Earlier quoted context omitted.
Arguments I heard that make no sense to me: - Autonomous cars will improve traffic because stopped cars can start going at the same time at an intersection -> Then you have no safety distance. And while theoretical improved reaction times mean you might need a bit less distance, the quadratic term comes from the needed breaking deceleration, not the reaction time. - Autonomous cars will reduce congestion: they can't…
You only need reaction time factored in when the driver in front might act unpredictably. If the self driving cars pass information about the road ahead to cars behind, and let the car behind know what they are doing and planning to do the the required 'reaction time' is zero. Congestion is often caused by reaction times stacking up until a car has to completely stop. Then you have a stationary section of road that m…
Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives
871–880 of 883 posts
Re: Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives
#872Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, the autonomous car companies will have their vehicles coordinating to make it difficult for humans to drive, such as holding a long convoy with close following distance in a single lane.
At least I'd be able to cut them off with impunity and know they won't try and follow me for it
Re: Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives
#873Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is she able to get insurance coverage?
Strangely enough... Most US states do not require insurance. Yes, really! In almost every state, you may post a bond in lieu of insurance, for an amount as low as $35,000!
Most of those state processes are a) reserved for businesses b) discretionary and they exercise their discretion not to approve anyone.
If it was something that was practically doable every 200k HHI household that drives old cars and has good health insurance would take advantage of them.
Re: Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives
#874Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where I live now to where my mom lives would take 24 to 30 hours by train and cost 400 to 500 usd. At 30mpg and $5/gal, the cost of driving is $200 and takes 12h. So I can take a train for double the time and cost or I can drive. Now consider round trip and passenger. It's 40 miles either side to get to a train. Neither side has a walkable city so being without a car sucks. Summer in one is hot as hell, winter in the…
They aren't for you, apparently. Too bad. I guess no one gets one since it doesn't work for your use case and life in particular. And nothing says the train must take 30 hours. 12H of highway driving is what, 600 miles? 1000? The slowest high speed rail lines in China have a design speed of 120mph. Some go 240mph. So that 600 mile trip could take 5 hours. The 1000 mile trip could take 8 and some change. Add in an hou…
"It's clearly impossible! We're too big! IT CAN'T BE DONE!"
Re: Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives
#875Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "The majority of drivers are good, but some drivers are really bad." I take issue with this. The majority of drivers are "mostly fine as long as circumstances are favorable", not "good". People for the most part do not even know about the concept of defensive driving let alone practice it. Even the best people are fundamentally complacent in basically everything they do. They zone out sometimes, they get too close,…
This is not supported by crash data. In Australia alcohol is involved in some 30% of fatal crashes. A lot of crashes are caused by a very small number of hoon drivers, distracted drivers etc. Autonomous cars beating the average that includes the above are still worse than a diligent driver, which anyone can resolve to be.
That's a term I haven't heard before, care to enlighten me? Don't know what it means but its fun to say lol.
Re: Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives
#876Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. The human brain reinforces circuitry that is used often, meaning the human brain is generally quite adaptable. Ancient (and modern) hunters sit still and silent for hours waiting for game, with their brains ready to take over in an instant on the rare occasion something happens.
Right but you don't get in car accidents or near-accidents often. Ergo your brain becomes wired for the 99.9999999% of driving that is completely uneventful. Hunters are a self-selecting group of people who enjoy the activity you describe. If you don't like it or can't do it, you just don't do it. Virtually every single adult in America has to drive, however, to live a functional life.
Re: Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives
#877Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the long-long-term, self-driving will get good enough and people will be relying on it so thoroughly that allowing people to drive on their own, with barely any practice, will probably be more risky than it's worth. In say, idk, 100 years (probably sooner), I doubt people will be able to drive their own cars in the way they do today.
The overwhelming majority of bad driving is caused by alcohol and other drugs, drowsiness, and inattentive driving. Sober, well-rested human beings who pay full attention to the road are surprisingly good drivers, to the point where I'm not actually sure that robotaxis can reliably beat them yet. Yeah, a hundred years from now fewer people will drive themselves, but considering how many people DESPISE driving and onl…
> Sober, well-rested human beings who pay full attention to the road are surprisingly good drivers, to the point where I'm not actually sure that robotaxis can reliably beat them yet.
Including "inattentive" and "pay full attention to the road" feels a little tautological? Like, what's your definition of "inattentive"? More or less by definition, if there's an accident, someone was "inattentive" and didn't do the correct thing. Unless they were actively malicious and trying to hurt someone, which I agree would be a tiny minority of car accidents.
Re: Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives
#878Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the cities could invest in public transportation today Again, with what money? My city is insolvent and every extra money it gets goes to cover the massive financial hole of social programs like elderly care and handicapped people, which is growing in need. Would you sacrifice the elderly and disabled, so people give up on needing cars to get to work? Again, just saying "invest in public transportation" is like tel…
Car infrastructure is typically a huge part of the costs of any city. Roads and parking spots and so on don't maintain themselves. If most people used public transport, you'd need far less road infra to maintain every year. Anyway, my point was about how we allocate existing money, not about increasing spending.
Car drivers, at least in EU where I live, are net cash cows to the local economy with all the taxes they pay on everything car related and second order business they support: fuel tax, car tax, insurance, parking , service stations, gas stations, shops, dealerships, finance leasing and banking, towing services, emissions tax, etc
All of these businesses profit from car drivers. If you remove cars you'll have a massive hole in the economy. That's why no government has banned cars, but just made driving expensive to increase the money they get from drivers and add it to the city/government budget that then gets spent on public transport infrastructure..
> Roads and parking spots and so on don't maintain themselves.
Roads and parking spots are not free for car drivers(where I live), they pay for them directly in taxes, and it's a net profit for the local economy. That's where the maintenance money comes from.
>If most people used public transport, you'd need far less road infra to maintain every year.
Buses drive on the same car infrastructure as cars and cause more road damage due to their massive weight so you still need roads and maintenance costs. If you replace cars with more busses then the roads will see even more wear needing more money except now you have less money.
>Anyway, my point was about how we allocate existing money,
That's an economically illiterate and purely ideology driven take that makes no sense. You can't allocate existing funding away from roads towards more public transport because exiting public transport also depends on roads existing and being maintained, with money from car drivers chipping in to share those roads.
If you want to improve or add new public transport(like build rail or buy more busses) then you need to get more money from somewhere. There's no free lunch where if you get drivers off the road then suddenly you have more money. No, now you have less money.
And I'm on your side in spirit, I want a car-free society. But for that I want to see Swiss levels of public transport first. Life is too short to waste it commuting on bad infrequent and slow public transit that doesn't take me where I need to get. Hence driving cars FTW.
Re: Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives
#879Re: Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives
#880Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right but you don't get in car accidents or near-accidents often. Ergo your brain becomes wired for the 99.9999999% of driving that is completely uneventful. Hunters are a self-selecting group of people who enjoy the activity you describe. If you don't like it or can't do it, you just don't do it. Virtually every single adult in America has to drive, however, to live a functional life.
I try to watch car crash dashcam videos once a month or so on Reddit or YouTube. I feel like it recalibrates my brain to be more aware of the things that could happen that are out on the tail end of the distribution, like you say.
Do you do this for the purpose of calibrating your brain? Or more just some morbid curiosity of yours? :D