Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

Post by rootusrootus » Tue, Oct 29, 2019, 5:20 PM UTC

flowerlad wrote: post #285

pjdemers wrote: post #279

I don't remember the source, but a few years ago I saw the results of a poll about self driving cars. The question was: "How much more would you pay for a car that could drive itself?" In the US, 50% of the responses said $0. It is not a feature that the market wants. That's why we don't have self driving cars.

People don’t always know what they want. Before Steve Jobs unveiled the iPhone how many people knew they wanted a smart phone?

Post by notJim » Tue, Oct 29, 2019, 5:24 PM UTC

DickingAround wrote: post #216

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…

This is kind of silly. It's nice to imagine a world where people don't need cars. But most/all european cities, many of which we laid out before cars, still have cars. We all have cars because cars are incredibly useful; Got 4 young kids and you need to get groceries for the week? You're not going to bicycle them to the store and all that food home again in the mountains. Live in the city and want to go hiking 20 mil…

Post by fooblitzky » Tue, Oct 29, 2019, 5:29 PM UTC

Steltek wrote: post #255

kiba wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We all have cars because cars are incredibly useful; Got 4 young kids and you need to get groceries for the week? This only work that way because that's how your life is structured, not that it is a law of nature. If you live near a grocery store, you wouldn't have to buy enough grocery to last you a week. You can just buy what you need.

If you've got 4 kids all under 4yo, you're kind of screwed no matter what vehicle you drive. For biking, you'd probably be looking at a Bakfiets with electric assist plus a trailer. Presuming we've sufficiently eliminated car traffic and the roads are safe for kids, it's also likely that at least one of those kids can bike themselves to the store with you.

Post by braindeath » Tue, Oct 29, 2019, 5:30 PM UTC

lmm wrote: post #333

upstandingdude wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats more or less prohibitively expensive, because your hiking location would be outside of parking zone most likely, thus you're on the clock the whole time. Not my idea of a relaxing experience. Looks like zipcar is even station bound which makes it worse. You have to get yourself and all the stuff to the station somehow and then take it back from there again when you are done.

> Thats more or less prohibitively expensive, because your hiking location would be outside of parking zone most likely, thus you're on the clock the whole time. Not my idea of a relaxing experience. An extra hour or two doesn't make a lot of difference when you're already booking for a weekend. Of course if you get stuck on a mountain overnight or something then you'd have a penalty charge, but frankly that would be…

Post by greedo » Tue, Oct 29, 2019, 5:31 PM UTC

pacala wrote: post #365

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…

We'd be better off building our cities to encourage mass transit. Micromobility follows as a bonus.