Driverless cars are stuck in a jam • Hacker News Board

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#201

Post by bluGill » Tue, Oct 29, 2019, 12:55 PM UTC

ossworkerrights wrote: post #149

bogle wrote: post #133

If we expect driverless cars to be further delayed and we continue building our cities to encourage micromobility (bikes, electric scooters, segregated lanes, car free streets, etc.) then at which point does the value of the driverless car become moot because we no longer drive? Does this sound unlikely? Consider European cities like Copenhagen and Amsterdam which have encouraged cycling over the last two decades and…

But why do we even need to cluster in massive cities, when today’s technologies allow for remote work for pretty much any non physical type of work? Accountants, developers, designers, architects, customer support, and so on can all be done remotely. That would reduce both the need to drive and to cram people in overcrowded public transport options.

Because you have some unique interest. In a city you can fill it, not in a small town. Do you want a tank of Argon - you won't get that in the smallest towns (argon is useful enough that many farmers have a tank for welding). What about a new magic trick - order from amazon and hope it isn't cheap junk, or buy from the local store and see it in person first - you need a larger city to support that store. Maybe you want see a Broadway type musical, the larger the city the better talent they can afford to act. (in small towns the main actor is still pretty good but the support actors are not very good)

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#202

Post by jcims » Tue, Oct 29, 2019, 12:56 PM UTC

Swenrekcah wrote: post #172

ossworkerrights wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why do we even need to cluster in massive cities, when today’s technologies allow for remote work for pretty much any non physical type of work? Accountants, developers, designers, architects, customer support, and so on can all be done remotely. That would reduce both the need to drive and to cram people in overcrowded public transport options.

Because cities make a lot of things much better and easier. There are definately downsides, but they can be solved. We have systems to collect and clean waste so that is no longer a problem. When cars can be mostly eliminated and the ones that are left will be autonomus, that’s the traffic and air pollution problem mostly solved. Then we can also have more of untouched land for wildlife and our general pleasure.

>Then we can also have more of untouched land for wildlife and our general pleasure.

I live in a rural area in Ohio. Any eligible land that isn't being tilled already gets converted to farm land. Plots are getting consolidated, treelines are getting leveled and burned to gain another couple acres of arable land.

I think if we all move to cities there will be some natural parks but most of it will be converted to ag and industry. If you get a couple million acres of privately held land, who knows what's happening in there.

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#203

Post by sokoloff » Tue, Oct 29, 2019, 12:59 PM UTC

300bps wrote: post #173

bogle wrote: post #133

If we expect driverless cars to be further delayed and we continue building our cities to encourage micromobility (bikes, electric scooters, segregated lanes, car free streets, etc.) then at which point does the value of the driverless car become moot because we no longer drive? Does this sound unlikely? Consider European cities like Copenhagen and Amsterdam which have encouraged cycling over the last two decades and…

If you don't need to drive why would you buy a driverless car? I don’t anticipate many people will ever buy a driverless car. The whole concept of buying a car is kind of ridiculous. You pay for it then you continue paying for registration, insurance, maintenance, park, etc all while it sits idle 90% of the time. Driverless cars allow you to be picked up at your front door and dropped off exactly at the spot wherever…

Many people's cars are idle at the same time and in use at the same time.

Just because everyone's car is idle 90% of the time doesn't mean that we can replace the fleet with a driverless fleet that is 1/10th the size.

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#204

Post by 14 » Tue, Oct 29, 2019, 1:00 PM UTC

mantap wrote: post #196

ossworkerrights wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why do we even need to cluster in massive cities, when today’s technologies allow for remote work for pretty much any non physical type of work? Accountants, developers, designers, architects, customer support, and so on can all be done remotely. That would reduce both the need to drive and to cram people in overcrowded public transport options.

Many people like living in cities. There are many dozens of restaurants within walking distance of my home and quite literally thousands if I hop on the tube. How would my life be enriched if I lived in suburbia?

Many people like living in she suburbs. There they are exposed to less traffic and emissions from said traffic. We discussed this [1] last week and it seems less traffic has a major effect on air quality. The air you breath would literally be enriched if you lived in suburbia. But I do get your point, I live in a small town and when I travel to a place like Vancouver, it is fascinating to be able to choose from so many different venues and options throughout the entire giant city. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21322291

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#205

Post by Nasrudith » Tue, Oct 29, 2019, 1:01 PM UTC

ossworkerrights wrote: post #149

bogle wrote: post #133

If we expect driverless cars to be further delayed and we continue building our cities to encourage micromobility (bikes, electric scooters, segregated lanes, car free streets, etc.) then at which point does the value of the driverless car become moot because we no longer drive? Does this sound unlikely? Consider European cities like Copenhagen and Amsterdam which have encouraged cycling over the last two decades and…

But why do we even need to cluster in massive cities, when today’s technologies allow for remote work for pretty much any non physical type of work? Accountants, developers, designers, architects, customer support, and so on can all be done remotely. That would reduce both the need to drive and to cram people in overcrowded public transport options.

The reason why is scaling of infastructure. It is cheaper to provide services for 1000 in one skyscrapper than 1000 in a small town. Even if we had FTL communication for full cyberpunk "jack in robot bodies remotely" those benefits would remain. It is true that there are also costs to the arrangement but cities are here to stay and growing even.

Add in doctors and other specialized labor which is important but thankfully rarer in need and have a larger "patient footprint".

That small towns are mostly dying is no accident or sinister conspiracy - they are victims of not being able to compete with scale barring some niches like say tourist towns.

The only implausible escape from cities as a situation involve not only teleportation but cheap teleportation which effectively scribbles over many spatial constraints.

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#206

Post by de_watcher » Tue, Oct 29, 2019, 1:05 PM UTC

bogle wrote: post #133

If we expect driverless cars to be further delayed and we continue building our cities to encourage micromobility (bikes, electric scooters, segregated lanes, car free streets, etc.) then at which point does the value of the driverless car become moot because we no longer drive? Does this sound unlikely? Consider European cities like Copenhagen and Amsterdam which have encouraged cycling over the last two decades and…

There are places where it's cold, where it rains and snows. So we can't bike everywhere.

The good thing about the driverless cars is that they solve the parking problems in the cities. We can even add lanes or pavements by removing all parking spaces in the city centers.

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#207

Post by sokoloff » Tue, Oct 29, 2019, 1:09 PM UTC

random_upvoter wrote: post #106

koonsolo wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same can be said about airplanes, which have a way longer history of automation. Anything in an airplane is automated: takeoff, flying and landing. Pilots make mistakes all the time, but they still need to do things manually to keep their practice high. People just do not want to go in an airplane without any pilots. In metro's it's not that obvious if someone is driving it or not. But airplanes, 'we' want a huma…

> Anything in an airplane is automated: takeoff, flying and landing With airplanes there's a whole system in place to make sure that every airplane essentially gets its own private road. This simplifies the problem of automation immensely.

For airliners and other IFR traffic, that is almost (but not quite) true. In the US, the overwhelming majority of airspace below 18K feet and the vast majority of airports do not require any air-traffic-control interaction at all. It's "see and avoid" under VFR in those areas.

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#208

Post by moduspol » Tue, Oct 29, 2019, 1:11 PM UTC

w0utert wrote: post #188

jplayer01 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the whole point of driverless cars is at some point, you can deploy car sharing services that largely replace private car ownership/usage. At least, that's what I'd hope, because it's an insane waste of space and resources that the vast majority of cars you see on the road only transport a single person around. I mean, I get that people don't care about their environmental impact, but at some point we're goin…

Why do you think people using a driverless car service would care less about having to share their ride? In theory if people would just carpool much more right now, the number of cars on the road would go down a lot, and they could divide the costs. But somehow they don't. I don't see why people who don't consider carpooling right now would order a driverless car that needs to pick up some other people before going w…

They may not have to share a ride.

We (as a society) are fully capable of building single-person cars. It's just the economics of car ownership incentivize having four to five seats and a lot of trunk space just in case you need it, even if you aren't using them 99% of the time.

That's likely to change if the cars are being run by a driverless car service. They'll already have the numbers to know how many single-person cars to maintain in the fleets as compared to five seaters. Fuel / electricity will be cheaper for smaller vehicles. If traffic does notably increase, tolls and congestion taxes will come more into play and be lower for smaller cars. Single person cars could split lanes (like motorcycles).

At that point, the economic incentives change, and we could see different outcomes.

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#209

Post by Nasrudith » Tue, Oct 29, 2019, 1:11 PM UTC

w0utert wrote: post #188

jplayer01 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the whole point of driverless cars is at some point, you can deploy car sharing services that largely replace private car ownership/usage. At least, that's what I'd hope, because it's an insane waste of space and resources that the vast majority of cars you see on the road only transport a single person around. I mean, I get that people don't care about their environmental impact, but at some point we're goin…

Why do you think people using a driverless car service would care less about having to share their ride? In theory if people would just carpool much more right now, the number of cars on the road would go down a lot, and they could divide the costs. But somehow they don't. I don't see why people who don't consider carpooling right now would order a driverless car that needs to pick up some other people before going w…

Convenince has historically proven the industrial era and beyond killer app. Availability is part of the issue - it would increase car utilization but probably not people in a car at once. They would care less about "my car isn't available because it is out working" if they could get a replacement. They also don't need to give their time driving passengers.

Self driving also could allow better "microroutes" which don't take you out of the way like public transit. It wouldn't address the stranger adversion however.

Ironically in the worst case it may technically reduce the average occupancy even if the total utilization rises and thus number of cars on the road drops for the same demand.

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#210

Post by gerbilly » Tue, Oct 29, 2019, 1:19 PM UTC

gremlinsinc wrote: post #17

Maybe we should focus on finding a way to ... clone our brain inside of mechanical box. I know plenty of ethical considerations there, but a human with all the life skills of a human would be a perfect AI and not need the normal learning that focus ML brings w/ it. Imagine if they just clone a driving instructor's brain, and placed copies of that inside the cars...

Probably not possible. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_cognition