Live data from Hacker News

Why driverless cars may mean jams tomorrow

economist.com

11–20 of 77 posts

Re: Why driverless cars may mean jams tomorrow

#11

This article seems to offer a somewhat limited vision. Personal, driverless cars may mean as many jams as today. What about "ride-sharing" driverless systems, where many people share the same car/minivan in an automated fashion, reducing the number of vehicles on the road and the need for parking? That would make, IMHO, the best compromise between mass transit (effective, but inflexible to people needs) and personal…

[deleted]

Re: Why driverless cars may mean jams tomorrow

#12

This article seems to offer a somewhat limited vision. Personal, driverless cars may mean as many jams as today. What about "ride-sharing" driverless systems, where many people share the same car/minivan in an automated fashion, reducing the number of vehicles on the road and the need for parking? That would make, IMHO, the best compromise between mass transit (effective, but inflexible to people needs) and personal…

Nobody really likes ride sharing, though. That's why people drive in the first place.

Re: Why driverless cars may mean jams tomorrow

#15
Driverless cars will bring safer roads in terms of exposure measures like deaths/injuries per 1 Million/km. They will also lower the monetary cost of transporting a person per km due to reduction in fleet size and optimised driving and resource allocation. This will benefit nations and economies in providing more economic growth, employment etc by moving more people and goods over the same road network and a smaller fleet.

However they won't solve the fundamental problem of roads being a scarce resource that lack a price signal so the demand is infinite. If you set the price too low you get congestion. If hamburgers were free, everyone would want one and a queue will develop, so instead of paying money you pay with time. It's just the same as "free" parking where you pay time instead of money. Obligatory mention of Donald Shoup and "The High Price of Free Parking".

Re: Why driverless cars may mean jams tomorrow

#16

This article seems to offer a somewhat limited vision. Personal, driverless cars may mean as many jams as today. What about "ride-sharing" driverless systems, where many people share the same car/minivan in an automated fashion, reducing the number of vehicles on the road and the need for parking? That would make, IMHO, the best compromise between mass transit (effective, but inflexible to people needs) and personal…

Nobody really likes ride sharing, though. That's why people drive in the first place.

I assume one interpretation of 'ride sharing' is sharing the same pool of cars, but not the same car at the same time.

Re: Why driverless cars may mean jams tomorrow

#17

This article seems to offer a somewhat limited vision. Personal, driverless cars may mean as many jams as today. What about "ride-sharing" driverless systems, where many people share the same car/minivan in an automated fashion, reducing the number of vehicles on the road and the need for parking? That would make, IMHO, the best compromise between mass transit (effective, but inflexible to people needs) and personal…

You mean sharing a ride like say a big, long vehicle with lots of seats that visits a number of stops on a route? Yeah, that would be a great idea. We could improve this even further by giving the ride-share vehicle it's own lane, then turn both the wheels and the road surface into metal to reduce friction. BRB, going to the patent office...

Not to be too snarky, but as a non-american it has been amazing to watch the internet debate on the future applications of automated cars these last few years. Slowly but surely people are starting to figure out that public transport is a good thing.

Re: Why driverless cars may mean jams tomorrow

#18

This article seems to offer a somewhat limited vision. Personal, driverless cars may mean as many jams as today. What about "ride-sharing" driverless systems, where many people share the same car/minivan in an automated fashion, reducing the number of vehicles on the road and the need for parking? That would make, IMHO, the best compromise between mass transit (effective, but inflexible to people needs) and personal…

That's literally dropping all the scale benefits of mass transit, while adding the cons of being in close proximity with a sufficiently small number of proximal strangers to be uncomfortably intimate and not-lost-in-the-crowd/anonymous.

Its like a psychological formula for making most/many people uncomfortable.

Re: Why driverless cars may mean jams tomorrow

#19
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody really likes ride sharing, though. That's why people drive in the first place.

I assume one interpretation of 'ride sharing' is sharing the same pool of cars, but not the same car at the same time.

May be. But it may be that we share the same car/minivan.

Re: Why driverless cars may mean jams tomorrow

#20

This article seems to offer a somewhat limited vision. Personal, driverless cars may mean as many jams as today. What about "ride-sharing" driverless systems, where many people share the same car/minivan in an automated fashion, reducing the number of vehicles on the road and the need for parking? That would make, IMHO, the best compromise between mass transit (effective, but inflexible to people needs) and personal…

Nobody really likes ride sharing, though. That's why people drive in the first place.

Do people really dislike ride sharing more than public transport? Why? I dislike public transport when it's ineffective.

It takes me about 45 minutes to get to work by walking + train, and there's about one train every hour (less often in the morning), so it's inflexible.

If I go by bike, it's about 55 minutes (but then I need a shower, which can take a bit more if your company doesn't provide the right facilities). I'd say that the time saving for a train is ridiculous if we factor in the price for the railway system.

If I go by car it's 25 minutes, but then I need to find a parking spot, and usually pay for it.

If I could rideshare to work and just be dropped in front of my office, and forget about it, with a price on par (even slightly higher) than my car ride, I'd pick that solution most of the times (I'd still ride my bike for training that's it).

Post reply on HN