5 ms·

This dismissal doesn't do justice to the content of the video. There are a lot of other points made, including: - Self driving cars are not a pipe-dream, the t

This dismissal doesn't do justice to the content of the video. There are a lot of other points made, including: - Self driving cars are not a pipe-dream, the tech is developing and will be in every city in the future, this can't be ignored - There is a real danger that they will destroy the fabric of our cities - They will increase, not decrease, the number of cars on the road and the use of road space - As cars shift electric, gas taxes will be less effective at "charging for usage" of road space, and other means will be necessary, or else AVs will treat the cost of occupying road space as zero, and circle endlessly. - Despite hype that AVs won't need parking space, they will, because people will still want to own private cars and need to park them, and robotaxis will compete for response times and so will need to stay available close to high-demand areas - As AV companies gain adoption and become more available, city design may warp such that AVs may even become required to use roads or get around at all. There's a strong potential for the AV industry to lobby for changes to road infrastructure to favor AVs, including banning human-driven vehicles and increasing speed limits or removing them altogether. This may even go to the point of fencing off streets from pedestrians, because otherwise it would be too easy for people to step in front of vehicles (forcing them to brake). This is not unprecedented based on how quickly the auto industry reshaped laws, standards, and infrastructure to favor automobiles in the 20th century. - AV companies are likely to spread American driving practices and road culture to other countries, because AV tech is mostly developed in the US. - AVs may make it more difficult for cities and countries to update road rules, because of the burden it would put on AV companies to keep up with rule changes, and AV companies might successfully lobby against this. Cities will come under pressure to become more uniformly like Phoenix AZ, in order to be more AV-friendly, rather than AV companies putting in the work to localize their tech to work in every city. - There is a risk that AVs will displace other forms of public transit which are better for the environment, for pedestrians, for land use, and for the surrounding areas - By reducing the perceived cost of spending time in traffic, AVs will encourage people to commute longer distances, resulting in more traffic, infrastructure costs, and emissions overall - The AV lobby has suggested that AVs help mobility-impaired people, but public transit and walkable streets would help these people better than AVs would It's a long video, but I do think there are a lot of points that are worth deeply thinking about, especially for anyone here who might be involved in developing this technology.

aeternum 2y ago
>- There is a real danger that they will destroy the fabric of our cities This is just not true, I far prefer to bike next or in front of waymos on shared roadways because they keep proper distance and are predictable. Far from destroy the fabric, they are like benevolent sea turtles, providing a cover of safety for more vulnerable road users. >They will increase, not decrease, the number of cars on the road and the use of road space Possibly true but let's see some evidence. >As cars shift electric, gas taxes will be less effective Didn't SF just pass a tax on AVs? Easy fix. >- There is a risk that AVs will displace other forms of public transit which are better for the environment, for pedestrians, for land use, and for the surrounding areas Waiting for a train sucks, people want to go point to point. >- By reducing the perceived cost of spending time in traffic, AVs will encourage people to commute longer distances, resulting in more traffic, infrastructure costs, and emissions overall Same argument can be made for public transit / trains. It's not a good argument.
- mitthrowaway2 2y ago
  > they are like benevolent sea turtles, providing a cover of safety for more vulnerable road users. Hopefully they stay that way! But right now they are in their testing phases and the #1 priority of AV companies is to demonstrate their safety and obtain trust and social license to operate. The argument made in the video is somewhat more dystopian, of a future where AVs are entrenched and society becomes dependent on them, and they have secured enough of a foothold to start raising speed limits, removing stoplights, banning non-AVs from roads, etc. It's only one possible future, of course. But it's a common trajectory, where initially a service is introduced very benevolently, and only once it's secured traction do they start to turn the screws. I'm sure we can all think of some examples... > Possibly true but let's see some evidence. The details are in the video; you can watch it if you'd like, and refute its claims with counterarguments. >- By reducing the perceived cost of spending time in traffic, AVs will encourage people to commute longer distances, resulting in more traffic, infrastructure costs, and emissions overall > Same argument can be made for public transit / trains. It's not a good argument. The same is actually true of trains, except that the cost to society is much less, because of how much more efficient trains are. No matter how many people commute by train, you never need ever-widening train-highways to alleviate the traffic jams from too many people riding the train. It's instead a positive feedback loop of increased ridership leading to higher train frequency, increased service quality, better speed, better network connections, and a stronger and more walkable area around and between train stations. It's exactly the opposite of cars, but not because the argument is wrong. It certainly does lead to more suburban development (and lower costs of real housing), but this becomes an upside rather than a downside.

aeternum 2y ago

>- There is a real danger that they will destroy the fabric of our cities This is just not true, I far prefer to bike next or in front of waymos on shared roadways because they keep proper distance and are predictable. Far from destroy the fabric, they are like benevolent sea turtles, providing a cover of safety for more vulnerable road users. >They will increase, not decrease, the number of cars on the road and the use of road space Possibly true but let's see some evidence. >As cars shift electric, gas taxes will be less effective Didn't SF just pass a tax on AVs? Easy fix. >- There is a risk that AVs will displace other forms of public transit which are better for the environment, for pedestrians, for land use, and for the surrounding areas Waiting for a train sucks, people want to go point to point. >- By reducing the perceived cost of spending time in traffic, AVs will encourage people to commute longer distances, resulting in more traffic, infrastructure costs, and emissions overall Same argument can be made for public transit / trains. It's not a good argument.

mitthrowaway2 2y ago
> they are like benevolent sea turtles, providing a cover of safety for more vulnerable road users. Hopefully they stay that way! But right now they are in their testing phases and the #1 priority of AV companies is to demonstrate their safety and obtain trust and social license to operate. The argument made in the video is somewhat more dystopian, of a future where AVs are entrenched and society becomes dependent on them, and they have secured enough of a foothold to start raising speed limits, removing stoplights, banning non-AVs from roads, etc. It's only one possible future, of course. But it's a common trajectory, where initially a service is introduced very benevolently, and only once it's secured traction do they start to turn the screws. I'm sure we can all think of some examples... > Possibly true but let's see some evidence. The details are in the video; you can watch it if you'd like, and refute its claims with counterarguments. >- By reducing the perceived cost of spending time in traffic, AVs will encourage people to commute longer distances, resulting in more traffic, infrastructure costs, and emissions overall > Same argument can be made for public transit / trains. It's not a good argument. The same is actually true of trains, except that the cost to society is much less, because of how much more efficient trains are. No matter how many people commute by train, you never need ever-widening train-highways to alleviate the traffic jams from too many people riding the train. It's instead a positive feedback loop of increased ridership leading to higher train frequency, increased service quality, better speed, better network connections, and a stronger and more walkable area around and between train stations. It's exactly the opposite of cars, but not because the argument is wrong. It certainly does lead to more suburban development (and lower costs of real housing), but this becomes an upside rather than a downside.