the privacy, flexibility, convenience, and safety of having a vehicle space to themselves vs public transport. Even in economies which have heavily incentivized public transport (Singapore, Japan, Hong Kong), people still pay large costs to get access to the incentives I mentioned above. AVs are much better than personal car ownership and will play a big role in improving transportation. I get throwing conjecture out there makes it seem like you found a real problem, but you have no solution. Even if you increased public transit with more rail lines and busses, you can't solve the privacy, convenience and safety factor with something that is public. There a reason we have locks on our doors and don't share our homes, even though most of our home is empty and we can only occupy one room at a time. We need real solutions (which AVs are a part of) and not people swooning over idealisms.

throwaway9274 3y ago

This is a bad faith argument. Transit is not down because of self-driving cars, but due to remote work. Cell traffic at city center is dramatically lower in SF compared to pre-pandemic baselines as compared to other major cities. That’s not to say WFH is bad. But that’s the reality the city is facing. Transit cars are not being blocked by self-driving vehicles at any appreciable rate. I ride transit every day and have never encounter it. I have encountered transit cars getting stuck due to mentally ill unhoused people refusing to move from the tracks. This head-in-the-sand mentality squandered a decade of tax revenues driven by tech on vanity projects and ineffective non-profits. It is further compounded by a severe lack of safety on public transit. What chief problems people are experiencing on transit are not a result of self-driving vehicles. I can personally name six people who have been assaulted on public transit, been victimized by robbery, or had their homes or vehicles burglarized. The entire mindset espoused in your post a fundamentally unserious attempt to make facts fit a narrative. “Driverless cars sabotaged transit” is a fever dream untethered to reality. The state set targets for safety and interference with services. The companies met those targets. And now the people opposed to tech generally, with no specific reasonable objection to self-driving cars, are trying to modify the agreed standards at the eleventh hour out of simple animus.

abeppu 3y ago
Transit overall is down because of remote work and people moving. In specific incidents, failures of self driving cars in the way of transit vehicles, including on muni tracks, have caused delays. For people stuck inside those trains and buses (which won't let them off away from a stop), the frustration at self driving cars is legit ... As it would be towards a human driver that stopped on the tracks and refused to move. A person experiencing a mental health crisis on the tracks can at least be moved. An intentionally stopped vehicle cannot. Theft and burglary, esp of vehicles and homes doesn't seem relevant here. I have also been a victim of theft in the city multiple times. I don't see how self driving cars relates to that at all. "Driverless cars transporting neither people or goods are a departure from wasteful tech vanity projects" is a fever dream untethered to reality.
- abeppu 3y ago