The driverless road ahead • Hacker News Board

Re: The driverless road ahead

#71

Post by marshallp » Sun, Oct 28, 2012, 4:29 PM UTC

andreasvc wrote: post #64

marshallp wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not as simple as that. People fly now as well. If everything's about energy efficiency, people wouldn't leave their house. If by flying you can commute from a much cheaper place than it's worth it. Also, you have to factor in the road construction/maintenance costs which flying doesn't have. Especially in the third world where roads aren't built yet. Also, the flying can be in the form of airships which are ener…

The most dramatic counterargument is with distribution of goods, which mostly occurs with cargo ships, trucks, and trains--simply because those are way cheaper & more efficient than flying. The simple physics argument is that it requires extra work to keep something flying, which is better avoided. So roads and rails will need to be kept anyway, and it's highly unlikely that people wouldn't use them. On the other han…

That's all about bulk cargo though. For people movement and last mile delivery like pizza, energy isn't the major consideration. And airships don't compete with jets. They're either bulk cargo or scenic travel. If airships are commonplace some people will choose to live in airships permanently, gliding with magnificent views, like some people currently do with boats and rv's.

Re: The driverless road ahead

#72

Post by akgerber » Sun, Oct 28, 2012, 4:32 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #45

ari_elle wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If driverless cars, why not a driverless buses ?

Because the cost of the bus service has almost nothing to do with the cost of the bus driver.

In the United States, the federal government will subsidize capital investments for mass transit systems (a/k/a buses, in most cities, also railway/busway in some), but not operating costs (drivers & mechanics). Labor costs are, in fact, one of the major costs of location transportation authorities.

When I lived in San Diego, the bus line by my house ran at half the frequency using buses twice as large on weekends, which I can see no explanation for other than saving money on labor by making transit service much less useful.

Re: The driverless road ahead

#73

Post by habosa » Sun, Oct 28, 2012, 4:50 PM UTC

mibbitier wrote: post #52

SlipperySlope wrote: post #51

Driverless cars solve these problems that most people have ... 1. A need for status. Driverless cars will first greatly distinguish luxury cars from more ordinary cars. 2. Convenience and comfort. Driverless cars will remove the stress from rush hour commuting. Driverless cars will be much more comfortable for long-distance trips. 3. Safety. Driverless cars will obey the traffic laws. "drivers" and passengers of such…

1. Can you imagine Top Gear proclaiming driverless cars as the way to get status? No. They'll be ridiculed by anyone who knows anything about cars (Same way people who drive an automatic are ridiculed). Imagine "Drag and drop programming is the future of software development!!!" 2. Not convinced anyone really gets stressed driving, and not convinced that "not being in control of the car" would make anyone less stress…

I disagree about the status comment, automatic cars are certainly not looked down upon by the luxury market. You are confusing luxury and performance cars. The owners of many BMWs, Mercedes, Maybachs, etc. want a smooth ride with a swank interior and prefer an automatic ride.

Re: The driverless road ahead

#74

Post by saosebastiao » Sun, Oct 28, 2012, 5:11 PM UTC

New York City grew over 500% since the advent of the mass-produced automobile. It has grown ~30% since the advent of the internet. The car may have distributed our density a little more evenly, but it has not diminished the importance of cities. We will always continue to live, work, trade, eat, and buy in cities. It is one of the trademarks of our social evolution. We also continue to work during the day and sleep during the night, despite the advent of electricity. We go to work in the morning, and we return in the evening.

Combine those two unavoidable traits of human existence and we get what is called Rush Hour. And it is not going away. At best, driverless cars represent a minor improvement in the pain of rush hour, but it doesn't abolish it...nor does it rid us of the need for public transit. There are simply too many geometric facts in the way.

1.3 million people commute to Manhattan every weekday. At 1.2 cars per person (typical for a morning commute) that is still more than a million cars fighting for some 2000 miles of road space. Even without any need for parking (assuming they would all be taxis, which is unlikely), that is still 1 car every ~10 feet of road length...including intersections. In other words, geometrically impossible, unless you want to argue that no bottlenecks would exist anywhere (such as intersections or bridges).

Driverless cars will be nothing more than a minor improvement in congestion and parking costs.

Where the real improvement comes from is driverless trucks and buses. A driverless truck reduces per-mile costs of road freight by about 40%, while allowing for 24hr days (13 more than the max possible with one driver, and 15 more than the average), making all road freight more than twice as fast. That is transformative for commerce. And for city buses, 85% of the cost is going to drivers. We could literally be offering buses at 4x the frequency at the same cost. That is transformative for cities.

Re: The driverless road ahead

#75

Post by mibbitier » Sun, Oct 28, 2012, 5:17 PM UTC

mertd wrote: post #69

mibbitier wrote: post #14

Driverless cars are just another segway. No one will buy one, because they do not solve a problem most people have.

I'll buy one. I hate wasting time driving.

I'll bite. How in the world do you consider driving to be wasted time? Don't you think while you're driving? Don't you work through problems in your mind? Don't you rest, listen to music/radio? Don't you have interesting discussions with fellow passengers?

Re: The driverless road ahead

#76

Post by emperorcezar » Sun, Oct 28, 2012, 6:35 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #68

emperorcezar wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even under $20k isn't low enough for many people. If you live in a city and are happy with your public transit options, then it's only around $100 a month. Which is way way less than car payment + insurance + maintenance. Even without paying for fuel.

If the cars cost $20k and drive themselves, droves of those people will be able to access them for some of their transit needs (because they will be available, cheap!, on a per mile basis).

This is actually a use I can really see. I've heard it called "Robotaxi".

Re: The driverless road ahead

#77

Post by EliRivers » Sun, Oct 28, 2012, 6:54 PM UTC

protomyth wrote: post #21

michaelt wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A cab in SF costs $2.25 per mile (plus a flag fee, plus a fee for waiting in traffic, plus an airport surcharge) The IRS mileage rate is 14 cents per mile driven in service of charitable organizations and 51 cents per mile driven for business. Taxis haven't replaced private cars because they're radically more expensive.

Why would you think that a self-driving car fleet will have less cost? They will be regulated just like taxis. Including insurance and most importantly medallions. Replacing the drivers will not cut the cost in an industry that creates artificial scarcity.

The majority of the cost of a taxi is the driver. He has to be paid for a day's work, even when he spends most of that day waiting for a fare. No driver, no driver costs.

Also, many regions don't bother with the ridiculous monopoly system of "medallions". I can start a mini-cab firm in my area without any such artificial supply restrictions at all.

Re: The driverless road ahead

#78

Post by swombat » Sun, Oct 28, 2012, 7:03 PM UTC

michaelt wrote: post #70

protomyth wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be curious which countries those are? Is their a 1st world country that doesn't license their cabs to provide an artificial scarcity? Heck, some cities actually mandate the brand of car that can be used for a cab.

Clearly there are existing regulations that would have to be reformed - criminal record checks for self-driving cabs wouldn't make any sense, for example! What I think (and what I assume swombat means) is that these reforms will be made when self-driving cabs come on the market. After all, why wouldn't they? London is one place that doesn't have any limit or medallion system regulating the number of cab drivers - alt…

That is exactly what I meant.

Some parts of the world don't have such silly laws. Arethuza mentions Edinburgh just has a £2k licence fee. That's a small part of the price and cost of operation of a car, particularly one that's self-driving and on the road 24/7.

At normal cab rates, this would bring in shitloads of money. So people would start cutting the rates. And cutting more. Soon, a £40 cab ride will cost £20... then £10... then £4...

When taking a cab for half an hour costs a couple of quid and the cab is there at the push of a button, you need a car even less (most Londoners already don't have cars).

Once this transformation starts hitting, some cities with politically corrupt systems will still maintain their protectionist laws... but for how long? The ones that keep them longest are de-facto the most corrupt (at least in transport policy/laws).

Re: The driverless road ahead

#79

Post by rogerbinns » Sun, Oct 28, 2012, 7:22 PM UTC

cs702 wrote: post #34

This piece strikes me as too Utopian. While most people, including me , will likely adopt driverless cars, a substantial minority of the population will never adopt them. Should driverless cars become mainstream, criminals of all kinds will quickly find ways to game the system to make vehicles driver-controlled, and (more ominously) will figure out how to hack into other people's cars and use them for nefarious purpo…

You just have to watch a few minutes of the Youtube compilations to wonder why on earth we let any humans drive cars now. I can see it quickly becoming economically infeasible to share public roads with other cars with a human driver, but that of course doesn't prevent private race tracks and driving parks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3XBE-rK0Xk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vduL0PljlFE

On seeing those you have to wonder what a computer driver would do in some of the circumstances. There are some where there will definitely be a crash (kinetic energy has to go somewhere). Should the computer minimize the number of human casualties/injuries amongst all the vehicles involved even if that means harming the (fewer) occupants of the vehicle more?

Re: The driverless road ahead

#80

Post by SoftwareMaven » Sun, Oct 28, 2012, 7:56 PM UTC

ari_elle wrote: post #44

SoftwareMaven wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may trust yourself, but as I ride around on my motorcycle, I don't trust you at all. Give me self-driving cars anyway.

I don't want to start an argument, especially since i myself ride a motorcycle. But even i witnessed my fair share of motorcyclists, who just played daredevil on the street. The way many behave on roads is not acceptable and this goes for drivers of cars and drivers of motorcycles. Counter question: Would you trust a self driving motorcycle? So why should i - as a in my opinion perfectly good driver - trust a self dr…

First, I'm with you on the surprisingly large number of people who are plain stupid on bikes.

The question of self-driving motorcycles is an interesting one. Would I trust them? Yes. The reaction time and ability to process multiple streams of information of computers far outweigh that of humans.

Would I want to? Sometimes. There are times when I'm out riding and it's all about the curves of the canyon. Just like any driving enthusiast, I'm there for the experience. But crossing Wyoming on I-80? Bring it on!

I have no doubt that there will be a Honda Goldwing or BMW R1600 that includes a self-driving mode along with a HUD-based entertainment system in your helmet. And maybe I'll be able to afford it by then. :)