Self driving cars are technologically impressive but are a poor solution.

[oali24]

You read that right, I personally think that the hype doesn't make sense beyond simply the underlying technology being functional and achievable now. The reason why I think this is that when you think about it, self driving cars are like a band aid to a serious problem of private automobile transportation. Car culture sucks, and I say this as a former car guy, don't get me wrong cars are cool, and enthusiast car guys don't really make up much of the problem, and why this is an issue? They are horrifically inefficient, think about it, a bus is as long as about 3 sedans/2.25 SUVs but those might be able to seat a maximum of about 15 people people respectively, a bus can take at least 25 people and usually way more than that, you see the issue here? self driving cars would still be liable to the same efficiency constraints as non self driving cars, a properly thought out network of public transportation would always have more capacity and more efficiently service an even moderately dense urban area (yes I know rural areas are different and cars may be required in those situations), and I know that some people will say that self driving cars would enable higher capacity by banning non autonomous vehicles, big data, AI, 5G, etc... and let's say for the sake of this argument, any theoretical technology can be achieved practially and would make meaningful improvements, sure, but why does this only apply to inefficient private car transportation? why not to the already efficient buses, trains, trams, etc.. you could apply the same technology to public transportation and make it even more efficient as it starts from a position of already being more efficient, I struggle to see how anything being proposed couldn't be applied to public, hell, it could be easier, recently in my city Amman they opened up a bus rapid transit (BRT) system that is basically a bus with it's own road that is seperate from private cars and I've gone on it and it honestly cuts travel time between different of parts of Amman in half, Governments could easily and quickly implement new technologies and policies without having to answer to automobile owners. It just seems a bit weird that people are so hyped over what is basically a highly advanced, rubber tired (don't forget that metal wheels on metal are more efficient), horseless carriage and we should maybe look beyond simply advancing a 140 year old technology that was invented when steam was still the main way of producing power.

[porina]

Mass transport, as its name implies, is only really efficient if you have a large number of people making the same trip at the same time. I think the world has changed a little bit, and the old concept of "rush hour" is dying.

 

For big cities good public transport can be a useful factor. A lot of the world population is not in a big city, and that's where more flexibility is needed. 

 

Self driving cars I think, in the long term, will be a thing for the rich to own. For most people, a car is not doing anything for most of the time they own it. With self driving vehicles, I can see it being cheaper to have like a taxi on demand than outright car ownership. There can also be a middle ground, if you can imagine a larger shared car that operates like a  bus without a fixed route.

 

There also needs more options for local transport. Public transport can have coverage gaps that still need to be filled.

[Dreckssackblase]

To me it feels like we are trying to brute force self driving cars at the moment. Trying to get them to drive alongside human drivers on infrastracture made for human drivers.

That's why I always get annoyed, when Musk talks about needing no sensors other than a camera, when that is only the case because our infrastructure (signs, lanes...) was designed with human sight in mind. I truly believe they will never work as well as they could have on a purely self-driving designed infrastructure with all the sensors and data it could have in that environment.

[Donut417]

Mass Transport only works in larger cities like New York, LA, and Detroit for example. Because in larger cities you tend to be discouraged from owning a car as they find ways to ticket you, or charge large sums to just have a parking place. In suburban areas public transit doesn't work. Keep in mind Im talking more about America in this. Here in the US the Suburbs are large and it would just not be practical to put that many bus stops in. Also most cities dont have the money to construct special roads for public transit as many dont bring in enough via taxes. Rail is kinda dead in the US, I mean if you want to travel by train in the US you are looking at Amtrak, which a majority of its stock is owned by the US government. Even then Amtrak only hits selected cities. Rail has been delegated to cargo. 

 

Pretty much if you live in a little country, yeah deploying public transit is feasible. But when your in a large country like the US with its Urban Sprawl and its rural areas, it doesnt make much sense. 

 

31 minutes ago, Dreckssackblase said:

Trying to get them to drive alongside human drivers on infrastracture made for human drivers.

Yeah I honestly believe that we will have to go full self driving for this to work properly. 

[Mihle]

To make no one own a car, the solution would be have a taxi service with self driving cars, for those places other options aren't available.

[Zodiark1593]

Unfortunately, not even bicycle transport is very tenable outside larger cities, let alone workable public transport. 
 

For example, on the outskirts of Placerville here, while the distance to the town itself if fairly short, the high speed, winding roads make bicycling borderline suicidal, even if there was more than a half foot of bicycle lane. 
 

Dedicated bicycle paths make a lot of sense, and would be a wonderful addition to Placerville. However, that ship has long sailed, as everywhere a bike path can be put in is currently under private ownership. The legal barriers alone make this impossible. 
 

Cities are a bit more amenable to large changes. For rural towns though, you really have to build the town with bicycle and public transport in mind, as things are pretty much set in stone once land is sold to the private sector.

[oali24]

5 hours ago, Donut417 said:

Mass Transport only works in larger cities like New York, LA, and Detroit for example. Because in larger cities you tend to be discouraged from owning a car as they find ways to ticket you, or charge large sums to just have a parking place. In suburban areas public transit doesn't work. Keep in mind Im talking more about America in this. Here in the US the Suburbs are large and it would just not be practical to put that many bus stops in. Also most cities dont have the money to construct special roads for public transit as many dont bring in enough via taxes. Rail is kinda dead in the US, I mean if you want to travel by train in the US you are looking at Amtrak, which a majority of its stock is owned by the US government. Even then Amtrak only hits selected cities. Rail has been delegated to cargo. 

 

Pretty much if you live in a little country, yeah deploying public transit is feasible. But when your in a large country like the US with its Urban Sprawl and its rural areas, it doesnt make much sense. 

 

Yeah I honestly believe that we will have to go full self driving for this to work properly. 

 

2 hours ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Unfortunately, not even bicycle transport is very tenable outside larger cities, let alone workable public transport. 
 

For example, on the outskirts of Placerville here, while the distance to the town itself if fairly short, the high speed, winding roads make bicycling borderline suicidal, even if there was more than a half foot of bicycle lane. 
 

Dedicated bicycle paths make a lot of sense, and would be a wonderful addition to Placerville. However, that ship has long sailed, as everywhere a bike path can be put in is currently under private ownership. The legal barriers alone make this impossible. 
 

Cities are a bit more amenable to large changes. For rural towns though, you really have to build the town with bicycle and public transport in mind, as things are pretty much set in stone once land is sold to the private sector.

you guys should both watch the youtube channel, not just bikes, he makes some really interesting videos about urban planning in Amsterdam compared to US/Canada his videos especially shows how the decisions made a long time ago constrain US/Canadians cities like you said.

[Donut417]

1 hour ago, oali24 said:

 

you guys should both watch the youtube channel, not just bikes, he makes some really interesting videos about urban planning in Amsterdam compared to US/Canada his videos especially shows how the decisions made a long time ago constrain US/Canadians cities like you said.

The problem is cities are too expensive to live in. People are moving out of city centers where mass transit doesn’t work. Keep in mind most countries in Europe are the size of a US state and there you will see the issues. Yes I’m aware that planning long ago fucked us. But we can’t change it. 

[IPD]

It's not just population density and mass-transit infrastructure.  It's that our cities were never designed for non-automotive means of conveyance in the first place. 

 

For example, I live in a neighborhood that has no sidewalks.  In a city that has minimal sidewalks.  And an overall layout that has residences' driveways directly off the main roads.  There are no walkpaths to speak of (the only one that exists uses crosswalks across several streets).  There are no underpasses/overpasses for pedestrian/bicycle traffic to avoid roads.  There are no foot-traffic cut-throughs between different neighborhoods to allow direct-flow foot traffic (while auto traffic has to take the longer, circuitous routes.  There are no bike-paths separate from the main roads (if there are any bike paths at all).

 

Needless to say, this really pushes people into using personal autos for getting around.  And because of the lack of planning, the roads through the city aren't really super friendly to buses.  It would be easier to have wider roads with better bus access if there were deliberate separations between pedestrian and road traffic--and this town just sucks on that respect.  By far the least bicycle/pedestrian friendly place I've ever lived in.

 

---

Screw self-driving cars.  The only good thing that will come of it is maybe people who aren't paying enough attention to driving--in the first place--will finally pose less of a danger to everyone else.  Meanwhile, GFY if you try and stop me from enjoying the open road on my own terms.

[IPD]

9 hours ago, Caroline said:

Finally, Bus 2.

 

I live just outside a medium sized town and can reach the transit station using my bike or walking, from there I can take a train or bus to any of the nearby cities, a train is, of course, faster, but only if you head for the city center, buses are more flexible because they also connect other towns and parts of the rural area (markets, workplaces) which could be useful, they also have a cargo area because usually people transport boxes, trolleys, etc you can't put on the seats. It's waaay cheaper than keeping a car running, I know because I have a car and rarely use it due to costs

Not all areas are created equal.  Mass transit options in Macon Georgia are nowhere near what they are in Ogden Utah.

[Jtalk4456]

On 10/1/2021 at 5:53 AM, oali24 said:

You read that right, I personally think that the hype doesn't make sense beyond simply the underlying technology being functional and achievable now. The reason why I think this is that when you think about it, self driving cars are like a band aid to a serious problem of private automobile transportation. Car culture sucks, and I say this as a former car guy, don't get me wrong cars are cool, and enthusiast car guys don't really make up much of the problem, and why this is an issue? They are horrifically inefficient, think about it, a bus is as long as about 3 sedans/2.25 SUVs but those might be able to seat a maximum of about 15 people people respectively, a bus can take at least 25 people and usually way more than that, you see the issue here? self driving cars would still be liable to the same efficiency constraints as non self driving cars, a properly thought out network of public transportation would always have more capacity and more efficiently service an even moderately dense urban area (yes I know rural areas are different and cars may be required in those situations), and I know that some people will say that self driving cars would enable higher capacity by banning non autonomous vehicles, big data, AI, 5G, etc... and let's say for the sake of this argument, any theoretical technology can be achieved practially and would make meaningful improvements, sure, but why does this only apply to inefficient private car transportation? why not to the already efficient buses, trains, trams, etc.. you could apply the same technology to public transportation and make it even more efficient as it starts from a position of already being more efficient, I struggle to see how anything being proposed couldn't be applied to public, hell, it could be easier, recently in my city Amman they opened up a bus rapid transit (BRT) system that is basically a bus with it's own road that is separate from private cars and I've gone on it and it honestly cuts travel time between different of parts of Amman in half, Governments could easily and quickly implement new technologies and policies without having to answer to automobile owners. It just seems a bit weird that people are so hyped over what is basically a highly advanced, rubber tired (don't forget that metal wheels on metal are more efficient), horseless carriage and we should maybe look beyond simply advancing a 140 year old technology that was invented when steam was still the main way of producing power.

While I can agree that the world is too focused on individual cars, I don't think by your own argument that self driving isn't the solution. you're arguing individual cars vs mass transit. That's a great argument to have, but that has nothing to do with whether self driving is good or bad. Self driving can be applied to mass transit too. Self driving is statistically far safer, so there's no reason to call self driving a poor solution. We still need some semblance of individual cars because not everyone lives by a bus stop. To fix that and have a more local mass transit system connecting to larger nodes, you'd need a massive overhaul of the current land use. You'd have to destroy countless roads and bridges, and houses and schools to completely rebuild in a way that would be more efficient for mass transit. Once can argue that massive overhaul needed might be as or more damaging to the environment than the cars you want to remove. Environmentally, if we can have self driving electric cars and a power grid using renewables, then the cars are not a real problem anymore.

[BuckGup]

I have yet to hear anyone opposed to high speed rail in America. The only ones opposing it are the car and airline companies. Being able to not own a car would be a luxury 

[Donut417]

8 minutes ago, BuckGup said:

I have yet to hear anyone opposed to high speed rail in America. The only ones opposing it are the car and airline companies. Being able to not own a car would be a luxury 

The issue is it would be difficult to run high speed rail. You cant use the current infrastructure as that has slow moving freight trains on it, also the tracks are owned by private companies. It would be a pain to find land to build new tracks on. I mean the government can do emanate domain, but people could be opposed, plus at least in Michigan the government has to pay like 125 or 150% of the value of the property they are seizing. 

[thrasher_565]

ether there will be lanes or hyways for self driving cars, cars will be for the rich, and the poor will get everything delivered.  you will most likely see self driving buses and trucks first before cars thow but it will be some time before that happens as most likely you still have a driver just not driving lintel people get comfortable with the idea of no driver.

[Donut417]

7 hours ago, thrasher_565 said:

and the poor will get everything delivered

The poor still have to get to work. Busses only work in City centers. In the Subs and Rural areas you dont have that services and its nearly impossible to add those services without great cost. 

[wasab]

Alternatives are horses

[oali24]

1 minute ago, wasab said:

Alternatives are horses

A car is just a horseless carriage, with all our technological advancement and capacity for innovation is "high tech horseless carriage" really all humanity is capable of.

[ki8aras]

i hope you guys know that car-centric cities arent really a thing outside the us(and maybe canada), or in other words, most of europe public transportation and/or biking/walking are a big thing even in countries with a relatively weak economy like greece

[IPD]

On 10/2/2021 at 11:39 PM, Donut417 said:

The issue is it would be difficult to run high speed rail. You cant use the current infrastructure as that has slow moving freight trains on it, also the tracks are owned by private companies. It would be a pain to find land to build new tracks on. I mean the government can do emanate domain, but people could be opposed, plus at least in Michigan the government has to pay like 125 or 150% of the value of the property they are seizing. 

Worse.  You'll get the NIMBY's out in force.  And you'll get the same tired arguments about how wind-turbines kill wildlife....with how high-speed trains kill wildlife.

[IPD]

19 hours ago, ki8aras said:

i hope you guys know that car-centric cities arent really a thing outside the us(and maybe canada), or in other words, most of europe public transportation and/or biking/walking are a big thing even in countries with a relatively weak economy like greece

True.  But perhaps the best comparison is why ISP offerings in the USA are also substantially different from Europe, most of Asia, etc.  Population density.

 

If you live in high population areas, you can get access to fiber and the best ISP speeds (not to mention actual 5g coverage).  But then you have the midwest...and good freaking luck getting those things.

[tkitch]

I drive a 40 mile commute (counter commute) each day.

 

If I want to take "mass transit" I need to plan nearly 2 hours each way for it.  Hell no. 

[oali24]

1 hour ago, tkitch said:

I drive a 40 mile commute (counter commute) each day.

 

If I want to take "mass transit" I need to plan nearly 2 hours each way for it.  Hell no. 

mass transit would probably be much faster if implemented well, again it depends on what sort of area you live in.

[tkitch]

Just now, oali24 said:

mass transit would probably be much faster if implemented well, again it depends on what sort of area you live in.

I live right next to boston, but my commute would not be heavily trafficed.  

[Ydfhlx]

On 10/1/2021 at 11:53 AM, oali24 said:

You read that right, I personally think that the hype doesn't make sense beyond simply the underlying technology being functional and achievable now. The reason why I think this is that when you think about it, self driving cars are like a band aid to a serious problem of private automobile transportation. Car culture sucks, and I say this as a former car guy, don't get me wrong cars are cool, and enthusiast car guys don't really make up much of the problem, and why this is an issue? They are horrifically inefficient, think about it, a bus is as long as about 3 sedans/2.25 SUVs but those might be able to seat a maximum of about 15 people people respectively, a bus can take at least 25 people and usually way more than that, you see the issue here? self driving cars would still be liable to the same efficiency constraints as non self driving cars, a properly thought out network of public transportation would always have more capacity and more efficiently service an even moderately dense urban area (yes I know rural areas are different and cars may be required in those situations), and I know that some people will say that self driving cars would enable higher capacity by banning non autonomous vehicles, big data, AI, 5G, etc... and let's say for the sake of this argument, any theoretical technology can be achieved practially and would make meaningful improvements, sure, but why does this only apply to inefficient private car transportation? why not to the already efficient buses, trains, trams, etc.. you could apply the same technology to public transportation and make it even more efficient as it starts from a position of already being more efficient, I struggle to see how anything being proposed couldn't be applied to public, hell, it could be easier, recently in my city Amman they opened up a bus rapid transit (BRT) system that is basically a bus with it's own road that is seperate from private cars and I've gone on it and it honestly cuts travel time between different of parts of Amman in half, Governments could easily and quickly implement new technologies and policies without having to answer to automobile owners. It just seems a bit weird that people are so hyped over what is basically a highly advanced, rubber tired (don't forget that metal wheels on metal are more efficient), horseless carriage and we should maybe look beyond simply advancing a 140 year old technology that was invented when steam was still the main way of producing power.

For people living outside the city, going to city center takes about 30 minutes by car. Same trip by bus takes about 1,5 hour and the bus is only once per hour.

 

Going on holidays in an issue too. This year trains in my country banned taking bikes on trains to most popular bike area. It's car or nothing.

 

Cars ain't going anywhere.

[YoungBlade]

I've never understood the mindset that somehow we either have to all have cars or all cars have to go. Humans can, in fact, specialize based on the environments we find ourselves in.

 

At least in the US, people who live in the suburbs or rural areas need a car. People who live in cities do not. That's actually okay.

 

Have you ever lived in suburban or rural America? I would guess not based on the way you talk about cars.

 

With all due respect, having a car is amazing and, for a comfortable life here, necessary. 

 

I can just go get groceries when I need to. No dealing with bus schedules or worrying about whether I can carry my groceries for several blocks without my arms giving out or the bags breaking. Not that there are any buses in my town anyway, but even if they existed, it would suck in comparison.

 

My car costs me about $400 a month all together. An Uber ride runs $15+ around here. Since I work full time, it would cost me a minimum of $30 a day, 25 days a month, to just go to work. I come out way ahead with my car. Not to mention, I'm in control, and not relying on a stranger to get me to work on time.

 

It's also essential for longer trips. I can go visit a friend on the other side of the state without wasting hours just waiting for the next train or bus to arrive at the connecting station. I once considered taking the bus because my old car was getting unreliable, but I didn't bother, because it would have taken literally the entire day, dawn to dusk, 15+ hours, just to get there, instead of 2.5 hours.

 

If you truly dont need a car, that's great. You're probably saving a lot of money. However, I don't have that option where I live, because the alternatives either non-existent, more expensive, or endlessly less convenient.

 

TL;DR - Where you live is not the whole world. Some people need cars, others don't. Don't go dumping on "car culture" just because you don't understand the needs of people in other places.