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

Uber Wants to Make It Illegal to Operate Your Own Self-Driving Car in Cities

cei.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 50 posts

Re: Uber Wants to Make It Illegal to Operate Your Own Self-Driving Car in Cities

#41

Post by CogitoCogito »

rayiner wrote: post #27
peapicker wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can pry my human-driven gas-burning vehicle out of my cold dead hands.

You can keep the car and drive it on your farm. But as to public roads, they're a limited public resource, and the government has an obligation to ensure they are utilized as efficiently as possible. That will be achieved by only allowing self-driving cars.

Once self-driving cars are proved to be able to support the entire population at reasonable levels of safety, privacy, efficiency, reliability, etc., over a long enough period of time (I'd say a couple decades), I would accept the _beginning_ of a conversation about only allowing self-driving cars (even then the only sane thing is to have specific areas like certain highways devoted to self-driving cars). Unfortunately, I don't really see how that can be proven without them actually doing it. If self-driving cars require 100% penetration before they are viable they are and should be dead in the water. I will not support the dismantling of our main transportation network on a pipe dream.

The government has many ways to ensure that public roads are utilized more efficiently. A first step could simply be to increase taxes on gasoline (with increased equivalent taxes on electric cars). This would decrease the roads' utilization. They could also increase road-usage taxation that increases at higher levels of utilization. There are also many other actions that can be taken and none of them require a 100% conversion to an untested complete electric fleet of vehicles.

Re: Uber Wants to Make It Illegal to Operate Your Own Self-Driving Car in Cities

#43

Post by gargravarr »

acheron wrote: post #34
rayiner wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can keep the car and drive it on your farm. But as to public roads, they're a limited public resource, and the government has an obligation to ensure they are utilized as efficiently as possible. That will be achieved by only allowing self-driving cars.

I used to think the song "Red Barchetta" was far-fetched.

Have you read the story it's based on, 'A Nice Sunday Drive'?

Re: Uber Wants to Make It Illegal to Operate Your Own Self-Driving Car in Cities

#45

Post by TheCoelacanth »

Stupid idea. Just get rid of all parking minimums and the favorable tax treatment of parking lots in commercial areas and the problem of having too many personal cars in city centers will take care of itself without heavy-handed regulation.

Re: Uber Wants to Make It Illegal to Operate Your Own Self-Driving Car in Cities

#46

Post by zild3d »

soneil wrote: post #31
rayiner wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can keep the car and drive it on your farm. But as to public roads, they're a limited public resource, and the government has an obligation to ensure they are utilized as efficiently as possible. That will be achieved by only allowing self-driving cars.

Unfortunately this is the kinda stuff that creates red/blue divides. I used to live somewhere I could drive the 12 miles to work without seeing another car. Telling people around there that they can't have their trucks because roads are a limited resource, would go over like a fart in a spacesuit.

> like a fart in a spacesuit

relevant quora discussion [1] - doesn't seem too bad since the suit has a carbon filter and the helmet is well-sealed & separated from the rest of the suit. (breathable air is prioritized for the head of course, not so much the rest of the suit)

[1] https://www.quora.com/What-happens-when-astronauts-fart-in-t...

Re: Uber Wants to Make It Illegal to Operate Your Own Self-Driving Car in Cities

#47

Post by burfog »

eesmith wrote: post #30
rayiner wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can keep the car and drive it on your farm. But as to public roads, they're a limited public resource, and the government has an obligation to ensure they are utilized as efficiently as possible. That will be achieved by only allowing self-driving cars.

"as efficiently as possible" There is no such obligation. Or rather, how do you define "utilize"? In terms of transport efficiency, buses and light rail carry more people than cars. And if only self-driving cars are allowed on the roads, what of bicycles, pedestrians, people on wheelchairs, and horses? We used to play on the roads when I was a kid, being careful to watch out for cars. That's part of "utilize", is it…

I don't see how it can be true that "In terms of transport efficiency, buses and light rail carry more people than cars.", particularly for the light rail.

The first problem, shared by both, is that in many locations they run nearly empty. Smaller vehicles would be far less wasteful.

Light rail is a horrifically inefficient use of land. Use (passengersdistance)/(timeland) to score it. Another way to look at this: on average, what percent of the time is there a person above a physical location that is dedicated to transportation?

The bus, if operating in mixed traffic, is somewhat efficient for land use. (more so if full) The train wastes most of the land most of the time. At best it might share with freight service, but that degrades passenger service.

Re: Uber Wants to Make It Illegal to Operate Your Own Self-Driving Car in Cities

#48

Post by eesmith »

burfog wrote: post #47
eesmith wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"as efficiently as possible" There is no such obligation. Or rather, how do you define "utilize"? In terms of transport efficiency, buses and light rail carry more people than cars. And if only self-driving cars are allowed on the roads, what of bicycles, pedestrians, people on wheelchairs, and horses? We used to play on the roads when I was a kid, being careful to watch out for cars. That's part of "utilize", is it…

I don't see how it can be true that "In terms of transport efficiency, buses and light rail carry more people than cars.", particularly for the light rail. The first problem, shared by both, is that in many locations they run nearly empty. Smaller vehicles would be far less wasteful. Light rail is a horrifically inefficient use of land. Use (passengers distance)/(time land) to score it. Another way to look at this: o…

"I don't see how it can be true ..."

Because if the goal is efficiency then we would have a completely different transport system. We would not have large amounts of paved roads which are lightly used (and you see many places in the US moving away from paved roads to gravel roads for exactly that reason).

If we are talking about efficiency then a lane of traffic carries about 3,000 people per hour per lane. Light rail at grade is about 4,000/hour and grade separated is about 8,000. Wikipedia says "light rail vehicles can travel in multi-car trains carrying a theoretical ridership up to 20,000 passengers per hour in much narrower rights-of-way, not much more than two car lanes wide for a double track system". Subways can handle 30,000 people per hour. Numbers from https://www.thoughtco.com/passenger-capacity-of-transit-2798... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail .

The thing is, the goal is not efficiency, at least not in any simple sort of sense.

The big problem is that the transport system affects where people go and live, and vice versa. Many places in the US are built with the expectation that people will have cars, which is why buses and light rails are run nearly empty. But in places like NYC or central London, which were built before cars and which can't waste the space on car infrastructure, it's more efficient to have mass transit.

Look at all the people who use light rail to commute into London, rather than drive. Can you really make the blanket statement that "Light rail is a horrifically inefficient use of land"?

Much of what you describe makes sense in the US historical context. However, the US system was not built with efficiency in mind. It was built with growth in mind, with the idea that new growth would be able to fund the maintenance of the old system. https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme/ is what convinced me of that.

If the goal is really for efficient use of limited public resources, then it needs to be done by redesigning our cities and towns so that bicycles, walking, and mass transit are more useful.

(Bear in mind too that when you see unused parking spaces - and most zoning laws require far more parking spaces than are usually needed - then that is also a waste. And a waste which makes is harder to walk, bike, or have an effective mass transit system.)

Other countries have done that, like cities in the Netherlands in the 1970s (see https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/07/it-takes-more... ).

You proposed "on average, what percent of the time is there a person above a physical location that is dedicated to transportation?" Isn't that a way of saying "how long does it take to go from X to Y"?

I don't think your proposal is that useful. If it takes 10 minutes to walk and 5 minutes to drive, but the drive requires available parking on both ends, then shouldn't you also include the infrastructure needed to support the transportation, in addition to the simple time that the person is above a physical location dedicated to transportation?

And since the car takes up more space, including a larger safety margin ("two second rule"), shouldn't that also be included?

Re: Uber Wants to Make It Illegal to Operate Your Own Self-Driving Car in Cities

#49

Post by burfog »

eesmith wrote: post #48
burfog wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how it can be true that "In terms of transport efficiency, buses and light rail carry more people than cars.", particularly for the light rail. The first problem, shared by both, is that in many locations they run nearly empty. Smaller vehicles would be far less wasteful. Light rail is a horrifically inefficient use of land. Use (passengers distance)/(time land) to score it. Another way to look at this: o…

"I don't see how it can be true ..." Because if the goal is efficiency then we would have a completely different transport system. We would not have large amounts of paved roads which are lightly used (and you see many places in the US moving away from paved roads to gravel roads for exactly that reason). If we are talking about efficiency then a lane of traffic carries about 3,000 people per hour per lane. Light rai…

The grade separation is a strange distinction to make, since trains do not stop for at-grade crossings. Perhaps the distinction you meant to make is between trains that run in city traffic and those that do not. But anyway...

I'll pick a couple examples that I have actually used. They are effectively random; I'm not choosing them to make rail look bad.

EXAMPLE ONE

The commuter rail between Lowell and Boston runs 26 trains on weekdays. This carries 11,965 people a maximum distance of 25.4 miles (40.9 km) within a window of 17.53 hours. Most people don't actually go the full distance.

This is a pitiful 498 to 683 people per hour per lane, depending on if you count the nightly shutdown or not. The reality is far worse, since most people don't make the full 25.4 mile trip.

Now consider the linear space occupied. On average, there are 19 to 27 people per mile. On average, they are spaced 196 to 269 feet apart. Again though, most people aren't making the whole trip. Normal highway traffic is denser than that and the lanes are narrower too.

EXAMPLE TWO

The commuter rail between West Palm Beach and Miami runs 50 trains on weekdays. This carries 14,800 people a maximum distance of 70.9 miles (114.1 km) within a window of 16.67 hours. Most people don't actually go the full distance.

This is a pitiful 617 to 888 people per hour per lane, depending on if you count the nightly shutdown or not. The reality is far worse, since most people don't make the full 70.9 mile trip.

Now consider the linear space occupied. On average, there are 8 to 13 people per mile. On average, they are spaced 421 to 607 feet apart. Again though, most people aren't making the whole trip. Normal highway traffic is denser than that and the lanes are narrower too.

CONCLUSION

We can fit 2 to 5 times as many humans in that land distance if we use single-occupancy vehicles on a normal highway instead. This would save land for wildlife, housing, or whatever.

By switching to a normal highway, average speeds would double. (the train may peak at 80 MPH, but with all those stops it averages less than 40 MPH) The saved time can be put to use for sleeping, earning income, or spending time with family.

Now, putting those together with the extra width of a rail line, we're looking at 8 to 20 times as many people moved for a given amount of land. The land wasted by rail is obscene.

Re: Uber Wants to Make It Illegal to Operate Your Own Self-Driving Car in Cities

#50

Post by eesmith »

burfog wrote: post #49
eesmith wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I don't see how it can be true ..." Because if the goal is efficiency then we would have a completely different transport system. We would not have large amounts of paved roads which are lightly used (and you see many places in the US moving away from paved roads to gravel roads for exactly that reason). If we are talking about efficiency then a lane of traffic carries about 3,000 people per hour per lane. Light rai…

The grade separation is a strange distinction to make, since trains do not stop for at-grade crossings. Perhaps the distinction you meant to make is between trains that run in city traffic and those that do not. But anyway... I'll pick a couple examples that I have actually used. They are effectively random; I'm not choosing them to make rail look bad. EXAMPLE ONE The commuter rail between Lowell and Boston runs 26 t…

A grade-separated junction, in the context of trains, is discussed in more detail at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_junction .

> A flying junction or flyover is a railway junction at which one or more diverging or converging tracks in a multiple-track route cross other tracks on the route by bridge to avoid conflict with other train movements. A more technical term is "grade-separated junction". A burrowing junction or dive-under occurs where the diverging line passes below the main line.

> The alternative to grade separation is a level junction or flat junction, where tracks cross at grade, and conflicting routes must be protected by interlocked signals.

The examples you gave are all from the US, which as I mentioned has been designed around cars for almost a century.

We (in the US) are a local minimum where it is hard to switch to a mass transit system because we've spent so much time optimizing for cars.

That doesn't mean that mass transit systems are inherently less efficient. We have only to look to NYC (to say nothing of other countries) to see numbers far in excess of what you mentioned.

So if rayiner's assertion is correct, that the government has an obligation to optimize the limited use of public land - which I disagree with - then I still argue that it means we should be doing a transition to a different way of organizing our cities and towns so they are better optimized for mass transit instead of personal vehicles.

Like what The Netherlands started in the 1970s.

Post reply on HN