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

Uber was supposed to help traffic. It didn’t. Robotaxis will be even worse

sfchronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 134 posts

Re: Uber was supposed to help traffic. It didn’t. Robotaxis will be even worse

#71

Post by Jensson »

lobster_roll wrote: post #62

> Cars are more convenient and comfortable I worry that this perspective alone oversimplifies the issue and doesn't consider that when riding an SF bus today one has to worry about: - Aggressive passengers - Stench from smoking / urine / body odor / people bringing in garbage into the bus - Being on guard in case of theft (can't pull out laptop and catch up on work) - Falling off seat due to aggressive bus driving -…

You would need to change your entire society to fix that. I don't have those issues where I live because people for some reason don't do those things.

Re: Uber was supposed to help traffic. It didn’t. Robotaxis will be even worse

#72

Post by MBCook »

mike_d wrote: post #52
ufo wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the parent poster is talking about fees that are proportional to congestion, to disincentivize driving during rush hour.

The Bay Area does this with carpool lanes. The electronic billboard says $12 and you see a nonstop stream of Tesla, BMW, Mercedes, etc. and tech company busses. All it does is force the poor to sit in traffic while some lanes are reserved for people to whom $12 is inconsequential. I fail to see how applying this same logic to an entire road makes it any better.

That just tells me the price is wrong.

Re: Uber was supposed to help traffic. It didn’t. Robotaxis will be even worse

#73

Post by mortureb »

MBCook wrote: post #69
mr_toad wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How? If we replace every car driven by an individual with a car driven by machine If all vehicles - not just cars - were driven by machines and connected to a network then there are many optimisations that they could be doing. For example you could get rid of traffic lights, yielding rules, even lanes. Cars could travel much faster if they didn’t have to worry about reaction times. For example cars could go through…

Realistically, I don’t see how anyone could EVER pass a law saying humans can’t drive where other cars can. Americans (I’m one!) seem far too independently minded, in the sense of wanting to be in control themselves. Even if you could get 90% on board, the other 10% will fight to the death over it. Which means the benefits of a 100% automated system (which I disagree with BTW), can’t be reached except possibly after…

We said you can’t have horse drawn buggies on highways, I don’t see why you couldn’t have a similar rule for automated vehicles 50 years from now.

Re: Uber was supposed to help traffic. It didn’t. Robotaxis will be even worse

#74

Post by mortureb »

jprete wrote: post #43
mortureb wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I said all vehicles. If they’re all automated, they can all talk to each other and effect all those changes.

Do you think that people would be on the road _less_ if everyone were using taxis instead of personal cars? If so, why? What's the actual reason why robotaxis reduce the demand, or consumption, of road miles?

Of course. If automated driving was the only way you could get around it would make no sense to get your own vehicle.

Re: Uber was supposed to help traffic. It didn’t. Robotaxis will be even worse

#75

Post by MBCook »

lobster_roll wrote: post #62

> Cars are more convenient and comfortable I worry that this perspective alone oversimplifies the issue and doesn't consider that when riding an SF bus today one has to worry about: - Aggressive passengers - Stench from smoking / urine / body odor / people bringing in garbage into the bus - Being on guard in case of theft (can't pull out laptop and catch up on work) - Falling off seat due to aggressive bus driving -…

There are solutions to those problems other than robotaxis.

Perhaps we should solve those issues directly instead of finding a way to ignore them by paying investors money.

Re: Uber was supposed to help traffic. It didn’t. Robotaxis will be even worse

#76

Post by seanmcdirmid »

MBCook wrote: post #46
mortureb wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah what you luddite. You seem more concerned about maintaining artificial jobs and stifling progress to “prevent people getting rich off of it”. Having a 100% automated driving system will fix traffic. It will be better for the environment. It will give us back more time in our day.

> Having a 100% automated driving system will fix traffic. How? If we replace every car driven by an individual with a car driven by machine… you’re left with the same number of cars. Just as much traffic. Still need all the roads. And parking lots unless the cars drive more to avoid parking. Better for the environment? I don’t see it. Every car taken off the road (including EVs!) is less polluting. Less fuel. Less m…

True actual driving aspect can be optimized if all cars were self driving (traffic lights could be handled via negotiation between each car at an intersection, traffic on ring roads could get into a more train-like arrangements, etc…). It’s unlikely to happen in the states anytime soon, but it is something that could happen in cities with really messed up traffic but lots of money; eg some Chinese cities, where normal cars have little care about ambulances already.

Re: Uber was supposed to help traffic. It didn’t. Robotaxis will be even worse

#77

Post by BurningFrog »

mike_d wrote: post #45
BurningFrog wrote: post #14

The solution for too much traffic is well known and independent of robotaxis. "Road Pricing" means that vehicles pay for driving on congested roads. The price is set so that road supply and demand match, and traffic flows optimally. It also gives the road owner an income for providing important roads.

This already exists in the form of a gas tax and road use taxes (registration). NIMBYs get in the way of building the lanes that already have demand and funding. Extending it further really just ends up as a restriction on the movements of the poor.

Road pricing ideally works by dynamically having different prices for different roads and time of day, depending on load, in order to make traffic flow at all times.

Gas tax and registration fees are intended to pay for road maintenance, which is also useful, but are way too primitive and unfocused for this purpose.

Re: Uber was supposed to help traffic. It didn’t. Robotaxis will be even worse

#78

Post by MBCook »

mortureb wrote: post #73
MBCook wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Realistically, I don’t see how anyone could EVER pass a law saying humans can’t drive where other cars can. Americans (I’m one!) seem far too independently minded, in the sense of wanting to be in control themselves. Even if you could get 90% on board, the other 10% will fight to the death over it. Which means the benefits of a 100% automated system (which I disagree with BTW), can’t be reached except possibly after…

We said you can’t have horse drawn buggies on highways, I don’t see why you couldn’t have a similar rule for automated vehicles 50 years from now.

Highways didn’t exist when cars became common. They came because of cars. We never took them away from horse riders. We gave car drivers a new option.

This would be taking something away from drivers. And that’s what people hate. Look at the responses to congestion taxes or toll roads. Or even traffic jams!

People behave as if they have a right to use any (seemingly) public road just because they have a car. Even private toll roads.

It’s not feasible.

Re: Uber was supposed to help traffic. It didn’t. Robotaxis will be even worse

#79

Post by xethos »

mortureb wrote: post #74
jprete wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think that people would be on the road _less_ if everyone were using taxis instead of personal cars? If so, why? What's the actual reason why robotaxis reduce the demand, or consumption, of road miles?

Of course. If automated driving was the only way you could get around it would make no sense to get your own vehicle.

Now you've just alienated two groups: environmentalists that realize cars are bad for the environment, and car people that are interested in driving their own unique vehicles. The former you were never going to get, but the latter could concievably have been on your side about getting bad drivers from behind the wheel.

You've gone from "People won't have to drive", to "People cannot drive". And the latter will likely play poorly in rural areas.

Re: Uber was supposed to help traffic. It didn’t. Robotaxis will be even worse

#80

Post by rrrrrrrrrrrryan »

BurningFrog wrote: post #14

The solution for too much traffic is well known and independent of robotaxis. "Road Pricing" means that vehicles pay for driving on congested roads. The price is set so that road supply and demand match, and traffic flows optimally. It also gives the road owner an income for providing important roads.

It needs to be based on the number of passengers, though.

3 people in the car should be free in all circumstances.

2 people in the car should be free sometimes, but pay a very small fee when the road is very congested.

1 person should always pay a fee. Sometimes small, sometimes large, depending on traffic.

0 people in the car (in the case of autonomous cars) should always pay a phat fee.

This is the only thing that will prevent driverless cars from ruining our awesome road infrastructure in America. If we don't do this, driverless taxi companies will have cars polluting and congesting every public road trying to be capture a ride until they're clogged and useless.

Post reply on HN