4 ms·

Self-driving cars will likely increase accidents before they reduce them, if ever. It is pointless to outfit our roads and highways 100% with self-driving cars

by bmitc 3y ago

Self-driving cars will likely increase accidents before they reduce them, if ever. It is pointless to outfit our roads and highways 100% with self-driving cars carrying only a handful, if that, of people, which is the only way you get to that unrealistic ideal of utilization. Trains, subways, and buses are "self-driving" technologies that we already have and are far more efficient at solving these problems. It is incredibly inefficient to have low passenger vehicles already. Making them self-driving just increases the cost of that inefficiency.

madaxe_again 3y ago
The nearest train, subway or bus to where I live is 100km away. How should I get there? By foot? Sprout wings and fly? Drag myself there by my tongue? Also, I have bad news for you. You know that human you see sitting at the front of buses, trains, and subways? They aren’t just there to collect your fare.
- throwitaway1123 3y ago
  > Also, I have bad news for you. You know that human you see sitting at the front of buses, trains, and subways? They aren’t just there to collect your fare. It's probably much easier to construct a self driving train/subway than it is to build a self driving car. Driving a vehicle on rails is so simple that people use the phrase "on rails" to indicate simplicity (e.g. Ruby on Rails). Buses of course don't get to reap the benefits of this simplicity though since they drive on roads rather than on rails.
  - madaxe_again 3y ago
    People also use “on rails” to indicate inflexibility and rigidity. It’s easier for a reason - the utility is diminished.
    - throwitaway1123 3y ago
      I wouldn't necessarily say the utility is diminished — it's more like a tradeoff. If you want to repeatedly transport people in bulk, you need to follow a predetermined path. Even buses tend to follow fixed routes, despite not operating on rails. Commuters would be disoriented if the E train in NYC took a different path each day for example. So if you're following the same path every day, you probably don't need a complicated steering system, rubber tires that constantly wear out, and a large expensive battery. It's simpler to just have the vehicle operate on rails, and supply power through the third rail. Otherwise you end up with a bizarre situation like the "Vegas Loop", where you have cars driving back and forth along a predetermined path, lugging heavy batteries around with them.
- bmitc 3y ago
  > How should I get there? By foot? Sprout wings and fly? Drag myself there by my tongue? It's not difficult: we build more. That is instead of spending however many billions on a pipe dream. > Also, I have bad news for you. You know that human you see sitting at the front of buses, trains, and subways? They aren’t just there to collect your fare. That's immaterial to me and the dozens of passengers. If anything, it's preferable.
twoWhlsGud 3y ago
I don't know where you're from, but where I live (the US) public ground transit plays a very small and steadily decreasing role in total mode share: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_in_the_United_States#Mode_share https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_in_the_United_S... and given the current growth trends promises to play a smaller one in the future. (I just returned from a trip to the southwest - ever seen Phoenix? Given the growth trends that mess is as likely to be the future as anything else is.) As someone living in a city who likes the idea of transit (and walking and biking), I think the sort of prescriptive attitude (transit is the solution to all questions!) you are displaying is part of the reason American's have such a poor (and declining) opinion of it. Autonomy opens up possibilities - of taming the roads, of enabling more responsive transit that can reach deeper into medium density suburbs, etc, but none of that is going to happen without a wide spectrum of constructive criticism.

by bmitc 3y ago

madaxe_again 3y ago

The nearest train, subway or bus to where I live is 100km away. How should I get there? By foot? Sprout wings and fly? Drag myself there by my tongue? Also, I have bad news for you. You know that human you see sitting at the front of buses, trains, and subways? They aren’t just there to collect your fare.

throwitaway1123 3y ago
> Also, I have bad news for you. You know that human you see sitting at the front of buses, trains, and subways? They aren’t just there to collect your fare. It's probably much easier to construct a self driving train/subway than it is to build a self driving car. Driving a vehicle on rails is so simple that people use the phrase "on rails" to indicate simplicity (e.g. Ruby on Rails). Buses of course don't get to reap the benefits of this simplicity though since they drive on roads rather than on rails.
- madaxe_again 3y ago
  People also use “on rails” to indicate inflexibility and rigidity. It’s easier for a reason - the utility is diminished.
  - throwitaway1123 3y ago
    I wouldn't necessarily say the utility is diminished — it's more like a tradeoff. If you want to repeatedly transport people in bulk, you need to follow a predetermined path. Even buses tend to follow fixed routes, despite not operating on rails. Commuters would be disoriented if the E train in NYC took a different path each day for example. So if you're following the same path every day, you probably don't need a complicated steering system, rubber tires that constantly wear out, and a large expensive battery. It's simpler to just have the vehicle operate on rails, and supply power through the third rail. Otherwise you end up with a bizarre situation like the "Vegas Loop", where you have cars driving back and forth along a predetermined path, lugging heavy batteries around with them.
bmitc 3y ago
> How should I get there? By foot? Sprout wings and fly? Drag myself there by my tongue? It's not difficult: we build more. That is instead of spending however many billions on a pipe dream. > Also, I have bad news for you. You know that human you see sitting at the front of buses, trains, and subways? They aren’t just there to collect your fare. That's immaterial to me and the dozens of passengers. If anything, it's preferable.

twoWhlsGud 3y ago

I don't know where you're from, but where I live (the US) public ground transit plays a very small and steadily decreasing role in total mode share: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_in_the_United_States#Mode_share https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_in_the_United_S... and given the current growth trends promises to play a smaller one in the future. (I just returned from a trip to the southwest - ever seen Phoenix? Given the growth trends that mess is as likely to be the future as anything else is.) As someone living in a city who likes the idea of transit (and walking and biking), I think the sort of prescriptive attitude (transit is the solution to all questions!) you are displaying is part of the reason American's have such a poor (and declining) opinion of it. Autonomy opens up possibilities - of taming the roads, of enabling more responsive transit that can reach deeper into medium density suburbs, etc, but none of that is going to happen without a wide spectrum of constructive criticism.