7 ms·

This misses the point, in many ways: * Driverless cars means safer cars. * Driverless cars means independence for people who otherwise are restricted (elderly

This misses the point, in many ways: * Driverless cars means safer cars. * Driverless cars means independence for people who otherwise are restricted (elderly, kids, blind, etc). * Driverless cars are more fuel efficient. Sure, they aren't as efficient as not driving, but, just like driving with cruise control is better than not, complete automation will be better. * Driverless cars will enable more productive use of the commute time. There are probably many more benefits as well. The one thing the author probably gets correct is that this will increase traffic load on the roads, and it is questionable whether it will increase efficiency of roadway usage more than it increases traffic load, but I'm guessing it won't. I can imagine a case where I have a single car, driving me to work, then going back to take my wife, then back to the house to pick up kids, then back to pick up my wife, and so on. In other words, a lot of empty drive time. This would be mitigated by a taxi-like "call the nearest car".

chrisBob 12y ago
>Driverless cars will enable more productive use of the commute time. This is the main reason I am interested. I love taking the train to work because I can pull out a book, or my iPad. The experience is 100 times better than the stress of traffic.
- yitchelle 12y ago
  So so true! Public transportation should be one of the infrastructure areas that the government need to support so that it is readily available and accessible, quick and frequent, clean and safe, and friendly to all family structures. Even if it is a loss making venture, the government needs to get behind it, just like the effort for the national defense program.
- WalterBright 12y ago
  I'd rather take mass transit than drive through traffic. But in Seattle, taking the bus will take twice as long as driving. Some sort of rail system would be vastly superior. The tube system in London, for example, is so quick and convenient I can't see the point of having a car there.
voicereasonish 12y ago
> Driverless cars means safer cars. Where's the evidence for this? perhaps if everyone on the road was in a driverless car, and they all communicated and prevented crashes. But that's not going to happen.
- x43b 12y ago
  "perhaps if everyone on the road was in a driverless car, and they all communicated and prevented crashes. But that's not going to happen." I hear this sentiment a lot. Having a higher percentage of cars following safe practices is safer even if those are cars aren't perfect and even if 100% of the cars aren't automated. Can you tell me the logic (I've seen it many times in posts) that there won't be any safety benefits until all cars are automated (or until there aren't any manual drivers?). I disagree that the benefit will be that discrete.
  - WalterBright 12y ago
    The trouble is that even if driverless cars are overall vastly safer, in today's litigious environment it just takes one fatal crash to derail (!) the whole concept when the car maker is sued out of existence. Whereas suing individual drivers doesn't take down the whole system.
    - TheCowboy 12y ago
      I see this argument a lot, and it seems to beg the question to assume that there is such a "litigious environment." Why are Google and other companies trying to develop this technology if all it takes is a single fatal crash, and therefore a single lawsuit? It should be in their rational self-interest to avoid any contact with this technology. It would be lighting on money on fire. This is not the strongest example, but automobile companies have ignored fatality inducing problems, yet the practice didn't end their business. There is likely enough profit in the pursuit to deal with such issues. These lawsuits are slow-moving enough that there would be room to maneuver. The greatest threat, in my opinion, is over-reacting politicians passing laws due to a shock in public opinion on the safety of the cars. The shock could be legitimate, due to reckless implementation, or just due to an unpreventable accident.
rayiner 12y ago
I think what bothers urbanists the most about self-driving cars isn't the fuel efficiency versus public transit. It's that they perpetuate the isolationism that's deeply embedded in American culture. My parents grew up in Bangladesh, my mom in a fairly large city and my dad in a village. When they moved to the suburbs of D.C., the biggest culture shock they encountered was the intense isolation of American suburban life. Even in rural Bangladesh, you'll encounter dozens of people in a typical day. But in the U.S., you have to go out of your way (i.e. drive) to see other people. You can go days without seeing anyone outside your immediate family unit. Self-driving cars address certain problems with a car-based society, like congestion and safety, but they perpetuate the model of driving around in little steel bubbles where we don't interact with or even see other people. That's the biggest difference between a car-based lifestyle and a transit-based lifestyle.
- Brakenshire 12y ago
  That's true, but you get the same isolation with public transport - people do not chat on the London Underground, or on the commuter trains.
  - dalyons 12y ago
    I don't think rayner is talking specifically about social interaction when transporting... It's the isolationism inherent in everyone living in giant spaced-out castles of their own, with zero walkability and next to zero common shared public spaces that you find in denser areas. And I totally agree - I think western suburban individualism/isolationism is a terrible idea, and horribly corrosive to peoples long term happiness and health.
    - Brakenshire 12y ago
      I agree about the importance of walkability and public space. On reflection, it is possible that self-driving cars (and their ability to go perfectly from point to point) could make walkability economically redundant, which would be very damaging, as you say, to health and happiness.
    - 12y ago
jesusmichael 12y ago
a driverless car is called a bus...
- fzltrp 12y ago
  A bus will drive you on a fixed itinerary...
e40 12y ago
Add to the list: * alleviates parking issues because the car can be told to go park somewhere 1) less congested and 2) less expensive. One of the problems in cities is the complete lack of temporary parking being consumed by all-day workers, especially those with handicap placards who are not handicapped. 95% of the time I see someone getting out of a car and hanging up the placard they are not disabled (ie, not in a wheelchair or seem to have any handicap at all). The lack of parking around businesses is a huge problem. Around my office, where there are lots of restaurants and other businesses, most of the parking is taken all day by handicap placard using commuters. This means there are fewer parking spaces for people to park and shop. That decreases sales in the shops in this area. Bad for everyone. Basically, I won't even shop in areas of restricted parking availability. It's not worth the 30+ minutes of hunting for parking.
nextw33k 12y ago
The increased traffic load can be mitigated by smart routing of cars through multiple paths. Plus they could be connected to each other to effectively tailgate each other. The first car can tell the following cars to break at the same time. Cars in congested areas can notify others coming up to lower their speed to ease congestion.

chrisBob 12y ago

>Driverless cars will enable more productive use of the commute time. This is the main reason I am interested. I love taking the train to work because I can pull out a book, or my iPad. The experience is 100 times better than the stress of traffic.

yitchelle 12y ago
So so true! Public transportation should be one of the infrastructure areas that the government need to support so that it is readily available and accessible, quick and frequent, clean and safe, and friendly to all family structures. Even if it is a loss making venture, the government needs to get behind it, just like the effort for the national defense program.
WalterBright 12y ago
I'd rather take mass transit than drive through traffic. But in Seattle, taking the bus will take twice as long as driving. Some sort of rail system would be vastly superior. The tube system in London, for example, is so quick and convenient I can't see the point of having a car there.

voicereasonish 12y ago

> Driverless cars means safer cars. Where's the evidence for this? perhaps if everyone on the road was in a driverless car, and they all communicated and prevented crashes. But that's not going to happen.

x43b 12y ago
"perhaps if everyone on the road was in a driverless car, and they all communicated and prevented crashes. But that's not going to happen." I hear this sentiment a lot. Having a higher percentage of cars following safe practices is safer even if those are cars aren't perfect and even if 100% of the cars aren't automated. Can you tell me the logic (I've seen it many times in posts) that there won't be any safety benefits until all cars are automated (or until there aren't any manual drivers?). I disagree that the benefit will be that discrete.
- WalterBright 12y ago
  The trouble is that even if driverless cars are overall vastly safer, in today's litigious environment it just takes one fatal crash to derail (!) the whole concept when the car maker is sued out of existence. Whereas suing individual drivers doesn't take down the whole system.
  - TheCowboy 12y ago
    I see this argument a lot, and it seems to beg the question to assume that there is such a "litigious environment." Why are Google and other companies trying to develop this technology if all it takes is a single fatal crash, and therefore a single lawsuit? It should be in their rational self-interest to avoid any contact with this technology. It would be lighting on money on fire. This is not the strongest example, but automobile companies have ignored fatality inducing problems, yet the practice didn't end their business. There is likely enough profit in the pursuit to deal with such issues. These lawsuits are slow-moving enough that there would be room to maneuver. The greatest threat, in my opinion, is over-reacting politicians passing laws due to a shock in public opinion on the safety of the cars. The shock could be legitimate, due to reckless implementation, or just due to an unpreventable accident.

rayiner 12y ago

I think what bothers urbanists the most about self-driving cars isn't the fuel efficiency versus public transit. It's that they perpetuate the isolationism that's deeply embedded in American culture. My parents grew up in Bangladesh, my mom in a fairly large city and my dad in a village. When they moved to the suburbs of D.C., the biggest culture shock they encountered was the intense isolation of American suburban life. Even in rural Bangladesh, you'll encounter dozens of people in a typical day. But in the U.S., you have to go out of your way (i.e. drive) to see other people. You can go days without seeing anyone outside your immediate family unit. Self-driving cars address certain problems with a car-based society, like congestion and safety, but they perpetuate the model of driving around in little steel bubbles where we don't interact with or even see other people. That's the biggest difference between a car-based lifestyle and a transit-based lifestyle.

Brakenshire 12y ago
That's true, but you get the same isolation with public transport - people do not chat on the London Underground, or on the commuter trains.
- dalyons 12y ago
  I don't think rayner is talking specifically about social interaction when transporting... It's the isolationism inherent in everyone living in giant spaced-out castles of their own, with zero walkability and next to zero common shared public spaces that you find in denser areas. And I totally agree - I think western suburban individualism/isolationism is a terrible idea, and horribly corrosive to peoples long term happiness and health.
  - Brakenshire 12y ago
    I agree about the importance of walkability and public space. On reflection, it is possible that self-driving cars (and their ability to go perfectly from point to point) could make walkability economically redundant, which would be very damaging, as you say, to health and happiness.
  - 12y ago

jesusmichael 12y ago

a driverless car is called a bus...

fzltrp 12y ago
A bus will drive you on a fixed itinerary...

e40 12y ago

Add to the list: * alleviates parking issues because the car can be told to go park somewhere 1) less congested and 2) less expensive. One of the problems in cities is the complete lack of temporary parking being consumed by all-day workers, especially those with handicap placards who are not handicapped. 95% of the time I see someone getting out of a car and hanging up the placard they are not disabled (ie, not in a wheelchair or seem to have any handicap at all). The lack of parking around businesses is a huge problem. Around my office, where there are lots of restaurants and other businesses, most of the parking is taken all day by handicap placard using commuters. This means there are fewer parking spaces for people to park and shop. That decreases sales in the shops in this area. Bad for everyone. Basically, I won't even shop in areas of restricted parking availability. It's not worth the 30+ minutes of hunting for parking.

nextw33k 12y ago

The increased traffic load can be mitigated by smart routing of cars through multiple paths. Plus they could be connected to each other to effectively tailgate each other. The first car can tell the following cars to break at the same time. Cars in congested areas can notify others coming up to lower their speed to ease congestion.