61–70 of 91 posts
However, it is exactly as it should be. I applaud them for daring to be dumb and focusing on the easy parts of the problem first. I think this will catch on and get better slowly.
IMHO this is how self driving applications should start. Driving on the US freeways (say between LA and SF) isn't about your driving skills. It's mostly just about trying not to fall asleep. And machines are way better than humans at this! Even outside the US, there are many areas (like UAE), which have amazing highways, sparse traffic and there isn't rail/air connectivity to some places. Self driving "shuttles" seem…
In general, highways seem like a pretty logical starting point. There are some potential complications like car accidents and debris but they seem far more tractable than random pedestrians, cyclists, and all the complex driving behavior on city streets resulting from traffic lights, trucks stopped to make deliveries, etc. etc. It doesn't enable end-to-end autonomous taxis, so you need a sober, licensed driver in the…
Everyone is talking about autonomous cars but what about autonomous trains? The problematics of autonomous trains are vastly simpler than autonomous cars. Trains move in restricted paths (tracks), trains should stop only at specific places, trains meet other trains in such a few possible places, and so on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Self-driving people talk about this because, even if the tech worked, the costs of the hardware involved is currently so prohibitively high (~$100,000s per car) that a taxi model is the only one that makes sense.
In which case the capital costs of the vehicle will wipe out a good chunk of the cost savings from removing a human. Therefore, there will be no mass shift away from car ownership.
Everyone is talking about autonomous cars but what about autonomous trains? The problematics of autonomous trains are vastly simpler than autonomous cars. Trains move in restricted paths (tracks), trains should stop only at specific places, trains meet other trains in such a few possible places, and so on.
Everyone is talking about autonomous cars but what about autonomous trains? The problematics of autonomous trains are vastly simpler than autonomous cars. Trains move in restricted paths (tracks), trains should stop only at specific places, trains meet other trains in such a few possible places, and so on.
Honestly those ‘features’ of trains have all been achieveable on pneumatic tires for decades. The advantages of trains are all limitations actually. On the other hand, limitations are good from a design perspective, improves focus and prevents feature bloat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In general, highways seem like a pretty logical starting point. There are some potential complications like car accidents and debris but they seem far more tractable than random pedestrians, cyclists, and all the complex driving behavior on city streets resulting from traffic lights, trucks stopped to make deliveries, etc. etc. It doesn't enable end-to-end autonomous taxis, so you need a sober, licensed driver in the…
> especially among people who really want to get out of car ownership I have brought this up before and I still do not understand how or why this idea is so tightly coupled to fully autonomous vehicles. I don't see how removing a human driver from a car service is going to change the dynamics enough to drive legions of people who own cars to get rid of them if they haven't done so already. The only friction a human d…
An auto-car just sitting costs almost nothing per hour (capital cost, but very little other cost), so you can have lots of them everywhere. Pickup time can be very short. I almost never used taxis in my town because of long and unreliable pickup times. Use uber all the time now. I still own a car, but if I did not have off street parking like many in my neighborhood, getting rid of it would be a no-brainer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Self-driving people talk about this because, even if the tech worked, the costs of the hardware involved is currently so prohibitively high (~$100,000s per car) that a taxi model is the only one that makes sense.
The comment beside you says that a car has a useful lifespan of 200,000 miles, or 50¢ per mile for the tech. The internet suggests the average highway speed in the US is 70mph. That suggests that it will cost $35/hr. for the autonomy and probably that much again for the car itself. At $70/hr., I expect people will still opt to own their own vehicle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> especially among people who really want to get out of car ownership I have brought this up before and I still do not understand how or why this idea is so tightly coupled to fully autonomous vehicles. I don't see how removing a human driver from a car service is going to change the dynamics enough to drive legions of people who own cars to get rid of them if they haven't done so already. The only friction a human d…
The more "mass" the transit the harder it is for the vehicle to go exactly where all the people on it want to go. Subway, maybe walk a 1/2 mile, bus somewhat less but lots of stops, individual road transport, very close. An auto-car just sitting costs almost nothing per hour (capital cost, but very little other cost), so you can have lots of them everywhere. Pickup time can be very short. I almost never used taxis in…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> putting 200k miles on a car over eight years costs less (both per-mile and per-unit-time) than putting 200k on in two years The per mile part sounds like a personal speculation. (Per unit of time is obvious and irrelevant here) Quite the contrary, it's most efficient to put the load in a short span to minimize time-limited consumables like belts and seals, fixed costs like insurance and regulatory charges per vehic…
The IRS allows a 50 something cents per mile business expense deduction. And if you run some numbers that’s a pretty good ballpark for the cost of operating a car.