3 ms·

> and don't require any of the parking that human-driving cars do Could you unpack that? It doesn't make much sense to me. We don't want them driving around

> and don't require any of the parking that human-driving cars do Could you unpack that? It doesn't make much sense to me. We don't want them driving around all day, we don't want them to drive home, and if it's a communal usage type thing they need to be stored outside of peak hours.

xnx 3y ago
Like a taxi, an autonomous car that's parked or not carrying a passenger is wasting money, so owners will want them to be productively utilized for paying trips as much as possible. Other than for charging, there's no reason for a self-driving car to sit in one place car to wear it self out driving around empty. This means that roadside parking and parking lots will be dramatically less useful for their original purpose.
- SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
  So we would have all of a rush hour's worth of cars on the road all the time?
  - xnx 3y ago
    If freedom to move about freely is a desirable thing (think: making more jobs accessible to people without their own car without an hour-long multi-stage commute), this is a great outcome! A self-driving rush hour would also be very different from the ones we know today. No irritated, distracted, or road-raging drivers. Immediate and safe yielding to any pedestrian who used the road. As a regular urban cyclist during rush-hour, I would instantly trade a road full of distracted commuters juggling a cup of coffee and looking at their phone with self-driving cars. Further, surge pricing would discourage people from traveling at peak times. I know of no public transit system that has anything like surge pricing, which therefore means that the systems must be overbuilt for peak capacity.
- ianburrell 3y ago
  So instead of using parking, they will use road space while cruising around. That is worse, parking space is valuable, but road lanes are even more valuable. Unless you are suggesting taking parking for road, which is worse for pedestrians. Self-driving cars don’t help if everybody is stuck in traffic caused by empty cars.

xnx 3y ago

Like a taxi, an autonomous car that's parked or not carrying a passenger is wasting money, so owners will want them to be productively utilized for paying trips as much as possible. Other than for charging, there's no reason for a self-driving car to sit in one place car to wear it self out driving around empty. This means that roadside parking and parking lots will be dramatically less useful for their original purpose.

SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
So we would have all of a rush hour's worth of cars on the road all the time?
- xnx 3y ago
  If freedom to move about freely is a desirable thing (think: making more jobs accessible to people without their own car without an hour-long multi-stage commute), this is a great outcome! A self-driving rush hour would also be very different from the ones we know today. No irritated, distracted, or road-raging drivers. Immediate and safe yielding to any pedestrian who used the road. As a regular urban cyclist during rush-hour, I would instantly trade a road full of distracted commuters juggling a cup of coffee and looking at their phone with self-driving cars. Further, surge pricing would discourage people from traveling at peak times. I know of no public transit system that has anything like surge pricing, which therefore means that the systems must be overbuilt for peak capacity.
ianburrell 3y ago
So instead of using parking, they will use road space while cruising around. That is worse, parking space is valuable, but road lanes are even more valuable. Unless you are suggesting taking parking for road, which is worse for pedestrians. Self-driving cars don’t help if everybody is stuck in traffic caused by empty cars.