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

“Coning” AVs is part of a long tradition of tactical urbanism

oversharing.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 101 posts

Re: “Coning” AVs is part of a long tradition of tactical urbanism

#21

Post by fluoridation »

aidenn0 wrote: post #15
spankalee wrote: post #5

AVs will help reduce pedestrian deaths and reduce car ownership. While they are still cars and don't solve all car problems like traffic, most reasonable urbanists seem to support them.

> reduce car ownership Really? Since when has making using something more convenient reduced ownership of it? The less of a pain it is to take a car somewhere, the more often people will take cars places. It's very slightly possible that there will be fewer total cars all running at a higher utilization, but the mean number of cars on the road at any given time would seem like it would only go up.

If there are fewer total cars, how can ownership not also go down?

Re: “Coning” AVs is part of a long tradition of tactical urbanism

#22

Post by [deleted] »

bluescrn wrote: post #3

Whatever you think of autonomous vehicles, we should not continue to normalise maximally disruptive acts of protest by tiny groups. Serious protest should involve serious people power, not just a handful of radicals aiming for maximum disruptive impact (usually knowing they'll face zero consequences for it, and may well turn more people against their cause, e.g 'Just Stop Oil' in the UK)

[deleted]

Re: “Coning” AVs is part of a long tradition of tactical urbanism

#23

Post by apendleton »

aidenn0 wrote: post #15
spankalee wrote: post #5

AVs will help reduce pedestrian deaths and reduce car ownership. While they are still cars and don't solve all car problems like traffic, most reasonable urbanists seem to support them.

> reduce car ownership Really? Since when has making using something more convenient reduced ownership of it? The less of a pain it is to take a car somewhere, the more often people will take cars places. It's very slightly possible that there will be fewer total cars all running at a higher utilization, but the mean number of cars on the road at any given time would seem like it would only go up.

> Really? Since when has making using something more convenient reduced ownership of it?

These will be more convenient, but also dramatically more expensive, and _that_ certainly reduces the ownership of things.

> the mean number of cars on the road at any given time would seem like it would only go up

That's orthogonal to the question of level of ownership -- these can both be true simultaneously.

And it may even be the case that the number of cars on the road goes down. The idea would be that if these services are convenient enough for more people to forego owning their own vehicle in favor of using a fleet, the economics on a per-trip basis would change: now, for car owners, owning a car has a high fixed cost and very low marginal cost per trip, so once you've bought the car, registered it, insured it, etc., you're incentivized to use it for as many trips as possible to recoup your investment. Using a fleet service, you would have low/no fixed costs and comparatively higher per-trip costs, meaning that for some trips, it might be cheaper to take transit, bikeshare, etc. A lot would come down to the specifics of pricing, though, so it's hard to predict with any certainty.

Re: “Coning” AVs is part of a long tradition of tactical urbanism

#24

Post by AirMax98 »

bluescrn wrote: post #3

Whatever you think of autonomous vehicles, we should not continue to normalise maximally disruptive acts of protest by tiny groups. Serious protest should involve serious people power, not just a handful of radicals aiming for maximum disruptive impact (usually knowing they'll face zero consequences for it, and may well turn more people against their cause, e.g 'Just Stop Oil' in the UK)

Feel like it is also a handful of radicals that want this unproven tech on the streets.

Re: “Coning” AVs is part of a long tradition of tactical urbanism

#25

Post by on-demand-econ »

wardedVibe wrote: post #9
davidw wrote: post #2

I think the jury is still out on self driving vehicles, but the ever larger trucks and SUV's on our streets are a clear and present danger to life and limb. I'd focus on those in terms of street safety, as well as safe infrastructure for people walking or biking.

I'd rather see them deflating the tires on any trucks beyond a certain size parked in cities

this is a thing! https://www.independent.ie/regionals/dublin/dublin-news/tyre...

Re: “Coning” AVs is part of a long tradition of tactical urbanism

#26

Post by aidenn0 »

fluoridation wrote: post #21
aidenn0 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> reduce car ownership Really? Since when has making using something more convenient reduced ownership of it? The less of a pain it is to take a car somewhere, the more often people will take cars places. It's very slightly possible that there will be fewer total cars all running at a higher utilization, but the mean number of cars on the road at any given time would seem like it would only go up.

If there are fewer total cars, how can ownership not also go down?

I don't think there will be fewer total cars (unless as a sibling asserts, they will be significantly more expensive), but I admit the possibility. Many (but not all; cf. parking) of the issues of cars in urban areas are related to cars being on the road, not being owned.

Re: “Coning” AVs is part of a long tradition of tactical urbanism

#27

Post by spankalee »

aidenn0 wrote: post #15
spankalee wrote: post #5

AVs will help reduce pedestrian deaths and reduce car ownership. While they are still cars and don't solve all car problems like traffic, most reasonable urbanists seem to support them.

> reduce car ownership Really? Since when has making using something more convenient reduced ownership of it? The less of a pain it is to take a car somewhere, the more often people will take cars places. It's very slightly possible that there will be fewer total cars all running at a higher utilization, but the mean number of cars on the road at any given time would seem like it would only go up.

AVs will be largely owned by fleets, which will cause people to need to own fewer private cars, which has a number of positive effects on parking, transit, and sentiment towards non-car-oriented policies and developments.

Re: “Coning” AVs is part of a long tradition of tactical urbanism

#28

Post by Fricken »

flaque wrote: post #6

This is the "anti-nuclear" of urbanism. AVs are safe now and they're only going to get safer. You can't legitimately say you care about pedestrian and bike safety and then turn around and suddenly try and block AVs because the vibes are wrong.

Matters of safety are not the only problem with our urban transportation systems, but the AV companies would like for you to think about it that way. It's single vector sci-fi.

Re: “Coning” AVs is part of a long tradition of tactical urbanism

#29

Post by iudqnolq »

apendleton wrote: post #23
aidenn0 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> reduce car ownership Really? Since when has making using something more convenient reduced ownership of it? The less of a pain it is to take a car somewhere, the more often people will take cars places. It's very slightly possible that there will be fewer total cars all running at a higher utilization, but the mean number of cars on the road at any given time would seem like it would only go up.

> Really? Since when has making using something more convenient reduced ownership of it? These will be more convenient, but also dramatically more expensive, and _that_ certainly reduces the ownership of things. > the mean number of cars on the road at any given time would seem like it would only go up That's orthogonal to the question of level of ownership -- these can both be true simultaneously. And it may even be…

Making all cars more expensive would reduce car ownership. Adding extra expensive cars while keeping constant (or even reducing*) the price of cars at the bottom won't.

*if everyone suddenly wants to buy the amazing new self-serving cars then that could effect the used car market

Post reply on HN