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

[JZStudios]

On 10/1/2021 at 4:46 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.

If I take a bus from the downtown station to the nearest stop by my house, which is like 2 miles away, it takes 2-3 hours. I can drive there in 20 minutes. Hell, even my school bus still got me home in 40 minutes and I was the last stop.

Trains would be cool, but no way in hell is that being set up when we can't even drive across town effectively. The only rail line we have is cargo and it's 100 feet away from the freeway the entire line.

[JZStudios]

1 hour ago, YoungBlade said:

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.

The problem is in the US the inner city transport still is suckass outside NY and Chicago. I don't know about elsewhere, but here the bus is the only public transport and there's literally stops about every 500 feet, not to mention the usual traffic and lights. We're not a big city, but LA is, and also has dogshit public transport. So even large cities in the US still need personal transport, and this is the only reason self driving cars make any sense if they aren't go to rip up roads and do a better public transit system.

[IPD]

2 hours ago, JZStudios said:

If I take a bus from the downtown station to the nearest stop by my house, which is like 2 miles away, it takes 2-3 hours. I can drive there in 20 minutes. Hell, even my school bus still got me home in 40 minutes and I was the last stop.

Trains would be cool, but no way in hell is that being set up when we can't even drive across town effectively. The only rail line we have is cargo and it's 100 feet away from the freeway the entire line.

Yep.  Could get from my house to the airport in SLC in 30m.  would take about 2 hours to get there with train/bus.

[Mark Kaine]

There's a hype? Most people absolutely hate the idea - usually for no good reasons. Even though the tech makes a lot of sense and things safer.

 

Regardless, you will be driving an automatic car as soon it's widely available, unless you are a trillionaire insurance companies won't give you a choice really. 

 

 

[Quackers101]

there is a lot to like about "self driving" or rather driving assist.

there is just things we can't do as well, and how much data a computer can gather. even though it might gather wrong data.

 

Something is a big gripe with elon musk and tesla, like Louis Rossmann pointed out in his video... one of the marketing claims for some of their cars are "full self driving cars", which is mostly BS and a dangerous marketing claim... maybe illegal as well. As someone also pointed out in this thread, the action of tesla messing with CRITICAL features that can impact AI driving and the safety of driving. While there is a lot to like and dislike about tesla and elon musk, they can cause a lot of problems.

[Donut417]

2 minutes ago, Quackers101 said:

there is a lot to like about "self driving" or rather driving assist.

there is just things we can't do as well, and how much data a computer can gather. even though it might gather wrong data.

I think for driverless cars infrastructure will need to be update. I think we will need some kind of smart road system that can talk to cars and ensure the AI's know the conditions on the road. I think that cars will have to communicate together to figure out what each is going to do. Also with all the bad press Tesla keeps getting for is "Driver Assist" system, its just going to push back acceptance and Government approval. 

 

At the end of the day, it will likely be decades before driverless cars are available. Doesn't matter how many companies claim to have a system. Regulators have to approve such systems to be used. We all know the government takes forever to approve things, they like to be sure about safety. 

[Quackers101]

15 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

I think for driverless cars infrastructure will need to be update. I think we will need some kind of smart road system that can talk to cars and ensure the AI's know the conditions on the road. I think that cars will have to communicate together to figure out what each is going to do. Also with all the bad press Tesla keeps getting for is "Driver Assist" system, its just going to push back acceptance and Government approval.

there is a lot of things they can do, including road conditions. although some has to improve a lot.

car network has been talked about a lot, but I guess a problem on having such a network on the ground unlike airplanes. also if there would be issues or applied false data to the network. however a network could help a lot in identifing problems between cars. from crashing, about to crash and if control is lost on the car which means all 10+ cars after will know about this before the drivers know. either it being tires slipping, out of fuel, crash and the crash zone etc. no more multiple car crashes. unless the whole network fails or by terror groups.

[atxcyclist]

A lot of the US would not be habitable without private vehicles. Outside of a few metro areas, there's not a system that could get people to work, the store, friends/relatives houses, and etc. The old joke here in Texas is that we measure distance in the number of hours it takes to get there, and it's true. From my house, it's roughly 400 miles / 640 kilometers in any direction to leave the state; Getting anywhere outside of a dense urban center without a personal vehicle, would be impossible with how everything is spread-out.

[thrasher_565]

14 hours 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. 

buses can do 100 you no? maybe even 110

[thrasher_565]

12 hours ago, oali24 said:

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

there use to be good transit.. called a tram. but it was ripped out in fave of gas powered buses.

 

there use to be rail too

[thrasher_565]

2 hours ago, Quackers101 said:

there is a lot to like about "self driving" or rather driving assist.

there is just things we can't do as well, and how much data a computer can gather. even though it might gather wrong data.

 

Something is a big gripe with elon musk and tesla, like Louis Rossmann pointed out in his video... one of the marketing claims for some of their cars are "full self driving cars", which is mostly BS and a dangerous marketing claim... maybe illegal as well. As someone also pointed out in this thread, the action of tesla messing with CRITICAL features that can impact AI driving and the safety of driving. While there is a lot to like and dislike about tesla and elon musk, they can cause a lot of problems.

i be-lave it was turned off as people were abusing it. like playing chess while driving...

[thrasher_565]

2 hours ago, Donut417 said:

I think for driverless cars infrastructure will need to be update. I think we will need some kind of smart road system that can talk to cars and ensure the AI's know the conditions on the road. I think that cars will have to communicate together to figure out what each is going to do. Also with all the bad press Tesla keeps getting for is "Driver Assist" system, its just going to push back acceptance and Government approval. 

 

At the end of the day, it will likely be decades before driverless cars are available. Doesn't matter how many companies claim to have a system. Regulators have to approve such systems to be used. We all know the government takes forever to approve things, they like to be sure about safety. 

the cars already do this...its not will it dot it it dose it already.

[thrasher_565]

well as it sits there alot of vacet lots, and alot can work from home and we no food delivery will be a thing for the poor. going to a store will be for the rich. so if you cant afford a car then how can you drive one? shur there are other options like a scooter or an endero but that probably still cost more then a buses pass.

 

we no the gas engine is banned in 10 years so..

 

prices are going up and there no end in site. food prices never drop so...

Edited October 5, 2021 by thrasher_565

[atxcyclist]

2 hours ago, thrasher_565 said:

buses can do 100 you no? maybe even 110

Busses have routes, they don't necessarily go where you need to get to. That's the main problem with busses and commuter rail outside of dense urban areas, too many people needing to get too many places for there to be routes and stops that work for everyone. I have to take 15-20 minutes to cycle to the bus stop, hope there's space on the front of the bus for my bicycle (which there normally isn't on the first so 30 minute wait for the next one), bus 45 minutes through a lot of stops, then unload my bicycle and ride another 20 minutes to get to work. Or, I can get in my car or get on my motorcycle and be there in roughly 30 minutes.

[oali24]

15 hours ago, Ydfhlx said:

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.

I'm not saying that they are going anywhere, but clearly in most developed countries the majority live in urban/exurban areas where public transport can be much faster, I'm simply suggesting that transport solution should designed around the facts.

[oali24]

10 hours ago, YoungBlade said:

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.

I'm not trying to say that you don't need a car, I need a car to get around too, "car culture" is just kind of bad in that it really pushes inefficient, ineffective solutions on people who don't benefit from it. I live in a suburb of Amman and its honestly dangerous to walk around because of how car focused the people who built the roads were, it feels like your going to get run over when you're not in a car, there aren't even sidewalks so you're just walking on the road.

[Radium_Angel]

On 10/2/2021 at 11:27 PM, 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 biggest issue is where to build the rail, all of the land in large cities are already built out, with homes, businesses, etc. The best you could get without upsetting a lot of people, is a ring to a bus terminal, which would then take you sort of where you need to go.

If time isn't an issue, this works (see Dallas Texas for a good example) but if getting to your office in the morning requires careful planning to drive to the rail station, take the rail, wait for bus, then walk from bus stop to your work, it's gonna eat up some time.

Those who live in rural areas ad commute to work (me, for example) could potentially double their commute time...no thanks.

 

I'm not against mass transit, far from it, I grew up in Europe where it was build alongside the growth of the cities, but in america where it's an afterthought, it will be foreever a problem 

[Donut417]

7 hours ago, thrasher_565 said:

the cars already do this...its not will it dot it it dose it already.

So the road communicates with the car? Yeah, not here in Michigan. Most roads here are 20+ years old and are falling apart from neglect. Yes, I know the cars have sensors and radars. But Im talking about sensors on the road specifically. Also Im talking about a network that cars communicate with other cars and the road on. They DONT currently do that. 

[oali24]

11 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

There's a hype? Most people absolutely hate the idea - usually for no good reasons. Even though the tech makes a lot of sense and things safer.

 

Regardless, you will be driving an automatic car as soon it's widely available, unless you are a trillionaire insurance companies won't give you a choice really. 

 

 

That's if they're safer, which is not certain, techy people seem to think that a machine is guaranteed to do a better job, ironically in the assembling of electronics, people have to screw in pcb's because machines tend to be to screw them in too hard and damage them.

[Mihle]

I know plenty of places where when rail is built, they just buy the property where needed. Also, if it's through cities, you can build it underground.

[LAwLz]

I feel like OP is presenting us with a false dilemma here.

Mass transportation becoming the standard does not in any way shape or form prevent self driving cars from being the standard as well. All those buses and goods transports? Those can be self driving even in some utopian world where nobody owned a private car.

 

 

 

39 minutes ago, oali24 said:

That's if they're safer, which is not certain, techy people seem to think that a machine is guaranteed to do a better job, ironically in the assembling of electronics, people have to screw in pcb's because machines tend to be to screw them in too hard and damage them.

Our current "self driving" cars are significantly more safer than human drivers. At least if you look at miles driven vs accidents, and compare that to human drivers.

People tend to overestimate how good humans are at driving (hint: there are over 17,000 car accidents every single day in the US alone).

Accidents caused by "self driving" cars gets a ton of attention.

 

It's kind of like with air travel. Waaay safer than driving a car, but people are generally more afraid of flying.

[tkitch]

10 hours ago, thrasher_565 said:

buses can do 100 you no? maybe even 110

And my car can go faster than that.  What the hell does that have to do with anything even remotely related to the conversation?

 

I Drive a reverse commute.  Meaning:  The opposite direction of most commuters at the time.  

 

My commute has very very few people who make it at the times I do.  Therefore large transportation busses would be very ineffecient for that route.

[tkitch]

1 hour ago, oali24 said:

That's if they're safer, which is not certain, techy people seem to think that a machine is guaranteed to do a better job, ironically in the assembling of electronics, people have to screw in pcb's because machines tend to be to screw them in too hard and damage them.

If I need to trust a person to do a job safely and repeatedly vs a computer to do a job safely and repeatedly?

 

I'll trust the computer every damned day of the week.

 

Why?  Because we can run diagnostics on computers and get valid results, and even see problems.  That type of diagnostic doesn't exist for humans.  

 

Computers also are very unlikely to lose track of the road because someone posted on FB.  Humans?  Well....

[Mark Kaine]

17 hours ago, YoungBlade said:

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.

While I think thats a subject on its own -- i recently (unsurprisingly) learned that American cities are build around car transportation and they basically made it difficult to "not" go by car on purpose (on that note NYC is certainly an exception,  been there and public transport is excellent, just like in most European cities i know) its safe to say the situation is probably much worse in rural areas -- and I also recently learned about something called "jaywalking" which honestly did surprise me, which was actually "invented" by the car industry,  which honestly did surprise me... as a European this is unthinkable,  pedestrians always have priority here, its the cars that have to give way -- its just a completey different,  may I say more logical,  "human friendly " mindset... However,  i read this thread and I don't really get how the discussion went from "self driving cars are bad" to basically "i live in a rural area and i need a car!!!!" ... those two things are like two completely different subjects and going by the headline "i need a car" isnt the subject of this thread,  there's no reason to not to have a car just because its self driving and allegedly far safer than a car driven by a human (who aren't really good at this anyway, way too emotional and often careless/ selfish)

 

Almost every post seems to completely misunderstand the very concept of self driving cars... (for some weird reason,  probably have to blame a certain batshit insane billionaire for that I guess...)

 

1 hour ago, oali24 said:

That's if they're safer, which is not certain, techy people seem to think that a machine is guaranteed to do a better job

 I wasn't sold on the idea either tbh - until I saw this video: 

 

 

(yes, its "sponsored" and I believe there are still issues which he doesn't mention, nonetheless the concept is completely sound, and the statistics kinda speak for themselves)

[oali24]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

I feel like OP is presenting us with a false dilemma here.

Mass transportation becoming the standard does not in any way shape or form prevent self driving cars from being the standard as well. All those buses and goods transports? Those can be self driving even in some utopian world where nobody owned a private car.

Yeah, you're not wrong, we absolutely could apply self driving technology to mass transit, it just seems odd that people are interested in billions being spent (both in dollars and miles) when we could have just invested in good public transit to decrease congestion, the technology is impressive but kind of overkill for the issue at hand which is congestion.

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Our current "self driving" cars are significantly more safer than human drivers. At least if you look at miles driven vs accidents, and compare that to human drivers.

People tend to overestimate how good humans are at driving (hint: there are over 17,000 car accidents every single day in the US alone).

Accidents caused by "self driving" cars gets a ton of attention.

 

It's kind of like with air travel. Waaay safer than driving a car, but people are generally more afraid of flying.

I don't dispute that it could or even can be safer than humans, but we seem to assume that the only way to fix such an issue is to completely remove the human, we could just raise the standards for being allowed a driver's license, long haul truck drivers rarely ever crash because of how much training they undergo, I'm not trying to say that self driving cars would be an improvement, but that we're adapting technology to act like a human when can leverage technology more effectively,