531–540 of 556 posts
Self-driving got taken over by the "fake it til you make it" crowd. Uber, Cruise (go find Cruise's original demo video and marketing claims), Tesla, etc. Only Google/Waymo approached it as a hard problem, and only Waymo has something that's deployed, even in a limited way, without a "safety driver". Somebody will probably make it work, but it may come from some boring old company like Ford or Continental or Fujitsu.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I use autopilot even on small roads even if it's not designed for it. After V10 it also handles roads without a centre line just fine. However I do pay attention and keep my hands on the wheel, I think autopilot + human is much safer than either one, but since the latest updates I rarely have to take control if not going in roundabouts or junctions. I also had one instance a few weeks ago where I tried to enter anoth…
That sounds promising. OTOH, my car tried to drive into a tractor-trailer a couple weeks ago. That was a momentarily interesting experience. It seemed to become confused by the onramp merge joining my travel lane (pretty normal for autopilot to screw this up), but then it "realized" the mistake and dove for the other lane. I haven't been as happy with v10 as I was with v9.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, not like Amsterdam. I love Amsterdam, but I'm so tired of it being used as an example of how we should all be on bikes. It has a very temperate climate. The weather in most of the US isn't as mild and cool as Amsterdam. There are cites in the US with great weather, for example San Diego, Santa Barbara, all of Marine and Sonoma Counties in CA have great weather (sadly it is having wild fire problems right now). I…
Another factor to remember is snowfall. Where I live, we push snow to the side on roads, but it tends to stick around and accumulate for months at a time. Adding a secondary* infrastructure around bicycles would be costly. But the big one is that the Netherlands has about half the population of Canada in an area the size of New Brunswick. Obviously they can afford better transport infrastructure than we can. * Where…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There are places where it's cold, where it rains and snows. Like Amsterdam and Copenhagen? > The good thing about the driverless cars is that they solve the parking problems in the cities. They solve the search for parking by humans. But if you want to get the cars out of the city while they aren't used, you practically double the traffic and emissions.
Amsterdam and Copenhagen don't get very cold.
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…
Let me guess. Single male, able body, no kids. When you have kids, you'd appreciate having a car/rent a car/uber when grocery shopping for example. And the city is full of people with kids. We are not the minority here. Not everyone is interested in a scooter that is inherently unsafe at moderate speeds.
I live in the city, as my question may have suggested, and my family can cycle and walk and take the tram and bus and train everywhere we need to go in the city.
Also, we do have a vehicle, it's a campervan. We don't need it to do the shopping because we're walking distance to some small stores and get deliveries of groceries and fresh, organic vegetables (yum).
The reference to the safety of scooters may require you to provide some evidence. The children are required by myself to wear a helmet and their health is better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is stopping American cities from changing their infrastructure investment from automobiles to micromobility? Is there one, big, standout reason that could be addressed? It's a change that takes decades and it's fighting against incumbents with deep pockets but it could be done.
Micromobility is dangerous. Want go check injuries per mile stats?
While you are at it, check the traffic deaths due to motor vehicles. Do it for urban environments, which is the original topic.
Oh, and the improvements in life expectancy for those who take regular exercise by, for instance, cycling to work. Better offset those. I suggest using micromorts.
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 ?
It doesn't take much to imagine a situation where the nearest emergency room is a mile away and she can still go on the bike's child seat. Or a taxi.
If you live in a city your car, even if you have one, is not necessarily the quickest way to get around.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I've heard of one car-free mother that moved seven kids around by bike on a daily basis. If memory serves, she got a shout-out in this book: https://seattle.bibliocommons.com/item/show/2862141030
Funny enough, I saw a mother of 4 biking today in Boston. It was raining and 50F/10C outside. She had a bakfiets with 3 onboard and a kid pedaling behind her. I don't think they were going grocery shopping though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
By your methodology everyone visiting an emergency room on a typical night should call ambulance because the cars have been banned in the city ? I know for sure as heck they can walk or ride a fancy electric bike.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
High density being expensive and getting those rents shows there is demand: we should be building more of it to fill demand, and in turn bring prices down. In less dense areas the car shines above anything else. However in those dense areas where people have shown they want to live cars are too big and we need something else.
> we should be building more of it to fill demand, and in turn bring prices down. That's not really how construction works in the US. All construction generates higher prices than existed before (this is explicit intentional policy, at both the local, state, and federal level). There is no such thing as new housing in the US that lowers property values, therefore there is no such thing as a new building that lowers "…
The best time to build affordable housing is 20 years ago, the second best time is now.