Live data from Hacker News

Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

theregister.com

661–670 of 778 posts

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#661
post #367

What do we want from self driving cars? Naturally I wand a car I can summon from the pub that will drive me the 20km, over country roads, to my house while I mix cocktails or have a nap. That may never happen, current technology does not seem up to it. Then what? Modern cruise control, that keeps my car a constant distance form the car in front (unless it roars off at a speed higher that what I am comfortable with) i…

> What do we want from self driving cars? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. I want public transportation infrastructure and far, far, FAR fewer cars. I think the US should strive to reduce car ownership by 75% over the next 20 years, at least in cities over a certain population size. I don't want any more money invested in self-driving cars. But I'm also a grown-up of a certain age and realize the bright-eyed 20-something…

This will never, and I mean absolutely never, happen in the United States, for three reasons:

(1) Weak Federal Government. The US is more a close collection of small nation states than a single country. The kind of infrastructure you’re talking about takes the kind of planning and funding that only a strong federal government can demand.

(2) Strong respect for property rights. In the US, it takes a lot to take away someone’s private property in order re-allocate it to a public good. By now, all of the cities have vested interests speaking for every square inch of viable property.

(3) Weak labor protections. This is a big one. Labor protections are so weak in the private sector that no one in their right mind would depend on public transport if they could help it. Most Americans are one illness away from being bankrupt, fired, and foreclosed on. To make it in America, by any definition, for a vast majority of Americans (and that includes people not traditionally called Americans, like undocumented immigrants) you must have access to a private vehicle because your work place could change in a heartbeat. You could have to move because your town no longer has any jobs for you. You could have to move into your car because of divorce/eviction/foreclosure etc…

People make fun of the F150 drivers with spotless beds because they’re used as glorified, cramped minivans but the truth is every one of those drivers has made that investment because they’re acutely aware of how precariously close they are having to use that truck to do hard labor.

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Sorry cities are much more efficient than any other form of human living [0]. It is suburbs and rural sprawl that creates the energy waste. Population drift towards the latter may cause the hollowing of cities which lead to crime and transport inefficiency. [0] https://theconversation.com/suburban-living-the-worst-for-ca...

It doesn't matter if you use half as much energy per capita if the thing you created results in 50x more people. When I say destroy the cities I mean to include the populations in them. Through policy you make their lives so miserable that they are not replaced generationally. A similar thing was done to rural areas, their people were systematically destroyed through policy.

Most of the people on HN seem to be city-dwelling pro centralization and centralized control. It seems to be jarring for them to see their own policies of openly promoting the destruction of others lives and way of living directed back at them.

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#663
post #367

What do we want from self driving cars? Naturally I wand a car I can summon from the pub that will drive me the 20km, over country roads, to my house while I mix cocktails or have a nap. That may never happen, current technology does not seem up to it. Then what? Modern cruise control, that keeps my car a constant distance form the car in front (unless it roars off at a speed higher that what I am comfortable with) i…

> What do we want from self driving cars? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. I want public transportation infrastructure and far, far, FAR fewer cars. I think the US should strive to reduce car ownership by 75% over the next 20 years, at least in cities over a certain population size. I don't want any more money invested in self-driving cars. But I'm also a grown-up of a certain age and realize the bright-eyed 20-something…

> I want public transportation infrastructure and far, far, FAR fewer cars.

I also want this, but I grew up in LA and thus realize that there are places where this won't happen.

> I don't want any more money invested in self-driving cars.

I would take money invested in self-driving cars over money "invested" in public transit in wildly inefficient ways that's less investment and more waste.

The problem with the position that money should go to transit instead of self-driving cars is that transit is a largely intractable problem because it's a political one, where self-driving cars are very much not an intractable problem because they're a technical one.

40,000+ people die every year in the US in car accidents. Self-driving cars have the potential to stop many of those deaths (and the injuries not counted in that). Investment in public transit, when you consider the practical realities, largely doesn't. I understand why folks prefer public transit as a solution, but self-driving cars will be a lifesaving technology, and on that basis they seem clearly worthy of investment.

And this is all doubly true since this isn't government money - it's VCs and private companies putting their cash towards solving a problem that's beneficial towards society. Why hold up public transit as the alternative to self-driving investment when there is absolutely no chance that these dollars would ever go to public transit?

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#664

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What do we want from self driving cars? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. I want public transportation infrastructure and far, far, FAR fewer cars. I think the US should strive to reduce car ownership by 75% over the next 20 years, at least in cities over a certain population size. I don't want any more money invested in self-driving cars. But I'm also a grown-up of a certain age and realize the bright-eyed 20-something…

> I want public transportation infrastructure and far, far, FAR fewer cars. I also want this, but I grew up in LA and thus realize that there are places where this won't happen. > I don't want any more money invested in self-driving cars. I would take money invested in self-driving cars over money "invested" in public transit in wildly inefficient ways that's less investment and more waste. The problem with the posit…

This makes little sense to me?

Investing in public transportation is a much more means tested way of reducing traffic accidents. Countries with good public transportation infrastructure have much less traffic deaths per 100k than car focused countries.

Why? Well it makes sense. Public transportation is much more safe all around as you are greatly reducing the amount of people in charge of machines capable of easily killing others.

So when you say "investing in self driving cars is investing in saving lives" you are right. It's just a much more inefficient way of doing it. Funny that you would consider public transportation a waste of money when looking at the actual data shows it's the most efficient way of moving people.

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#665

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Autonomous driving would reduce car ownership but it almost would certainly make traffic worse. The cost to get driven around or have things delivered would be less while demand would stay the same.

Many traffic jams occur for no other reason than human behavior: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qy6MrDcukk Autopilots immediately get rid of that so I would disagree and argue the less humans the better. Have fun playing around with the "politeness" lever for example: https://traffic-simulation.de/

Sure, but that's just one part of the traffic congestion problem. Add more cars, and whatever efficiency gains you gained from eliminating weird and inefficient human behavior rippling outward and causing random traffic jams will be more than outweighed by the presence of additional cars. Each additional car takes up ~15 feet plus the distance to the next car.

That adds up very quickly, and when you consider the presence of intersections and traffic lights, you aren't dealing with an isolated roadway where cars just...drive. There are very real limits on how many cars you can stuff in a given stretch of road without radically redesigning roads in a way that makes them entirely unusable for pedestrians and cyclists (i.e. replacing traffic lights with slot-based intersections[0]), meaning there's an upper limit to how much self-driving cars can limit congestion under the most optimistic scenarios.

When self-driving cars eventually manage to take hold, no one reasonably expects car traffic not to increase. Right now, you park your car and do things. There's no real opportunity cost, because you can't be two places at once. When your car can drive around on its own, there's now a real opportunity cost. If it can earn money for you with no human present, there's going to be a massive incentive to let it do so. Stores will use self-driving delivery vehicles--either their own or as part of their own delivery sharing services--for deliveries.

Will there hopefully be big improvements in pedestrian safety and decreased accidents? I think so, though they certainly won't eliminate either. But there will be an incredible amount of increased traffic that goes along with it.

0. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CZc3erc_l4

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#666

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You aren't going to kill people while going under 40mph on a highway (cars only, no pedestrians) anyway. Under 40mph is like stop and go traffic. This is a marketing stunt. They've taken a well-solved problem (stop and go) and taken responsibility for it, and getting headlines by screaming something about J3016 level 3.

A highway is any public road per legal definition. https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2022/code-veh/divisi... 40mph is more than enough to kill someone.

Mercedes' system only works on specific listed limited-access highways, not all public roads.

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#667
post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What do we want from self driving cars? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. I want public transportation infrastructure and far, far, FAR fewer cars. I think the US should strive to reduce car ownership by 75% over the next 20 years, at least in cities over a certain population size. I don't want any more money invested in self-driving cars. But I'm also a grown-up of a certain age and realize the bright-eyed 20-something…

This ship sailed like 60 years ago (blame your parents, speaking of consequences). At this point, autonomous driving is the best we can do in places like Los Angeles or San Diego.

The housing stock of a city rebuilds itself over a 30-60 year timeframe though. So starting now doesn't preclude us getting ahead of things for the future. We need some gutsy Robert Moses type figures, utilizing modern knowledge and less racism.

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#668

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just off the cuff saying things like this makes it seem you are the one that doesn’t understand consequences. The American economy is unfortunately driven by car ownership. So unless you also have a way to change almost every facet of American life in the next 20 years, you’re just blowing smoke. That being said, I would love it if car reliance was drastically reduced. But it’s not going to happen.

If the US wanted to become less car dependent and a world leader in public transport, it could and would. It won’t be easy, it will take decades, but it can certainly happen. And without a doubt the economy would be just fine in the long run. It’s survived a depression, WW2, bailing out Europe, Cold War, Vietnam, Iraq, 9/11, Afghanistan and the 2008 crash after all.

Sure, not arguing that, but it would take an overhaul of almost everything, that will not happen in a span of 20 years. But at the end of the day, the US doesn’t want this, at either the policy or the civilian level. We like going into 60k of debt to drive our big SUVs just a little too much.

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trains for local transportation make no sense. Trams for high-throughput and buses for everything else is the only sensible thing for local public transport.

Works well in Japan.

When I was in Japan a decade ago trains were only used between cities. I doubt that's changed.

Re: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in California

#670
post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Self driving fleets will be driving around to avoid parking while staying in the high use areas, and contributing a lot to traffic, perhaps more than if everyone just had their own car.

Yes, there are a some things that will push towards higher traffic, including induced demand as it becomes cheaper and easier to move around. This would need to be offset by ride-sharing (and perhaps to some extend by the reduced demand for parking, though I don't think this can really increase throughput much). Like I said, I think ride-sharing, especially with higher capacity vehicles, can offset this significantly…

Ride-sharing isn't going to solve these problems. At most, you fit up to five people in a single car. Most will carry fewer people, perhaps only one or two.

If you try to scale up ride sharing vehicles so they carry more people, you now have to build specialized vehicles that make multi-stop trips where you pick up multiple parties on-demand and drop them off at their individual locations. You've now eliminated the advantages of ride-sharing or taxis--they pick you up where you want and take you directly where you want to go--and managed to recreate a smaller bus. Let's call it a small, self-driving minibus that's not a bus system but a ride share system.

Only it's much worse than a bus, because bus routes are optimized in a way that vehicles picking up and dropping off passengers at what amounts to random locations on-demand never can be. Plus, you're adding even more vehicles to the road in addition to all the other self-driving cars that are running around making deliveries, looking for parking or running off to the outskirts of the city to kill some time as they wait for their human passenger to summon them again, or hustling to try to pick up passengers to make some money for their owners.

Heck, you can't even have them drive on access-limited busways or bus lanes because, by their very nature, they can't stick to dedicated routes.

Consider this: the Siemens S700 streetcar carries over two-hundred people in its usual configuration[0] with a length of just under 95 feet, or the equivalent of around ~6 cars that are almost bumper-to-bumper and trams can be built to be autonomous.

Self-driving cars have their benefits, but they're not an alternative to actual public transport solutions no matter how we try to dress them up. In the end, and as others have pointed out elsewhere in recent years, every new transit idea eventually boils down to a train. Or, in this case, an actual bus.

0. https://assets.new.siemens.com/siemens/assets/api/uuid:3ce5a...

Post reply on HN