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

Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 556 posts

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#481

Post by bluGill »

ycombonator wrote: post #463
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…

So I have to take my 4 year old who developed a high fever to the emergency room on an electric bike/ scooter ?

Sure, why not. If it is a really life or death emergency you of course need to call an ambulance which I'll assume has license to do things illegal for you to get there faster. Most ER visits are important to soon, but few are now important.

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#482

Post by bluGill »

bogle wrote: post #238
WhompingWindows wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This ignores the massive value SDC's can provide to the blind, disabled, elderly, and children, all of whom may not be able to hop on a bike or scooter.

I did mention taxis. The question would then be, why an SDC as opposed to a taxi? In the example you give a driver would be of more use.

Because a car your own means your stuff is in it. If you use it somewhat regularly it is cheaper in the long run to own your own SDC over a taxi (even assuming automation), if only because you get to decide when to clean it.

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#483

Post by bluGill »

CompanionCuuube wrote: post #454
nradov wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I buy cars so that I can leave my stuff in them instead of having to load and unload every day. That convenience is worth a lot. Whether the car drives itself or not is an entirely separate issue.

Somehow I doubt work would be willing to relax their weapons policies so that I could bring in the training weapons that sit in my car.

In most states they don't have a legal choice in the matter.

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#484

Post by the_watcher »

bpyne wrote: post #227
DickingAround wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"Live in the city and want to go hiking 20 miles away?" Yes, you want to use a car in this case. But, in the life I imagine, I would rent a car. I dislike driving intensely, but I can see use-cases in which cars are necessary. However, Americans have been largely forced into car ownership, despite the expense and hassle of owning one. A reduction in car ownership coupled with more pedestrian-friendly community design…

"Options for people who don't want/need to have a car" is very different than "maybe no one should have a car". Cars are pretty necessary if you have kids in most of the US, for example. While there's an argument that much of the US was designed in a way that forces this necessity, the reality is that the road system in US exists, the US is gigantic, and mobility within the US is generally considered desirable.

It's good to encourage cities to find ways for residents to get around without cars, if only because it can increase social mobility by increasing options for people who can't afford one. But pretty much all of the evidence I've seen suggests that Americans very much choose to have a car once they can afford one, and that is very much rooted in the fact that they're phenomenally useful.

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#485

Post by magduf »

jacquesm wrote: post #434
magduf wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Also you always have to decide, do I want to/can I spend 50 Euros today just to go hiking? Or you know you could use your own car. Yes it also costs money but its way less and more spread out. That sounds like someone with very stupid money management. Unfortunately, this is probably the norm. You're surely spending many hundreds of dollars/Euros per month to own and operate a private vehicle: loan, fuel, insurance,…

Cars in Europe are as a rule not bought on credit.

Well in that case you're losing potential interest on that money, and also (much more significantly) depreciation.

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#486

Post by rayiner »

lmm wrote: post #345
cloudwalking wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then go back to the grocery store every day. What a waste of time. You can also wash your laundry but hand. The reality is we have these appliances (including cars) because they increase our personal efficiency quite a bit.

Nah, the suburban life was a strange fashion that took hold for a few decades but never really made sense, and thus it's now in decline as people return to the city cores. For the older generation owning a car was a status symbol, but the younger generation doesn't care.

That trend lasted about 10 seconds: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/29/millennials-are-fleeing-big-...

I like living in the city. My wife and I did it with our daughter until she was 5. But the problem with American cities isn’t cars. It’s that they offer no solutions for parents who aren’t rich. (And almost everyone ends up becoming a parent at some point.) Schools, family centric activities, transportation, affordable housing. You need a million dollars to buy a house in a good school district in many major US cities (if one even exists). There’s not much in the way of other kids around. (Babies, maybe, but how often do you see 10 year olds in NYC that aren’t tourists?)

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#487

Post by mgleason_3 »

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…

“Got 4 young kids...”

Seems like lots of responses from able-bodied individuals without kids, elderly parents or other dependants who are able to get around on scooters or bikes in any weather and have little tolerance for those who might not be able or willing to do the same.

I live in Orange County, Ca. and bike most places most days. My wife and I share a car and we walk many places. Interestingly, even getting to the Home Depot which is only 3.7 miles away takes 20 minutes, is a bit hair raising, and I can only get small items. My last job was about 6 miles away, took 40 minutes to bike and I only did it once because it was unsafe.

But I know we’re living a charmed life. My next door neighbor is recovering from cancer treatment. If he makes it to his physical therapy appointment, it’s a good day. I’m not going to tell him to “get better equipment” or that people bike in Amsterdam so he should to. Believe me he’d love to be biking again.

It doesn’t mean our cities cant move in a more walking/biking friendly direction. I’d love to have more safe places. But have some compassion for people who aren't as lucky as you.

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#488

Post by bluGill »

magduf wrote: post #304
hodgesrm wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another drawback is that it's taking focus away from mass transit, at least in the US. Decent mass transit ameliorates such a wide range of issues in cities it's hard to understand why we don't put more effort into making it work.

Mass transit doesn't really work in US suburbs because everything is just too spread out; it's not economical, nor logistically effective, to build subways to subdivisions. But even in built-up cities, Americans cling to their cars just like they cling to guns and religion. Look at all the uproar in Manhattan, NYC, where they're taking away street parking and putting in protected cycling lanes. People are upset at th…

It isn't so much the spread out, as that there are not good routes for mass transit in most suburbs. Transit needs long straight lines with destinations along them. When roads wind, and destinations are at the end of cul-de-sacs transit has not chance because riders are forced to spend a lot of time making no progress in the actual direction of their destination.

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#489

Post by SilasX »

rubicon33 wrote: post #384
lkbm wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, why would I prefer a driverless taxi if an electric car with a human driver costs no more? I believe the number one cause of death for Americans under the age of 30 is traffic accidents.[0] It's around 40,000 deaths per year (in the US alone). Cars are getting safer, but humans aren't getting better drivers. Individuals humans will get better with experience, but experienced drivers cycle out and new drivers…

Just yesterday while driving to the gym, I witnessed the person behind me at a red light, violently gas it and swerve out into oncoming traffic lanes, drive past all the cars waiting for the light, and blow straight through the red light. He went on to blow another red light before turning off onto a side street. This kind of shit would never happen with a self driving car. The bar for self driving cars is incredibly…

Maybe your bar. A reasonable (minimal) bar is that they have to perform at the 50th percentile of drivers by safety. This guy sounds like the first percentile.

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#490

Post by dredmorbius »

bpyne wrote: post #227
DickingAround wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"Live in the city and want to go hiking 20 miles away?" Yes, you want to use a car in this case. But, in the life I imagine, I would rent a car. I dislike driving intensely, but I can see use-cases in which cars are necessary. However, Americans have been largely forced into car ownership, despite the expense and hassle of owning one. A reduction in car ownership coupled with more pedestrian-friendly community design…

In earlier times, there were hiking clubs (which might provide transport or car-pool coordination), or transit to recreational areas.

Denizens of the Greater Smoke Area today might care to cozy up 'round the fire with a tale of the Crookedest Railroad in the World.

http://www.friendsofmttam.org/railroad/crookedest-railroad.h...

Post reply on HN