Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cars Are Death Machines. Self-Driving Tech Won’t Change That

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 72 posts

Re: Cars Are Death Machines. Self-Driving Tech Won’t Change That

#51

Post by corodra »

hinkley wrote: post #28

You know, I've been nodding along to conversations about the dangers of vehicles for a long time but I think I just had a change of heart. Travel has always been dangerous, and the farther you go the more danger there is of never coming home. We've done a lot culturally and technically to improve that situation. Yes, airplanes are safer, but would they still be if every trip was on an airplane? It's an apples and cra…

That's the realistic standpoint on the situation. Things are "good", mind the quotes, with trains, buses and airplanes because their volume is soooooooo much lower compared to car travel. Once you ramp up their volume, problems end up being logarithmic, not linear. For example, it was either Sweden or Norway where they tolled a major highway because it was just a giant parking lot of a traffic jam. All the toll did was lower the amount of cars by ~10%-15%. Traffic jams disappeared. Back when there were a handful of cars on the road in the early 1900s, no need for speed limits or lights and there were few to no problems. Then the volume increased and the likelihood of stupid increased. Back in the day, pilots in airlines could take whatever route they wanted. They use to go by the grand canyon, even if it was out of the way, to show passengers the view. Back when drinking some whiskey was mandatory to pilot a plane. Then the number of flights per year increased and some assholes ended up crashing in those areas and no one could find them because they took random routes. FAA is established and an end to unscheduled pilot routes.

Volume matters.

The whiskey thing was a joke, for you prudes out there.

Re: Cars Are Death Machines. Self-Driving Tech Won’t Change That

#52

Post by ianai »

anyfoo wrote: post #38
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Software technology isn’t static, most of us are only arguing about when, not if.

And I'd argue that "when" is very, very far away. Unless you remove human drivers, and significantly change the infrastructure for self-driving cars, but at some point you are not so far from (existing) self-conducted trains, then.

And you offer no argument against “self conducted trains”.

Look, people are horrible to one another. They bring their brutalist egos into their cars and drive at the whim of it. Very few people drive the safe distance away from cars, drive safe distances, let alone reacting to perceived slights by other drivers in defensive ways. No, instead they hug bumpers, cut one another off, drive so close a simple pat on the breaks would cause an accident, and so on.

Re: Cars Are Death Machines. Self-Driving Tech Won’t Change That

#53

Post by Alupis »

JohnFen wrote: post #42
Alupis wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not in my state. Here, there is no prerequisite to get your learner's permit. And > However, completing driver's ed is a high school graduation requirement. Is the same thing. Just your state decided to standardize what was taught, instead of letting private companies also offer it. For what it's worth, in California we have both.

It's not the same thing. You can still get your learner's permit even if you don't complete high school or the driver's ed graduation requirement.

That sounds like a special provision rather than the norm - there isn't a high percentage of youth not graduating from high school in the US.

Re: Cars Are Death Machines. Self-Driving Tech Won’t Change That

#54

Post by deep_merge »

> Figuring out how to get people to drive less by providing safer, more sustainable alternatives to the car.

100% this. I could go on forever about how unsustainable private cars are, especially in urban areas, but instead I'll drop some positive news:

The 14th St busway in NYC is real: https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2019/10/03/live-from-the-busway-...

It's a start!

Re: Cars Are Death Machines. Self-Driving Tech Won’t Change That

#55

Post by bluGill »

bproven wrote: post #37
refurb wrote: post #7

It seems somewhat silly to only talk about the negative aspects of cars. What about all the benefits? If you stop and think about it, cars are truly revolutionary. Even many low income people can buy a machine that will travel 50 miles (at 70 mph) on a gallon of liquid that costs $3. It not only allows individuals the freedom to travel, vehicles power a massive transportation network that brings food to our tables an…

I think the main problem is that cars can be a great last mile transport but a horribly scaling transport for common long distance travel (commuting to city cores, etc).

Cars are great for long distance travel. They do well for medium distances in some situations and are terrible for last mile.

When my family wants to go to grandma's (or any other vacation destination) our car is the best way to do it. The key here is a family - we fill our car so per passenger we use less fuel (carbon), the train or bus could do better but because the route isn't direct it isn't that great of a win - and they need to be full to compete which they might not be.

For medium distances (less than 50 miles) they do great if and only if there are few other people going the same way. Which is to say rural and non-dense areas. However because they are such low occupancy in denser areas the congestion and storage needs when you get there get you.

For last mile the storage needs at both ends means that even though they seem great they just spread the places you want to get to farther than if you didn't have a car and just walked. In suburban areas we ignore this because there is no place within walking distance you would want to get to anyway.

Note that the key to long distances is far enough that you wouldn't do this normally. If everybody's grandma (or vacation spot...) lived in the same neighborhood as mine this would fail - but then the bus/train would be a direct route and so it would be practical.

Re: Cars Are Death Machines. Self-Driving Tech Won’t Change That

#56

Post by anyfoo »

ianai wrote: post #52
anyfoo wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I'd argue that "when" is very, very far away. Unless you remove human drivers, and significantly change the infrastructure for self-driving cars, but at some point you are not so far from (existing) self-conducted trains, then.

And you offer no argument against “self conducted trains”. Look, people are horrible to one another. They bring their brutalist egos into their cars and drive at the whim of it. Very few people drive the safe distance away from cars, drive safe distances, let alone reacting to perceived slights by other drivers in defensive ways. No, instead they hug bumpers, cut one another off, drive so close a simple pat on the br…

No, I don't, and it was not my intent to lessen the value of "self conducting trains" at all. Having been raised in Germany, I'm a big fan of public transport.

I just wanted to point out that "self driving cars", in isolation without any change to the infrastructure they operate in, are, by my intuition, a pipe dream.

I think we are aligned here.

Re: Cars Are Death Machines. Self-Driving Tech Won’t Change That

#57

Post by seanmcdirmid »

anyfoo wrote: post #38
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Software technology isn’t static, most of us are only arguing about when, not if.

And I'd argue that "when" is very, very far away. Unless you remove human drivers, and significantly change the infrastructure for self-driving cars, but at some point you are not so far from (existing) self-conducted trains, then.

We already have self driving cars running around Mountain View with little problems. Extending that progress to more extreme conditions doesn’t seem far fetched, especially when we continue to have technology advances in sensors (LIDAR) and AI control. 5 or 10 years might sound aggressive to many people, but 20 years doesn’t sound far off at all.

Re: Cars Are Death Machines. Self-Driving Tech Won’t Change That

#58

Post by bluGill »

robbrown451 wrote: post #46

There was nothing in the article to support the notion that self-driving cars won't address the danger of cars. Sure, as long as there are human drivers there will be accidents caused by human drivers (and obviously there will be human drivers for a long time, just as horse drawn vehicles remained around for a long time after automobiles arrived [1]), but if the only argument related to self driving cars is that they…

Small cars and vans don't need signalling to be good. The reason is geometric: someone already in the car doesn't want to detour to your front door to pick you up (they will excuse this if you are obviously handicapped and thus need special treatment).

All transit makes the most sense when they run a regular fixed route - just like large buses and trains run. The advantage of self driving is they run every 5 minutes or less 24/7 so you don't have to check a schedule to find out when the next bus comes. The small is an advantage only in that it is cheaper to buy and uses less fuel on routes that that don't have enough demand to fill a larger vehicle on the same route. The advantage of self driving is cost of labor (drivers) is a large reason buses don't run these routes already.

Bottom line: if your neighborhood currently doesn't have the ability to support transit today having a personal self driving car is going to make more sense.

Do not confuse ability to support with currently supports: even in the non-dense suburbs if everybody took transit instead of their car there is enough density to support every 10 minute service with stops every mile down a grid, at less cost than everybody's car currently costs. Most suburbs do not have the type of grid that would support this though. Even if they did the transit system needs to be large and frequent enough for years before people will make the switch - years where transit is more expensive than just buying all the riders a used car (7 years old, free replacement every 5 years)

Re: Cars Are Death Machines. Self-Driving Tech Won’t Change That

#59

Post by bluGill »

toper-centage wrote: post #49
idreyn wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that the automobile is a brilliantly designed tool for making flexible, medium-long distance trips quickly and cheaply. In America, this tool has been stretched far beyond the use cases where it shines. We've tried to make it "the only mode you'll ever need" for almost all Americans, deploying it where transit, cycling, and walking would be far more appropriate. It is great that many low-income people c…

Also neglecting long distance transit. Passenger trains are pretty much not a thing in America, right?

Passenger trains suck at long distance transit. Trains work well for trips up to around 500 miles where they are faster than planes after factoring arriving at the airport early, after that trains are more expensive and slower than airplanes, without allowing the flexibility of a car. Note that if you live in Europe you can cover several countries in this distance and thus feel well traveled without ever going far from home on a continental (much less global) scale.

A full car is cost competitive with planes and trains, and gives you flexibility to stop and see things along the way.

Re: Cars Are Death Machines. Self-Driving Tech Won’t Change That

#60

Post by gwbas1c »

toper-centage wrote: post #49
idreyn wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that the automobile is a brilliantly designed tool for making flexible, medium-long distance trips quickly and cheaply. In America, this tool has been stretched far beyond the use cases where it shines. We've tried to make it "the only mode you'll ever need" for almost all Americans, deploying it where transit, cycling, and walking would be far more appropriate. It is great that many low-income people c…

Also neglecting long distance transit. Passenger trains are pretty much not a thing in America, right?

Not really, the distances are too great to make them economical. That's why air travel is more common.

For distances where trains make sense, cars are preferable: You can travel at your own schedule, and then you have transportation at your destination. If you take a train, you have to meet the train at a certain place at a certain time, which is stressful, and then you still have to arrange transportation from the train station to your final destination.

Even worse, if you have to change trains during your trip... It's much, much easier to put all your stuff in a car once.

This basically leaves trains for traveling between dense cities, where the passengers either live close to a train station, or have a destination close to a train station.

And, to be honest, after flying twice with young kids this year, I put my foot down and told my wife road trips only for the next few years. I wouldn't want to travel by train with young children for the same reason that travel by air with young children is difficult.

Post reply on HN