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

The self-driving car is a red herring

nautil.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 320 posts

Re: The self-driving car is a red herring

#311

Post by whimsicalism »

decafninja wrote: post #273
ciconia wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think anybody is suggesting that. But if public transport is better, if there are safe paved roads for cyclists, and if city center become safer for pedestrians, then maybe people will buy less cars and drive less miles...

The problem is: 1.) Public transportation in the US is at best, tolerable. Usually far worse. Not just in terms of coverage and utility, but in terms of cleanliness and safety. People use it because they have no other choice that is affordable. Get it to a level of quality like Tokyo or Seoul and more people would use it because they actually like it. I doubt that will happen anytime soon due to cultural issues, unle…

> Public transportation in the US is at best, tolerable.

I think this is very dependent on where you live, in both DC and the Bay I think public transportation is good, but expensive. To me, the problem more appears to be an American cultural aversion to intermingling the working class and the "professional" class of people.

> 2.) Bicycles are awesome, but you have to contend with precipitation, sweat, and theft.

Every mode of transportation has some downsides. You could say 'Cars are awesome, but you have to contend with about ~40k people dying in crashes every year.'

> 3.) Living close to city centers is abominably expensive

Hm, maybe if we could densify cities by removing some of these large paved spaces that people are supposed to stay away from.

Re: The self-driving car is a red herring

#312

Post by otabdeveloper4 »

tim333 wrote: post #140
otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weasel words about "functionality" instead of cars. We've had self-driving train and airplane functionality for years. Meanwhile self-driving trains and planes are not closer.

Well planes maybe. You've been able to get on a driverless train for nearly 40 years now eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Island_Line

For whatever reason, self-driving trains have been in a perpetual "testing" phase for many decades.

Re: The self-driving car is a red herring

#313

Post by zamfi »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #194
zamfi wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you give a few examples of small rural towns where people can afford cars but instead the town has great public transit? Genuinely curious!

Iowa City, Iowa

Am I missing something? Iowa City seems to have only busses, and they run hourly. Perhaps I'm wrong?

If I'm not wrong, then we have vastly different definitions of "great public transit" -- I would not be happy there without a car.

Re: The self-driving car is a red herring

#314

Post by zamfi »

cfarre wrote: post #247
zamfi wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you give a few examples of small rural towns where people can afford cars but instead the town has great public transit? Genuinely curious!

Redmond, Oregon

Am I missing something here too? Redmond seems to have only inter-city busses.

Re: The self-driving car is a red herring

#315

Post by decafninja »

whimsicalism wrote: post #311
decafninja wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is: 1.) Public transportation in the US is at best, tolerable. Usually far worse. Not just in terms of coverage and utility, but in terms of cleanliness and safety. People use it because they have no other choice that is affordable. Get it to a level of quality like Tokyo or Seoul and more people would use it because they actually like it. I doubt that will happen anytime soon due to cultural issues, unle…

> Public transportation in the US is at best, tolerable. I think this is very dependent on where you live, in both DC and the Bay I think public transportation is good, but expensive. To me, the problem more appears to be an American cultural aversion to intermingling the working class and the "professional" class of people. > 2.) Bicycles are awesome, but you have to contend with precipitation, sweat, and theft. Eve…

Regarding your first point, it's to a degree, subjective. But I would classify Bay Area transit to be pretty bad. Have not been to DC, but I live in NYC, where Newyorkers are often fanatically proud of the subway system. But I think the NYC subways are disgusting and horrible compared to say, Seoul, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Taipei, Singapore, etc. which while still imperfect, are the shining examples of what good, proper, public transit systems should be like. Various European cities also have far better subways.

Then again, many Newyorkers think the subways in those cities are horrible and unusable just because they don't operate between ~1-5AM.

Re: The self-driving car is a red herring

#318

Post by cannabis_sam »

autokad wrote: post #241
cannabis_sam wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I absolutely agree, the synchronous/asynchronous description is both absolutely apt and correct. But the choice for the individual is muddled by the very concept of externalities. It’s cheaper to pollute our planet, than enduring the inconvenience of public transport. But the only reason that is true, is the terrible economic systems we all live under.

> "But the choice for the individual" End it there and stop trying to make decisions for other people.

Cute!

I’ll easily do that when every single western country stops subsidizing gasoline and shoveling the consequences onto younger generations.

End it there, and stop defending old people destroying the very foundation that humanity depends on.

Re: The self-driving car is a red herring

#320

Post by njarboe »

rovolo wrote: post #297
njarboe wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rocket launch technology was at a standstill for 30-40 years until Elon Musk founded SpaceX. 15 years later they built reusable rockets. The cost of putting something into orbit is likely to drop by a factor of 100-1000 when SpaceX's next rocket is up and running sometime in the next few years. It seems like such a waste of time for people to try and debunk these claims from people who are very competent and have acc…

I don't follow rocket technology closely, but is SpaceX really unique in regard to reusable rockets? Didn't Blue Origin do each milestone (announcement, vertical landing, relaunch) before SpaceX did?

Blue Origin has a rocket that can go up to 100km and come back down. SpaceX's Falcon 9 is an orbital rocket which is a much, much more difficult achievement. But only the first stage of the Falcon 9 is reusable, with the second stage begin lost on each launch. The Starship rocket under development is being designed to be fully reusable with a quick turn around like an airplane. In fact SpaceX hopes to see Starship used for quick intercontinental trips on Earth.

Blue Origin is building a large re-usable rocket like the Starship called the New Glenn, but its first launch date keeps slipping. I would guess that Starship will be launching first but it is really cool that two groups are working on such rockets.

Post reply on HN