3 ms·

Speaking as an SF resident, we've actually got the slowest major transit system in the country (Muni; BART coverage is far from adequate for travel within the c

Speaking as an SF resident, we've actually got the slowest major transit system in the country (Muni; BART coverage is far from adequate for travel within the city). While this of course beats all the places with NO major transit system, it's laughable to think that widespread use of driverless cars wouldn't improve transportation significantly. I've never wanted to own a car living in the city, but with a little imagination, one can imagine most of the downsides of doing so (cost, parking, etc) significantly diminishing with widespread adoption of driverless cars. Probably more significantly, one can imagine the massive benefits gained by society at large, including those who still have no interest in getting a driverless car (safety, congestion, hell even driverless public transport).

jarek 14y ago
> one can imagine the massive benefits gained by society at large One can also imagine a massive drawback: the continuation of sedentary lifestyle status quo and all of its associated ills. But hey, who wants to walk 10 minutes to transit, maybe you can take the driverless car to the gym.
- wutbrodo 14y ago
  There are so many ways to describe how wrongheaded this is that I don't even know where to start. The idea that less efficient transportation is beneficial because it would require people to be more active is absolutely insane. By that logic, we'd be better off with no transportation other than walking; I find it hard to believe that everyone would be better off if they were constrained to working somewhere within a few miles of them (or alternatively, required to spend half their day just getting to work). Rooting for a higher level of car accidents, pollution (the number of cars needed could easily be cut by as much as half), and congestion in order to force people to walk is ridiculous. Throw in the fact that sedentary lifestyles/obesity are pretty strongly correlated with lower income and education level (ignorance of health/nutrition issues, lack of time due to heavy work schedules, there are different reason for different people in this situation), and the economic benefits alone of a significantly more efficient transportation system would likely cancel out whatever possible increase in sedentary living it may cause. Driverless vehicles have the potential to transform transportation, full stop. This obviously includes public transit (I highly doubt that a driverless bus is much of a technological leap from driverless cars). Whatever benefits public transit provides are included in the changes that driverless vehicles will bring (unless, as it seems, your only in support of inefficient public transit?).
  - jarek 14y ago
    What kind of efficiency are you discussing? What are you comparing? Roaming driverless taxis are not more energy efficient and they are not more space efficient than transit. Being an improvement on human-driven cars is not a particularly difficult achievement. I have no idea where the car accidents or pollution sentence came from. I'm "rooting" for less cars, not the least because it will reduce pollution, and live my life accordingly. I try to minimize the disease in my life by minimizing my car use - automated or otherwise - rather than addressing the symptoms using a new wundertechnology. I don't control the number of car accidents because I can't control the choices others make.

jarek 14y ago

> one can imagine the massive benefits gained by society at large One can also imagine a massive drawback: the continuation of sedentary lifestyle status quo and all of its associated ills. But hey, who wants to walk 10 minutes to transit, maybe you can take the driverless car to the gym.

wutbrodo 14y ago
There are so many ways to describe how wrongheaded this is that I don't even know where to start. The idea that less efficient transportation is beneficial because it would require people to be more active is absolutely insane. By that logic, we'd be better off with no transportation other than walking; I find it hard to believe that everyone would be better off if they were constrained to working somewhere within a few miles of them (or alternatively, required to spend half their day just getting to work). Rooting for a higher level of car accidents, pollution (the number of cars needed could easily be cut by as much as half), and congestion in order to force people to walk is ridiculous. Throw in the fact that sedentary lifestyles/obesity are pretty strongly correlated with lower income and education level (ignorance of health/nutrition issues, lack of time due to heavy work schedules, there are different reason for different people in this situation), and the economic benefits alone of a significantly more efficient transportation system would likely cancel out whatever possible increase in sedentary living it may cause. Driverless vehicles have the potential to transform transportation, full stop. This obviously includes public transit (I highly doubt that a driverless bus is much of a technological leap from driverless cars). Whatever benefits public transit provides are included in the changes that driverless vehicles will bring (unless, as it seems, your only in support of inefficient public transit?).
- jarek 14y ago
  What kind of efficiency are you discussing? What are you comparing? Roaming driverless taxis are not more energy efficient and they are not more space efficient than transit. Being an improvement on human-driven cars is not a particularly difficult achievement. I have no idea where the car accidents or pollution sentence came from. I'm "rooting" for less cars, not the least because it will reduce pollution, and live my life accordingly. I try to minimize the disease in my life by minimizing my car use - automated or otherwise - rather than addressing the symptoms using a new wundertechnology. I don't control the number of car accidents because I can't control the choices others make.