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…
Why driverless cars may mean jams tomorrow
11–20 of 77 posts
Re: Why driverless cars may mean jams tomorrow
#12This 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…
Re: Why driverless cars may mean jams tomorrow
#13Re: Why driverless cars may mean jams tomorrow
#14Re: Why driverless cars may mean jams tomorrow
#15However 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
#16This 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
#17This 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…
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
#18This 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…
Its like a psychological formula for making most/many people uncomfortable.
Re: Why driverless cars may mean jams tomorrow
#19Earlier 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.
Re: Why driverless cars may mean jams tomorrow
#20This 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.
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).