Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a European, this seems like an impossible feat at this point. It has been tried, but the cities have evolved in a way where this is just unfeasible. EU cities have mostly been built to be dense around train & bus stations. US cities (besides NY) are extremely large, flat, and spread out. Even if you had public transportation, it would be practically impossible to get from A to B because there are no hotspots besid…
U.S cities were rebuilt to accommodate cars, and there's no reason they can't be rebuilt to undo this damage.
Waymo says insurance data shows its driverless cars are safer than humans
261–270 of 288 posts
Re: Waymo says insurance data shows its driverless cars are safer than humans
#262It's important to remember they're only testing and using these cars in areas that don't have winters. The results don't extrapolate to driving in non-cherry picked areas. This article should only be considered re: the context of local SF politics and the recent Cruise revocation.
If you are comparing insurance rates then you are already comparing a similar area. If insurance companies would give you a discount if your car had self driving enabled that seems like a pretty sure fire guarantee that self driving is better.
I am not saying anything about the relative safety of driving in cherry-picked environments like SF. The data can talk about that and in this case is supports autonomous cars as being safer in SF.
I am saying that you can't extrapolate that data and say that autonomous vehicles will be safer than human drivers in, say, NYC or Minneapolis. They won't be. The environmental challenges that exist in most roads in the USA do not exist in the SF test environment. That's part of the reason why tests are always done in SF or Arizona, etc. They have much easier and unchanging road conditions and visibility.
So the takeaways from this article only really apply and make sense as responses to the current local SF politics. They do not show autonomous cars are better drivers in general.
Re: Waymo says insurance data shows its driverless cars are safer than humans
#263Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dozens of billions are being poured in. That’s we got the California high speed rail connecting nowhere to nothing and BART just barely making it to San Jose. None of that still fixes the last mile problem of suburbia, and buses aren’t a solution. They are slow, too infrequent, and generally uncomfortable.
> They are slow, too infrequent, and generally uncomfortable. Uh, make them more frequent, more comfortable and faster? I spend the last 15 minutes of my commute on a bus. Driving vs. bus + train = 3 minutes. I can drive, probably get stuck in traffic, get pissed at angry drivers ... or just chill on a bus and train for 45 minutes. The only time it is worth driving is when I need to-the-minute exactness of when to ar…
This is a spot-on description of self-driving cars.
Re: Waymo says insurance data shows its driverless cars are safer than humans
#264Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that someone always makes this sort of comment when driverless cars come up is really weird to me. I've never owned a car, use public transit very regularly, and think the state of it in the US is pretty bad and underinvested in. However, that's due to a huge set of systemic factors (political, organizational, spatial, ...) which nobody seems to have made much progress on, and not for lack of trying. Yeah, i…
I suspect driverless cars get more perceived attention because switching cars over will actually make a lot more money then building up a public transport system. Its a bit like with washing machines or TV sets. Selling to each and every individual household or even citizen is going to be more lucrative then maintaining shared infrastructure.
Re: Waymo says insurance data shows its driverless cars are safer than humans
#265Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you been to Switzerland? Their public transport system is a mix of busses/short trams and long trip trains. They aren't precisely a high density urban country. They have suburban sectors. The difference here is that they don't make walking a punishment. You can count that everywhere you want to go there's a walking path, even when going off-road. Yes, it's not 100%, but it doesn't need to be. If you can reach 70…
I've been to Switzerland and it was _great_. Only had to grab an Uber a handful of times. However, Switzerland is like the size of the Houston metroplex. Getting to the corners of Switzerland seems like a problem on a different scale from the US.
Re: Waymo says insurance data shows its driverless cars are safer than humans
#266Earlier quoted context omitted.
People need cars. You can't take away half of people's cars without massively restructuring transit. In aggregate, people are correct to feel entitled to get around town without going bankrupt trying. Why would that baffle you? You're not talking about exceptionally bad drivers, you're talking about half of them. That makes a big difference.
If half of them are bad and dangerous, I am talking about bad drivers, regardless of the number. People don't need cars. This is a luxury they based their life one. They can adapt the other way too.
Th number matters for whether it's feasible to implement.
In a large sense everyone is a bad driver.
> People don't need cars. This is a luxury they based their life one. They can adapt the other way too.
People are stuck in situations that need cars. Adaptation without external help would take decades. Tens of millions would suffer badly.
With enough change cars could be turned back into a luxury, but right now they aren't a luxury for most people in the US.
Re: Waymo says insurance data shows its driverless cars are safer than humans
#267I can imagine this is true--But I'd be curious to know how Waymo's robots compare with the safest human drivers (under similar conditions), not the average of all humans.
While that's an entertaining question, why would they care about that when they're just trying to determine the price they should charge for insurance?
Re: Waymo says insurance data shows its driverless cars are safer than humans
#268Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is because one of the go-to talking points for postponing and diffusing support for better transit is the promise of self driving cars that will somehow solve everything. It doesn’t make sense because the traffic jam problem with cars comes not from human drivers but the physics of the car itself, but it is a persistent talking point nevertheless.
I don't think this is true at all. There are at least 5 talking points that are much more common and frankly more persuasive than the promise of self driving cars. 1. Special interest group capture has made building public transit impossibly expensive. Waymo's entire $30B valuation wouldn't even fix NYC's subway and finish the 2nd ave expansion. 2. American's don't like public transit because it involves being in con…
Fun fact / example: My hometown started as a logging town next to train tracks, but grew outwards in one direction, so the train is now off towards the edge of town and it would take most residents around an hour to walk there. Just about everyone who takes the train drives there and uses its parking lot.
Re: Waymo says insurance data shows its driverless cars are safer than humans
#269Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is because one of the go-to talking points for postponing and diffusing support for better transit is the promise of self driving cars that will somehow solve everything. It doesn’t make sense because the traffic jam problem with cars comes not from human drivers but the physics of the car itself, but it is a persistent talking point nevertheless.
I don't think this is true at all. There are at least 5 talking points that are much more common and frankly more persuasive than the promise of self driving cars. 1. Special interest group capture has made building public transit impossibly expensive. Waymo's entire $30B valuation wouldn't even fix NYC's subway and finish the 2nd ave expansion. 2. American's don't like public transit because it involves being in con…
To answer the bullet points you made:
>1. Special interest group capture has made building public transit impossibly expensive. Waymo's entire $30B valuation wouldn't even fix NYC's subway and finish the 2nd ave expansion.
Yes, a lot of public projects are allowed to be overblown in budgeting. This has many causes and they need to be addressed, but it is not a reason for halting all infrastructure improvement. It is simply a problem orthogonal to the one being discussed. But on the subject of cost, public transit can definitely be way cheaper than car ownership for the individual. (Yes I know fares are subsidized but so are roads and other car infrastructure, so that all needs to be balanced before claiming public transit is just the upstanding taxpayer paying for the poor and filthy).
>2. American's don't like public transit because it involves being in confined space with other people, and a variety of cultural factors make that more unpleasant than it is in other countries. There is no culture of shame here so people on public transit are commonly extremely annoying and there's no law enforcement in many large cities so you just have to deal with it.
That sounds like another problem that needs to be dealt with entirely separately, but there obviously are a lot of US cities with massively used public transport without there being more crime there than elsewhere in the city/region.
>3. Most americans live in suburbia where robust public transit just isn't possible. It can be improved but mostly that just means commuter rail which still requires using a car for everything other than commuting, and usually people drive to the commuter rail station anyway.
Even if they do, that still goes a long way towards solving the traffic jam problem, because it's the physics of the car itself that creates the jam. There just can not be enough cars on the road for everyone because there simply isn't space. Those that absolutely need or want to use it should be able to, and that is made easier when more people use transit.
>4. We already have all the road infrustrure needed for transportation
See point 3, no we don't. We can not because there isn't space for all the cars at the rush hour times.
>5. Even in the best of circumstances public transit is more of a hassle than just driving directly from point a to point b
That's perfectly fine. If I can save myself the cost of a car I am happy to walk a bit. Not all will make that cost/benefit calculation and that's fine too. But really, the exact time when it is a complete pain to drive (rush hour) is the time where good transit beats the car anytime, and also the exact time when every single transit passenger is one less car on the road, being in the way of all the other cars. Lastly, the micro-mobility devices of recent years really do solve the problem of this for many or most. It takes me very little time and is quite enjoyable, to rent a scooter in the morning to get to the best bus stop to get to work. When there I can walk to work or if I need to go further I rent another scooter.
All this to say, good and robust public transit is a win-win for every person in the town/city. Except perhaps the car dealership owner.
Edit: Oh, and I can't believe I forgot to mention, given this thread. The ultimate solution to the last-mile travel for longer distances is indeed self driving cars!
Re: Waymo says insurance data shows its driverless cars are safer than humans
#270Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think this is true at all. There are at least 5 talking points that are much more common and frankly more persuasive than the promise of self driving cars. 1. Special interest group capture has made building public transit impossibly expensive. Waymo's entire $30B valuation wouldn't even fix NYC's subway and finish the 2nd ave expansion. 2. American's don't like public transit because it involves being in con…
I never said this was the only argument people made. But it is one of the strawmen/distractions that are commonly thrown up in at least some areas. To answer the bullet points you made: >1. Special interest group capture has made building public transit impossibly expensive. Waymo's entire $30B valuation wouldn't even fix NYC's subway and finish the 2nd ave expansion. Yes, a lot of public projects are allowed to be o…
I really just think you either don't know or aren't thinking about how most people live with this statement. Micro mobility is great in urban areas, but for the vast majority of americans it is a complete non starter. No one wants to use a scooter on a 4 lane road where everyone is going 50, and that's the reality for almost every american. I live in an urban area, never owned a car. I would love to see more public transit, but it's just so obvious that it can't work in non urban areas and even many urban areas built post car unless you tear everything down and start from scratch. And as much as we may want that it's never going to happen.
Scooters also blow in the winter in all the cities where people would consider using them since the warm cities are all concrete hellscapes where scootering is legitimately dangerous.