4 ms·

Well, sleeping is generally done when demand for cars is extremely low. And a lot of people can’t sleep in cars even when they are a passenger. It’s hard to ima

Well, sleeping is generally done when demand for cars is extremely low. And a lot of people can’t sleep in cars even when they are a passenger. It’s hard to imagine that becoming common enough, even at very low prices, to add to the number of cars on the road. While I’d certainly prefer to watch Netflix than actively drive, I’ve still got stuff I need/want to do that I can’t in a car even as a passenger. And it’s just not comfortable for long periods of time. A lot of people get motion sickness staring at a screen in a moving car. Etc. A lot of people own pickups just because they occasionally want to tow something or move something large. A lot of people own second cars for occasional use. These might become rentals instead when it can affordably just show up at my door in a half hour. There’s no way to tell how this plays out. There will be some amount of induced demand, there will be some amount of reduction in use. One never knows which will be bigger. What I do know is traffic deaths kill over 40,000 Americans a year, and driverless cars could potentially get that to 0 or near it, whereas human drivers cannot. I do know we can electrify cars and power them all with renewable energy, not immediately of course, and remove many of the environmental concerns. We can enhance mobility for the elderly and children and mentally disabled who can’t drive. There’s a strange amount of anti-car propaganda that has gotten people worried about this, but I look forward to a driverless future in which cars are cheap, clean, safe, and available to all.

acdha 3y ago
> There’s a strange amount of anti-car propaganda that has gotten people worried about this, but I look forward to a driverless future in which cars are cheap, clean, safe, and available to all. It’s not propaganda but jumbled concerns which are often poorly expressed. I think the strongest arguments are: 1. Self-driving cars don’t change pollution - even EVs are better for local air quality but still cause massive carbon emissions and unchanged or worse tire particulates, etc. – and may even make it worse locally with the extra mileage from taxi fleets. 2. Self-driving cars only lightly improve congestion, and then only to the extent that they can coordinate and you can ban non-AI drivers from certain chokepoints at certain times. The form factor unavoidably needs far more space per passenger than anything else. 3. Self-driving cars don’t really help with affordability – even if the current prices come closer to parity, that’s a financial stress for many people (e.g. in the region where I live, the average family spends as much on vehicles as they do food). 4. Self-driving safety needs a different relationship with the manufacturer. There are many areas where they can be safer but failures can also be correlated so we really need companies to share liability and have rigorous safety oversight. As a pedestrian, I’m fairly bullish on the concept given how dangerous the average driver is now compared to 20 years ago but I worry that a lot of politicians are going to ignore the other issues because those require hard choices whereas it’s so compatible with American culture to say you can solve major problems by making an expensive purchase. These shouldn’t be opposing issues, of course, and I’d really like to combine them because autonomous vehicles should soon, if not already, be much better about following speed limits, staying out of bus lanes, etc. Making advanced automatic braking a requirement to enter a city could save thousands of lives every year.
- mattmaroon 3y ago
  The EV pollution component of this is 100% propaganda spread by legacy auto makers and fossil fuel companies and is blatantly false. They are substantially better for the environment and the delta is growing too. Even in an area where energy is generated by fossil fuels, EVs emit significantly less CO2 per mile driven. Like 2-4x depending on a wide range of factors. And most new power generation being built in the US is now renewables and if anything, we lag much of the world. It's over 80%. (Luckily it's easy to tell the near future in this regard because utility info is all public and planned out years in advance due to permitting, purchasing, etc. so there are functionally no currently unplanned power plants being built in 2024 or even until 2027 or 2028 or so.) This is because it's just cheaper now, and the economics of wind/solar get better every year as generation costs fall and fossil fuel prices rise. Technology usually gets cheaper, fossil fuels usually get more expensive, and both of these seem to be true in this case. You are correct about particulates, but it's basically insigificant compared to carbon emissions, and probably even offset by lack of motor oil or various other fluids that spill and need produced and then to be disposed of, time the car has to drive in for service, etc. Any sane person would happily trade a 50-80% reduction in lifecycle CO2 emissions per car for a 25% increase in tire particulate matter in the environment. It's only propaganda that makes people mention this, even if it's true, because it's just a non-factor. I had half a mind to write a long treatise on why I think we'll only see significant EV adoption if/when cars become driverless, but I'll save it and just go with this. Someone I know was killed last week in a hit and run. She got in a minor car accident, got out to check on it, and a third driver hit her and took off. When it comes to affordability, economists generally set the economic value of an average American life at ~$10 million, and 40,000 people die from traffic deaths every year. Even if we just look at the numbers, Americans buy about 3 million cars a year. So 40,000 * $10 million divided by 3 million is a savings of over $133k per car, which is far in excess of the average car's lifetime cost. Even a 50% reduction in deaths, which for all I know currently existing driverless cars could achieve, would be the same as making all cars free in terms of average cost. And even if driverless cars are a total push in every other respect (and I think they'll be much better) 40,000 families a year (and I assume globally, at least 5x that) not losing a wife and mother that way is more than worth whatever we have to do to make it happen. Stay safe.

acdha 3y ago

> There’s a strange amount of anti-car propaganda that has gotten people worried about this, but I look forward to a driverless future in which cars are cheap, clean, safe, and available to all. It’s not propaganda but jumbled concerns which are often poorly expressed. I think the strongest arguments are: 1. Self-driving cars don’t change pollution - even EVs are better for local air quality but still cause massive carbon emissions and unchanged or worse tire particulates, etc. – and may even make it worse locally with the extra mileage from taxi fleets. 2. Self-driving cars only lightly improve congestion, and then only to the extent that they can coordinate and you can ban non-AI drivers from certain chokepoints at certain times. The form factor unavoidably needs far more space per passenger than anything else. 3. Self-driving cars don’t really help with affordability – even if the current prices come closer to parity, that’s a financial stress for many people (e.g. in the region where I live, the average family spends as much on vehicles as they do food). 4. Self-driving safety needs a different relationship with the manufacturer. There are many areas where they can be safer but failures can also be correlated so we really need companies to share liability and have rigorous safety oversight. As a pedestrian, I’m fairly bullish on the concept given how dangerous the average driver is now compared to 20 years ago but I worry that a lot of politicians are going to ignore the other issues because those require hard choices whereas it’s so compatible with American culture to say you can solve major problems by making an expensive purchase. These shouldn’t be opposing issues, of course, and I’d really like to combine them because autonomous vehicles should soon, if not already, be much better about following speed limits, staying out of bus lanes, etc. Making advanced automatic braking a requirement to enter a city could save thousands of lives every year.

mattmaroon 3y ago
The EV pollution component of this is 100% propaganda spread by legacy auto makers and fossil fuel companies and is blatantly false. They are substantially better for the environment and the delta is growing too. Even in an area where energy is generated by fossil fuels, EVs emit significantly less CO2 per mile driven. Like 2-4x depending on a wide range of factors. And most new power generation being built in the US is now renewables and if anything, we lag much of the world. It's over 80%. (Luckily it's easy to tell the near future in this regard because utility info is all public and planned out years in advance due to permitting, purchasing, etc. so there are functionally no currently unplanned power plants being built in 2024 or even until 2027 or 2028 or so.) This is because it's just cheaper now, and the economics of wind/solar get better every year as generation costs fall and fossil fuel prices rise. Technology usually gets cheaper, fossil fuels usually get more expensive, and both of these seem to be true in this case. You are correct about particulates, but it's basically insigificant compared to carbon emissions, and probably even offset by lack of motor oil or various other fluids that spill and need produced and then to be disposed of, time the car has to drive in for service, etc. Any sane person would happily trade a 50-80% reduction in lifecycle CO2 emissions per car for a 25% increase in tire particulate matter in the environment. It's only propaganda that makes people mention this, even if it's true, because it's just a non-factor. I had half a mind to write a long treatise on why I think we'll only see significant EV adoption if/when cars become driverless, but I'll save it and just go with this. Someone I know was killed last week in a hit and run. She got in a minor car accident, got out to check on it, and a third driver hit her and took off. When it comes to affordability, economists generally set the economic value of an average American life at ~$10 million, and 40,000 people die from traffic deaths every year. Even if we just look at the numbers, Americans buy about 3 million cars a year. So 40,000 * $10 million divided by 3 million is a savings of over $133k per car, which is far in excess of the average car's lifetime cost. Even a 50% reduction in deaths, which for all I know currently existing driverless cars could achieve, would be the same as making all cars free in terms of average cost. And even if driverless cars are a total push in every other respect (and I think they'll be much better) 40,000 families a year (and I assume globally, at least 5x that) not losing a wife and mother that way is more than worth whatever we have to do to make it happen. Stay safe.