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

U.S. eliminates human controls requirement for fully automated vehicles

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–376 of 376 posts

Re: U.S. eliminates human controls requirement for fully automated vehicles

#371

Post by yazaddaruvala »

shkkmo wrote: post #366
yazaddaruvala wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> pushed the housing crisis into more housing markets. FWIW I prefer density but isn’t this good? The reality of yesterday was too few zip codes with too much demand and not enough good will to increase supply. Instead we now have a lot more zip codes that can make decentralized decisions about building more housing. Hopefully they vote for more development and use it as a way to stimulate jobs in their local constru…

The new zipcodes face the same economic incentives to restrict supply. Property owners want to see their holdings increase in value and generally have more political power. I don't see any reason why the new hot markets are going to do anything different from the old hot markets. Perhaps some will, but renters and potential homeowners will get priced out of more markets

Because the long term benefit of density ends up lifting the local economy a lot more than the property prices go down in the short term. Especially with remote work, the extra income brought in adds to the local coffee, haircut and food scene, and increased overall property taxes on the same land make the city money.

People just don't think in that long a timeframe but there are localities which do and hopefully it works for them and we all get to learn the timeframe for benefits (or the lack of benefits) from such a change.

https://www.theurbanist.org/2020/08/12/portland-passes-sweep...

Re: U.S. eliminates human controls requirement for fully automated vehicles

#372

Post by shkkmo »

ben_w wrote: post #367
shkkmo wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a limit to how long a commute can grow before it becomes untenable a part of a daily routine. Being able to do other things while commuting increases acceptable commute time, but does not elimant this limit. Traffic can greatly extend commuting times and thus is directly relevant.

If you can sleep in the car while it’s moving, it’s potentially adding up to 8 hours per day to your acceptable commute duration. (And that’s separate to having a self driving RV, which also radically changes the home marketplace)

That just extends the limit, the limit still exists. Because of that limit, traffic reduces the range you can commute within that limit.

I don't think "self-driving" rv's do anything to revolutionize the housing market. What they do is revolutionize travel (it's like having a private luxery train car that can go almost anywhere.) Parking an RV can be an expensive and competive in and around urban areas (speaking from vanlife experience.) Having a self-driving RV driving around all night while you sleep also isn't cost effective and won't scale.

What I see as a revolution in the rv/housing market would be affordable, all eletric RVs with sufficient solar capacity to recharge their range over the course days. Combine this with starlink and/or 5g and you create cheaply location flexible housing.

Re: U.S. eliminates human controls requirement for fully automated vehicles

#373

Post by shkkmo »

yazaddaruvala wrote: post #371
shkkmo wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The new zipcodes face the same economic incentives to restrict supply. Property owners want to see their holdings increase in value and generally have more political power. I don't see any reason why the new hot markets are going to do anything different from the old hot markets. Perhaps some will, but renters and potential homeowners will get priced out of more markets

Because the long term benefit of density ends up lifting the local economy a lot more than the property prices go down in the short term. Especially with remote work, the extra income brought in adds to the local coffee, haircut and food scene, and increased overall property taxes on the same land make the city money. People just don't think in that long a timeframe but there are localities which do and hopefully it…

My point is that communities that cam think long term seem rare based on the available evidence. Thus most of the communities where the housing crises is being exported will just face the same problem.

This why why I am making the point that we shouldn't rely on remote work (of self driving cars) to solve our housing crises. The only good solution is increasing density, (and I suspect we agree on that.)

It's great if people want to take advantage of remote work to live I'm new housing markets, but they should realize the consequences of those choices and work to mitigate them.

Re: U.S. eliminates human controls requirement for fully automated vehicles

#374

Post by ben_w »

shkkmo wrote: post #372
ben_w wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can sleep in the car while it’s moving, it’s potentially adding up to 8 hours per day to your acceptable commute duration. (And that’s separate to having a self driving RV, which also radically changes the home marketplace)

That just extends the limit, the limit still exists. Because of that limit, traffic reduces the range you can commute within that limit. I don't think "self-driving" rv's do anything to revolutionize the housing market. What they do is revolutionize travel (it's like having a private luxery train car that can go almost anywhere.) Parking an RV can be an expensive and competive in and around urban areas (speaking from…

> That just extends the limit, the limit still exists. Because of that limit, traffic reduces the range you can commute within that limit.

Yeah and? The limit is in the order of 250 miles. Have you seen how cheap houses get 250 miles away from cities? London to Bradford is about that distance, and the average property prices in those two are £629,400 [0] and £58,673 [1] respectively, nearly a factor of 11.

Or, if you prefer American reference points, SanFran to the edge of Nevada; or the White House to anywhere in Delaware and Maryland, most of Virginia and New Jersey, and half of each of Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia; or Boston to the Canadian border; or LA to Ensenada, Mexico.

Don’t tell me there’s nowhere affordable in all that. Especially not in the large number of tiny places that aren’t important enough to be labelled on the map when it’s zoomed out to 250 miles.

House costs are mostly the land cost. More range = more land = more supply => cheaper houses.

[0] https://www.standard.co.uk/homesandproperty/property-news/lo...

[1] https://www.moveiq.co.uk/blog/buying/10-cheapest-places-buy-...

Re: U.S. eliminates human controls requirement for fully automated vehicles

#375

Post by ruds »

robbrown451 wrote: post #361
datavirtue wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please, tell me about all the cars right now that avoid hitting pedestrians and bicycles and wheel chairs. If impact immenent (7th grade algebra) then stop.

What's your point? You're saying you could apply 7th grade algebra to this problem and make these cars considerably safer, but that the people working on it now just don't bother? Because they're evil? Or what? I don't know what to say.

Coming in late, but I think you're misunderstanding the suggestion, which was to make pedestrian avoidance standard equipment on all new cars, not just autonomous vehicles.

Re: U.S. eliminates human controls requirement for fully automated vehicles

#376

Post by AtlasBarfed »

myrmidon wrote: post #66
AtlasBarfed wrote: post #6

Look, I'm generally on the bull-ish side of autonomous driving, but this is almost akin to the feds passing laws on science fiction. Section 180.99 part alpha: "Minimum size of a Ringworld is mercury orbit around a red dwarf" I guess we can always drive with a USB-plugin gamepad if there's a glitch or a central system outage? This would actually represent progress if they eliminated the requirement for side mirrors,…

> which from what I've read of good aerodynamic designs is responsible for as much drag as the body of the car. This seems way too high to me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_drag_coefficient says side mirrors contribute 2-7% drag. Still worth removing them of course, I'm just correcting you to prevent people from picking up wrong numbers.

I think I got that "as much as the rest of the body" from the Aptera newsfeeds. The Aptera claims some ridiculous efficiencies so who knows.
Post reply on HN