3 ms·
No, it actually won't. There is nothing that a driver would do that an automated taxi would not, because both the driver and the automated taxi are optimizing
by jprete 3y ago
No, it actually won't.
There is nothing that a driver would do that an automated taxi would not, because both the driver and the automated taxi are optimizing for their ability to give as many rides as possible for as much money as possible.
The main reason to think their behavior would differ is on the margins where drivers have to go home and sleep and robotaxis do not. But that really makes it likely that a robotaxi service will keep its cars out 24/7 except for maintenance.
The other reason to believe drivers and robotaxis will behave differently is if you think drivers are leaving money on the table, or robotaxis will. And Silicon Valley simply does not leave money on the table. I'd be more ready to believe the drivers do.
There's another other factor here: when you make cars more available and more convenient, people are more likely to take them. So robotaxis will probably increase, not decrease, road usage, if only because they never need to sleep, eat, or go to the bathroom. They will just repeatedly get a fare, drive the fare, and go do whatever they do to be idle. Which, in many cities, is going to be "wander the streets" or "take up parking spots in the city center".
EDIT: I had responded to this without reading the OP article. The article has some good discussion of the kinds of secondary effects that are likely to cause robotaxis to increase road consumption.
- mortureb 3y agoI said all vehicles. If they’re all automated, they can all talk to each other and effect all those changes.
- jprete 3y agoDo you think that people would be on the road _less_ if everyone were using taxis instead of personal cars? If so, why? What's the actual reason why robotaxis reduce the demand, or consumption, of road miles?
- mortureb 3y agoOf course. If automated driving was the only way you could get around it would make no sense to get your own vehicle.
- xethos 3y agoNow you've just alienated two groups: environmentalists that realize cars are bad for the environment, and car people that are interested in driving their own unique vehicles. The former you were never going to get, but the latter could concievably have been on your side about getting bad drivers from behind the wheel. You've gone from "People won't have to drive", to "People cannot drive". And the latter will likely play poorly in rural areas.
- mortureb 3y agoProbably. I can see the only automated car rule being for freeways only or large urban areas only and it would still make a significant difference. Or maybe the automated vehicles get their own two lanes on the freeway. Many ways to go about this while still being effective.
- taylodl 3y agoI'm not interested in providing a public subsidy to Uber. If they want two lanes of the highway dedicated to their vehicles then they can pay for two lanes of the highway dedicated to their vehicles. I expect their road tax to be considerably higher per mile.
- xethos 3y ago> or large urban areas Please tell me your plan is not to have the cars speed up where all the pedestrians are
- jprete 3y agoThis doesn’t answer my question, which was about road miles per person, not private car ownership.
- HDThoreaun 3y agoThe claim here is that even with more cars on the road traffic can be reduced if cars are able to communicate with each other. E.G. all the cars stopped at a red light accelerate at the exact same rate as the light turns green, no more brake checking/rubbernecking causing traffic on highways. I think in the long run this effect will probably exist, whether it overpowers the increased number of road users remains to be seen.