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

[Mark Kaine]

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

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

The primary idea of self driving cars currently is about safety,  because it would seem they're doing a much better job at driving a car safely than humans (as long the cars are not made by tesla i guess) and congestion,  because self driving cars would automatically be much more efficient than humans driving a car and as such would come with advantages for the environment as well. 

Long term the idea of course is that most cars would use alternative fuels, like solar, hydrogen, etc. which, hopefully would be beneficial for the environment,  including human health also.

Even more long term its also possible this would be used for something like car sharing pools, think about it, most people just need their cars to go to work or shopping,  rest of the day the car just sits around,  a self driving car would make sharing much more easier for obvious reasons, for those who want to be even more efficient,  it would also reduce costs,  obviously. 

 

So I think your premise that this is a solution for the wrong problem is incorrect in my opinion,  and you haven't brought up sufficient arguments why this wouldn't be a "solution" ( for a general improvement of life quality , transportation and also for the environment) 

As I already mentioned i don't really see the relevancy to "public transport" at least not as a reason to say self driving cars wouldn't be a "solution".

 

Its a more realistic scenario than "fixing" traditional public transport for sure!

 

@tkitch there you go, subject: self driving cars, why they are the solution to a lot of problems! 

 

 

Edit: 

On 10/4/2021 at 5:21 PM, oali24 said:

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

and I see this was already addressed but I want to emphasize that the infrastructure for "self driving cars" is mostly already in place, there aren't big issues with using streets that are already there, especially because as said better efficiency,  this would actually increase capacity without building new roads etc necessarily. 

 

Public transportation on the other hand,  building new railways etc? Forget it that ship has already long sailed in many regions/ countries... it is often not feasible.  And in countries that already have a good public transportation system (like Germany,  Switzerland, some Asian countries...) its often also not really feasible to make it even bigger, there are often space issues and natural restrictions  to increase capacity .

 

 

For example in my region public transport isn't "great" (I think trains, busses only come every 40 minutes or so... ) its also sparsely populated , but nonetheless many people use these options to just go to the next couple of towns for work etc, if you know the schedule that makes a lot of sense actually because its quick / and almost stress free.

 

The vast majority however goes by car (ironically even though here's a lot of nature around, practical  roads for bicycles, pedestrians, etc. between towns are almost none existent...) i bet a lot of these people , and that doesn't just go for my region, would love having a more efficient,  self driving car... this is the future,  I almost want to say resistance is futile.

 

 

 

 

 

[Jtalk4456]

OP: Self driving cars aren't a good solution
*uses arguments for public transportation to argue that cars not wrecking isn't a good solution despite those being two entirely different topics. 

Forum: Devolves into a conversation on public transportation

Me: That got deRAILed fast!
OK I'll leave now

[Donut417]

8 hours ago, milkerfish said:

Public transit can work amazingly well in suburbs, Toronto and it's suburbs have a fantastic suburban bus network that provides frequenct connectivity at all hours.

Who owns the busses? Who pays the drivers? How would someone who works 25 Miles away from home get to work? Who decides the routes and the stops? 

 

Busses dont work in all cities. Yeah if you live in Ann Arbor or Detroit it works. But when you get to smaller cities like mine, not so much. Plus someone has to pay. Most small cities are broke. Because when the Feds and state built the infrastructure when we started moving to suburbs they handed all the responsibilities for that said infrastructure to the local cities. infrastructure like roads last may 20 -30 years. Most cities dont have the tax revenue to fix the roads. So you expect them to buy busses and pay drivers. There are cities in Michigan who had to suspend bus service for schools because they cant find drivers. 

 

8 hours ago, milkerfish said:

Then invest in rail.

The US government does. Ever heard of Amtrak? Its mostly owned by the US government. If they didn't own majority of the shares we would not have passenger service. Further more, no one wants railroad tracks by their home. And more tracks would have to be built. Because the current rail system is privately owned by multiple companies. Amtrak is as the mercy of these said companies. Also you ever seen a car get hit by a train? Happens all the time, because people dont have patience to wait at crossings. 

[thrasher_565]

8 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

Yes, yes, he did, im just pointing out this has very little relevancy to how public transport works, and does indeed give the impression OP and others think ,self driving cars = public transport,  otherwise why even bring it up?

 

Seriously I'm not complaining per say, I'd just rather have discussed self driving car technology,  which is amazing (i even linked a video about development,  safety,  etc)

no we are just saying self driving will most likely benefit for public transport because of the loop it dose. and more likely have lanes detected too it.

 

you can still have a self driving car do everything a car can do now just wont be efficient lintel all cars are self driving... other contrarys have all ready self driving transport...so

 

most shipping yards are automation

Edited October 7, 2021 by thrasher_565

[oali24]

15 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

Public transportation on the other hand,  building new railways etc? Forget it that ship has already long sailed in many regions/ countries... it is often not feasible.  And in countries that already have a good public transportation system (like Germany,  Switzerland, some Asian countries...) its often also not really feasible to make it even bigger, there are often space issues and natural restrictions  to increase capacity .

It's called a bus, doesn't need rails.

[Mark Kaine]

8 hours ago, thrasher_565 said:

no we are just saying self driving will most likely benefit for public transport because of the loop it dose. and more likely have lanes detected too it.

 

you can still have a self driving car do everything a car can do now just wont be efficient lintel all cars are self driving... other contrarys have all ready self driving transport...so

Yes, of course,  planes can also land fully automatically etc, and you're right the "transition" phase will be the most difficult - probably none self driving cars would also require a transponder or something  - super easy in theory but implementation will be *very* difficult i suppose. 

 

 

[oali24]

Okay, I see that people like to say something along the lines of "bus for me takes x amount more than car" and sure, I'm not here to say your wrong when I don't even know where you live and what transport is like over there, but just think about this, if everyone around where you live had the exact same thought of "I'll take my car its faster" then unless you live in a very sparsely populated area, then it would probably take away any advantage as they add to congestion, I'm not saying cars have absolutely no place but when you plan with a focus on cars you create traffic problems, more highway=more traffic, don't believe me, as an example, the widest highway in the world in the US state of texas was built to decrease congestion and while congestion dropped in the first year after it was built congestion caught back up pretty quickly and eventually became even worse only a few years after its construction, here's a link.

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/3/3/the-fundamental-global-law-of-road-congestion

[Roswell]

On 10/1/2021 at 7:46 AM, 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. 

Most cities and suburban areas have their own regional rail. Amtrak exists to connect you to those regional systems.

 

Also, at least in the northeast where I am, suburban areas are heavily covered by public transport.

[Quackers101]

4 hours ago, oali24 said:

more highway=more traffic, don't believe me, as an example, the widest highway in the world in the US state of texas was built to decrease congestion and while congestion dropped in the first year after it was built congestion caught back up pretty quickly and eventually became even worse only a few years after its construction, here's a link.

Spoiler

"lane Mathematics and roundabouts" - Biffa 16% flow to 60% in the game

cities skylines, solving traffic. I mean its no different than traffic in NYC when there is a lot of car use?

 

as in every lane needs a goal and a purpose, if 1 or 2 can do it, then more will not add anything, than more confusion/cost to what it should do and might bring more conflict in design, like which lane goes where and do you need to cross 4 or even 6 lanes to get to the right one, doing dangerous crossings between a lot of vehicles?

https://youtu.be/3ucZNWYuFSA?t=122

just wish more roads had more side channels or road, for making space to emergancy vehicles etc, than some not needed extra road and road rage

[Mark Kaine]

5 hours ago, oali24 said:

Okay, I see that people like to say something along the lines of "bus for me takes x amount more than car" and sure, I'm not here to say your wrong when I don't even know where you live and what transport is like over there

That a start i guess... but do you still not realize self driving cars *are* the solution to the problem they're trying to solve?

You could at least change the title, it makes no sense.

 

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

 

 

"To what?"

 

 

 

[oali24]

On 10/10/2021 at 1:29 AM, Mark Kaine said:

That a start i guess... but do you still not realize self driving cars *are* the solution to the problem they're trying to solve?

You could at least change the title, it makes no sense.

 

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

 

 

"To what?"

 

 

 

to congestion and inefficient transport

[NineEyeRon]

Self driving cars make most sense when all cars drive themselves.
 

The other issue is people live right next to roads, ideally there would be more separation between people and cars, if we stopped cars going down our residential streets and only got in them on main roads with separation from cyclists and pedestrians it would be better.

 

Until that time there are some big issues to overcome.

[owwnoooo]

On 10/7/2021 at 3:53 AM, Donut417 said:

 If they didn't own majority of the shares we would not have passenger service. Further more, no one wants railroad tracks by their home.

I live 20 meters away from a railway line bruh and no one cares

 

[oali24]

2 hours ago, owwnoooo said:

I live 20 meters away from a railway line bruh and no one cares

 

couldn't you say the same about roads, hell I'm fairly sure that they found that living near a highway makes you more likely to die of lung and heart disease.

[Donut417]

4 hours ago, owwnoooo said:

I live 20 meters away from a railway line bruh and no one cares

 

Maybe not where you live. But people around me hate the railroad. Mainly because they block road access for hours on end. Plus it’s not that easy to acquire land. Yeah the government can take land at the expense of paying the owner of that land 125% of what it’s worth. Furthermore a project like this would have to be voted on. 

[Sharp_3yE]

What you're saying makes NO sense. 

 

There will be private ownership of cars, people owning cars as a Taxi/iber/lyft services, and public transportation just like today. Just all of them will be self driving. 

 

Sooo, what's the issue here?

[Sharp_3yE]

On 10/9/2021 at 10:33 AM, oali24 said:

Okay, I see that people like to say something along the lines of "bus for me takes x amount more than car" and sure, I'm not here to say your wrong when I don't even know where you live and what transport is like over there, but just think about this, if everyone around where you live had the exact same thought of "I'll take my car its faster" then unless you live in a very sparsely populated area, then it would probably take away any advantage as they add to congestion, I'm not saying cars have absolutely no place but when you plan with a focus on cars you create traffic problems, more highway=more traffic, don't believe me, as an example, the widest highway in the world in the US state of texas was built to decrease congestion and while congestion dropped in the first year after it was built congestion caught back up pretty quickly and eventually became even worse only a few years after its construction, here's a link.

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/3/3/the-fundamental-global-law-of-road-congestion

No, this is wrong. If all cars drive themselves then the cars would be very efficient and have almost no accidents. 

Second, people would probably car pool more cuz cars can just pick people up on their own. People might own less cars cuz why would you need 3 cars for 3 people if 1 car can pick up a person at any time on its own? 

Third, people would also use a bus service or taxi/uber/lift service and even with other people. 

 

Even if there was traffic, you're not driving so you can get work done in the car or do what ever. Take a nap? Play games? Watch movie? Idk! 

[Guest]

Self driving. 

Ups and Downs.

Goods and Bads.

 

BUT-

 

Government pushed EGR (emmisions) and then later After-Treatment systems (DEF system).

These technologies are be pushed by government.

 

When it comes to safety, DOT generally doesn't play around.

Growing up, Seat Belts where not a thing. Today, ticket.

Now, air bags and anti-lock brakes and Evap systems are standard equipment.

Any of the above with a fault, ABS SRS ect ect will not pass emissions (dot) examines in areas that require it. (generally big cities and suburbs)  The state will not let you keep registration on the vehicle. Now you're illegal. Repair the car....

 

That's just to give you a rough idea how it all comes into play.

If governments want self driving cars for DOT safety, then you will see this in your future. If you like it or not. It simply won't matter. 

 

 

[oali24]

36 minutes ago, Sharp_3yE said:

No, this is wrong. If all cars drive themselves then the cars would be very efficient and have almost no accidents. 

Second, people would probably car pool more cuz cars can just pick people up on their own. People might own less cars cuz why would you need 3 cars for 3 people if 1 car can pick up a person at any time on its own? 

Third, people would also use a bus service or taxi/uber/lift service and even with other people. 

 

Even if there was traffic, you're not driving so you can get work done in the car or do what ever. Take a nap? Play games? Watch movie? Idk! 

But you realise that that would require banning all non self driving cars to work, is that really a worthwhile sacrifice when public transit already rarely has accidents and is very efficient because a bus requires less space to carry a lot more people then a couple of cars.

[Sharp_3yE]

32 minutes ago, oali24 said:

But you realise that that would require banning all non self driving cars to work, is that really a worthwhile sacrifice when public transit already rarely has accidents and is very efficient because a bus requires less space to carry a lot more people then a couple of cars.

No, it doesn't require banning anything. Doesn't have to. 

 

Why drive when a vehicle will do it for you and in the mean time you can do other things? It would be more efficient for cars to drive themselves. The speed limit can be increased cuz cars would know what to do and communicate with each other and drive the most efficiently. 

 

Fist off, plublic transit is one option. And busses itself would become more efficient as well with autonomous driving. 

 

Just because it's safer now doesn't mean we should keep it the way it is when it can be better. 

Thats silly. 

 

Thats like saying "My horse and plow are already pretty efficient. I don't need a tractor that would be more efficient." That's SILLY  

[oali24]

55 minutes ago, Sharp_3yE said:

No, it doesn't require banning anything. Doesn't have to. 

 

Why drive when a vehicle will do it for you and in the mean time you can do other things? It would be more efficient for cars to drive themselves. The speed limit can be increased cuz cars would know what to do and communicate with each other and drive the most efficiently. 

 

Fist off, plublic transit is one option. And busses itself would become more efficient as well with autonomous driving. 

 

Just because it's safer now doesn't mean we should keep it the way it is when it can be better. 

Thats silly. 

 

Thats like saying "My horse and plow are already pretty efficient. I don't need a tractor that would be more efficient." That's SILLY  

No, its more like "my tractor is efficient, why do I need to sell the entire farm and all my belongings to get some robot tractor when I could have just modified the tractor with a more efficient motor"

[Sharp_3yE]

10 minutes ago, oali24 said:

No, its more like "my tractor is efficient, why do I need to sell the entire farm and all my belongings to get some robot tractor when I could have just modified the tractor with a more efficient motor"

LOL what? Sell the farm? 

 

Dude, if he could buy a new tractor that plowed for him, he litterally could do other things and be more productive. 

 

You're really confused here about what automated vehicles will do. 

[oali24]

13 minutes ago, Sharp_3yE said:

LOL what? Sell the farm? 

 

Dude, if he could buy a new tractor that plowed for him, he litterally could do other things and be more productive. 

 

You're really confused here about what automated vehicles will do. 

No I'm not, I'm saying that it seems weird to spend so much money on autonomous vehicles when we could just invest a fraction in better public transport.

[Sharp_3yE]

1 minute ago, oali24 said:

No I'm not, I'm saying that it seems weird to spend so much money on autonomous vehicles when we could just invest a fraction in better public transport.

Thats completely unrelated. 

 

Cars, busses, trucks, semis all driving themselves. 

 

Thats like saying "we should get batter publish transportation instead of upgrading the stereo system in cars."

 

These are not related. 

[oali24]

7 minutes ago, Sharp_3yE said:

Thats completely unrelated. 

 

Cars, busses, trucks, semis all driving themselves. 

 

Thats like saying "we should get batter publish transportation instead of upgrading the stereo system in cars."

 

These are not related. 

Yes they are, they are both proposed solutions to congestion, but proper Urban planning is much cheaper than developing expensive, futuristic technology.