4 ms·

I'd rather wait for the self-driving transportation we have to actually be used and built: trains and subways. It makes nearly zero sense to replace single low

by bmitc 2y ago

I'd rather wait for the self-driving transportation we have to actually be used and built: trains and subways. It makes nearly zero sense to replace single low occupancy cars with the exact same occupancy but orders of magnitude more cost and blurred responsibility. > I assume that safety will only increase as the proportion rises. I assume that safety will drastically decrease as self-driving cars are introduced.

meowtimemania 2y ago
Unlike cars, trains and subways can't get you door to door (especially in suburban areas)
- mitthrowaway2 2y ago
  If your neighbourhood is pleasant and walkable, you don't need to be dropped off at the door. In most cases, the key barrier to walkability is removing the cars.
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  That's why you have to build and live more densely. The US absolutely refuses to do that, outside of Manhattan and a few select other places. It won't be a place where local trains make any economic sense until this changes. However, for your "door to door" point, that's not desirable anyway. Even here in Tokyo, you have to walk a lot to get between your home and work or wherever you're going. That's a big, big part of why people here are so much thinner than Americans. Having transport that takes you door-to-door without any significant walking is terrible for your health.
  - minwcnt5 2y ago
    Tokyo has taxis and Ubers. I take them quite frequently when there, even though the public transit is amazing. The fact it's blatantly obvious that robotaxis make a ton of sense in even one of the most transit-friendly cities in the world shows how wrong the OP is.
    - shiroiushi 2y ago
      This is true, but taxis in Tokyo are expensive; they're not affordable on a regular basis to most people.
vineyardmike 2y ago
I’m a huge public transit fan, but let’s not let perfect be the enemy of better. I live at a train stop in SF. I take a bus to work. Public transit is great. I still use Waymo sometimes because coverage isn’t always amazing at all times. Sometimes I’m in a rush, sometimes I want some privacy, sometimes I’m carrying some heavy things. Replacing low-occupancy human driven vehicles with low-occupancy robot driven vehicles is good if they’re safer. Today, they’ve proven to be safer. Today, lives are saved because a human driver chose not to drive. If a private individual wants to pay more (<2x, not a single order of magnitude), then let them. There is no reason that the private introduction of self driving cars needs to stop the investment in public transit. Let us save lives on the road to the future, even if some stops along the way aren’t your chosen stops.
- forgetfreeman 2y ago
  You can unambiguously claim they are safer the moment Waymo reports parity with L5 automation criteria. Until that happens you're talking about a system that by Waymo's own admission under-performs human drivers.
  - fragmede 2y ago
    Why is L5 the bar to pass and not L4?
    - forgetfreeman 2y ago
      Because as I understand it L5 is parity with human capabilities. Until you clear that you're underperforming in some measurable way with what even mediocre human operators are capable of.
      - vineyardmike 2y ago
        Well how are they underperforming? They systematically get in less accidents, the accidents they do get in are not their fault, and they tend to be less dangerous when they occur. As I understand it, that unambiguously means outperforming. We don’t need to remove every manual car in the world overnight, but this seems like a clear win, at least in the regions they operate. They don’t need to cure cancer and drive in every road condition at all times in all places and also not ever make any mistakes at all to be an improvement. “L5” is just a label, which I guess doesn’t apply, while “safer”, “less accident prone” are different labels, which do apply.
csomar 2y ago
What about both? You travel long distances using the subway and then your last mile is done on an auto-automobile.
- bmitc 2y ago
  How many billions of both private and public funding has been put into public transportation solutions and technology instead of self-driving cars? The answer is basically 0. Self-driving cars is the most expensive Hot Wheels experiment ever. It's been well over a decade with barely anything to show except that they've replaced cars with more expensive cars that have muddy responsibility.
no_op 2y ago
Self-driving vehicles can be symbiotic with mass transit. Autonomous taxis can make rail work better at low to moderate densities by shuttling people to stations. They can also ease the path to higher density development in car-centric suburbs by dropping people off at their destinations and then going to serve other riders or park out of the way, eliminating the need for density-killing parking lots immediately adjacent to businesses. As density rises in these areas, building mass transit will become more viable. Nor does autonomy have to be limited to car-sized vehicles. It could be used for larger vehicles, perhaps intermediate between car and bus size — once you don't have to pay for a driver, operating a larger number of smaller vehicles is much more viable. These could be dynamically dispatched and routed, eliminating many drawbacks of existing bus service.
jfoster 2y ago
Roads are 24x7 and outside every building.

by bmitc 2y ago

meowtimemania 2y ago

Unlike cars, trains and subways can't get you door to door (especially in suburban areas)

mitthrowaway2 2y ago
If your neighbourhood is pleasant and walkable, you don't need to be dropped off at the door. In most cases, the key barrier to walkability is removing the cars.
shiroiushi 2y ago
That's why you have to build and live more densely. The US absolutely refuses to do that, outside of Manhattan and a few select other places. It won't be a place where local trains make any economic sense until this changes. However, for your "door to door" point, that's not desirable anyway. Even here in Tokyo, you have to walk a lot to get between your home and work or wherever you're going. That's a big, big part of why people here are so much thinner than Americans. Having transport that takes you door-to-door without any significant walking is terrible for your health.
- minwcnt5 2y ago
  Tokyo has taxis and Ubers. I take them quite frequently when there, even though the public transit is amazing. The fact it's blatantly obvious that robotaxis make a ton of sense in even one of the most transit-friendly cities in the world shows how wrong the OP is.
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    This is true, but taxis in Tokyo are expensive; they're not affordable on a regular basis to most people.

vineyardmike 2y ago

I’m a huge public transit fan, but let’s not let perfect be the enemy of better. I live at a train stop in SF. I take a bus to work. Public transit is great. I still use Waymo sometimes because coverage isn’t always amazing at all times. Sometimes I’m in a rush, sometimes I want some privacy, sometimes I’m carrying some heavy things. Replacing low-occupancy human driven vehicles with low-occupancy robot driven vehicles is good if they’re safer. Today, they’ve proven to be safer. Today, lives are saved because a human driver chose not to drive. If a private individual wants to pay more (<2x, not a single order of magnitude), then let them. There is no reason that the private introduction of self driving cars needs to stop the investment in public transit. Let us save lives on the road to the future, even if some stops along the way aren’t your chosen stops.

forgetfreeman 2y ago
You can unambiguously claim they are safer the moment Waymo reports parity with L5 automation criteria. Until that happens you're talking about a system that by Waymo's own admission under-performs human drivers.
- fragmede 2y ago
  Why is L5 the bar to pass and not L4?
  - forgetfreeman 2y ago
    Because as I understand it L5 is parity with human capabilities. Until you clear that you're underperforming in some measurable way with what even mediocre human operators are capable of.
    - vineyardmike 2y ago
      Well how are they underperforming? They systematically get in less accidents, the accidents they do get in are not their fault, and they tend to be less dangerous when they occur. As I understand it, that unambiguously means outperforming. We don’t need to remove every manual car in the world overnight, but this seems like a clear win, at least in the regions they operate. They don’t need to cure cancer and drive in every road condition at all times in all places and also not ever make any mistakes at all to be an improvement. “L5” is just a label, which I guess doesn’t apply, while “safer”, “less accident prone” are different labels, which do apply.

csomar 2y ago

What about both? You travel long distances using the subway and then your last mile is done on an auto-automobile.

bmitc 2y ago
How many billions of both private and public funding has been put into public transportation solutions and technology instead of self-driving cars? The answer is basically 0. Self-driving cars is the most expensive Hot Wheels experiment ever. It's been well over a decade with barely anything to show except that they've replaced cars with more expensive cars that have muddy responsibility.

no_op 2y ago

Self-driving vehicles can be symbiotic with mass transit. Autonomous taxis can make rail work better at low to moderate densities by shuttling people to stations. They can also ease the path to higher density development in car-centric suburbs by dropping people off at their destinations and then going to serve other riders or park out of the way, eliminating the need for density-killing parking lots immediately adjacent to businesses. As density rises in these areas, building mass transit will become more viable. Nor does autonomy have to be limited to car-sized vehicles. It could be used for larger vehicles, perhaps intermediate between car and bus size — once you don't have to pay for a driver, operating a larger number of smaller vehicles is much more viable. These could be dynamically dispatched and routed, eliminating many drawbacks of existing bus service.

jfoster 2y ago

Roads are 24x7 and outside every building.