I have no way to know whether or not they feel invincible. If people are going to have a tendency to feel confident in their abilities, it would seem advantageous for them to have significant ability to be confident of, rather than lowering the bar. The notion that training makes people reckless sounds like a rationalization for despair and ceasing to do anything pro-active.
That sounds like a personal problem. If a person is more skilled, it becomes their private track? What is the alternative to a kneejerk reaction against elitism? Being more accepting of bad operators? The purpose of the licensing scheme is to determine a baseline of competence for those driving cars. My point was simply that this baseline is not used effectively. I am not reading minds about what the best drivers think about themselves, me, or anyone else.
I donāt doubt this. But I think it is cynical if the best option seems to be to entrust driving to inanimate objects. I think that the best use of technology is to improve humans and human capabilities. Using such tech to allow people to become more complacent and less skilled seems horrifically short-sighted. My own cynicism is that states make it easy for bad drivers to stay on the road simply because of the racket of increased economic activity in the form of license fees, insurance, car sales, etc. What the state is saying (in our names) is that this tradeoff of money is worth the loss of both lives and competence. It seems like a de4cadent and complacent culture which will throw billions at making cars that drive rather than making better human drivers.
Again, this isnāt about getting rid of cars altogether, but easing congestion. Putting more cars on the road aināt going to do that. I think there should be a distinction made between your delightful drive there and getting to work.
I totally understand this, but itās a different problem than just public transit. Itās living in the world as a woman. There are many places, not just public transit that need to be safer for women. But I can understand and sympathize with deciding to drive over ride transit.
That being said, more cars on the road is just not going to fix congestion in urban driving. If cars were solely for enjoyment rather than utilitarian, that would be great, I think. But they arenāt, especially in most places in the US.
Itās a problem exacerbated by public transit compared to driving, even if itās necessarily not Public Transitās fault.
I think that automatic cars definitely could improve congestion a bit, maybe 20%, but itās not going to make it go away. Certainly public transit is going to be needed to step up, but we could also see busses and other services turned into more automatable systems where it can go further than set routes/etc - essentially a multi-user uber that dynamically plans pickup-dropoff on the fly.
I donāt disagreeā¦ of course, men can also make rude gestures and yell things at women in cars too. Youāre just less likely to be physically accosted, thatās entirely true.
I donāt knowā¦ wonāt there still be more cars on the road in say, 10 years, regardless of the kind of cars those are? [quote=āfalcon2001, post:65, topic:80772ā]
we could also see busses and other services turned into more automatable systems where it can go further than set routes/etc - essentially a multi-user uber that dynamically plans pickup-dropoff on the fly.
[/quote]
My only point on the congestion was that we could likely fit 25% or so more driverless cars into the same space/road as normal cars, just due to response time/etc - but absolutely itās not a fix, itās just a bandaid. We need better systems for people moving, but I think that automatic/driverless cars can be a big part of that.
In an ideal world these smart cars would be useful, however, every time we get behind the wheel, along with all the others on the roadā¦ each and every minute must be evaluated in split second time, adjusting for each situation as it arises. Sometimes stopping to avoid an accident is not the best of choicesā¦ an evasive maneuver could save a life. If there are accidents resulting in much injury and damage or even death, who is responsible? the driver? or the car manufacturer?
I have yet to hear an insurance company step up and state how they are going to handle these issues.
It seems like a mess. I have a good driving record and enjoy pretty cheap insurance rates. I also enjoy taking my car out for a spin and enjoying the āfreedomā of being able to drive anywhere. Will the driverless car allow all this? If not, Iāll have to pass.
Iāve also havenāt heard an insurance company step up and say they will insure a self driving car. Until this happens all this talk about self driving cars is really a non-starter.
The problem with your statement is that the whole first paragraph is exactly why we need driverless cars. Humans are awful at exactly the sort of thing youāre suggesting - constant re-negotiating of data. Computers donāt get tired, donāt have bad days, donāt have sorrow or tragedy occur to them, and they donāt drive drunk. They behave as programmed, and make errors when programming does not cover cases. These are testable and fixable situations.
Insurance is a nonstarter because the tech doesnāt exist significantly in the real world yet. You also cannot insure your cold fusion reactor or your personal moon rocket. The Tesla example in the article is only partially automated as well, and are insured. Most major manufacturers have come forward to say that they will be responsible for damages as well - Volvo certainly did.
Itās an emerging technology, but objectively thereās a huge advantage to automating such a dangerous, everyday activity that a huge portion of the world interacts with.
Edit: additionally remember that auto accidents happen to good drivers, when they are hit by bad drivers. Iāll trust that youāre an amazing driver with a clean record and a law abiding citizen. That does nothing to protect you from underinsured shitty drivers like my brother, who has been in a slew of accidents in his driving career and has luckily never killed anyone.
And it is true that many if not all parts are shared. But if you read what I wrote you will see that I was being careful:
VAG as a group developed the dual clutch box.
Skoda have been very good at quality of production and low delivery faults.
Porsche, really before they combined, were a low volume manufacturer that became a medium volume manufacturer. Now they are a high volume manufacturer, and they have had problems in doing what Tesla is trying to do, for instance making the change from air to liquid cooling was essential but painful.
Three different statements about three different aspects of the business.
Potentially automated cars have the ability to cut congestion a lot more than 20%, if they become the new face of public transport.
Buses are only efficient on routes with a high fill factor. In rural areas for part of the journey a bus doing maybe 12mpg on Diesel may only have two or three passengers.
Automated taxis have the following merits:
Logistic efficiency. They provide door to door transport with no changes.
Swarm effect. They are very resilient; a breakdown or accident affects very few people.
Cost of production. Making millions of automated cars allows fully robotised production, bringing down cost per seat.
Efficient scaling. More capacity can be added in small increments as needed, e.g. a small town might add two or three cars rather than an entire bus.
Size efficiency. They donāt need to take up lots of road for willy-waggling reasons and they are one seat more efficient than manual taxis or buses. (This is why Googleās first production will probably be a minivan (people-carrier in English).
Able to make better use of narrow streets and tight junctions than buses.
Battery life is less of a problem because vehicles can recharge between hires where necessary.
Then once only a minority actually wants to own cars, a lot of space will be released on roadsides and car parks. You have much more space in most of the US but in UK towns, roadside parking is the major cause of congestion.
The tl;dr is that automated cars can solve the door to door problem of public transport just as the PC solved the bottleneck problem of the mainframe, but they do this best as part of an integrated public transport system.
Nobody expects the Byzantine extent of the Volkswagen group!
Its brand is VW. And Audi.
Iām sorry, its two brands are VW. And Audi. And Skoda.
Iām sorry. Itās three brands are VW, Audi, Skoda and SEAT.
Iāll come in againā¦
Among its brands are VW, Audi, Skoda, SEAT and Porsche. Its weapons are efficient production. And a ruthless ability to run roughshod over emission control legislation.
The choice isnāt buses and cars, itās buses, cars, various forms of rail (high speed, subways, street cars, etc), and including more telecommuting for jobs where you donāt have to physically be present to do them. Iād say putting a variety of solutions on the table is probably where we want to go with this, yeah? I donāt think looking for a singular solution is how to go about it, especially when that singular solution is more about lining pockets than easing congestion (and yes, that can be said about public transit too).
So, again, Iām not saying non automated cars. Iām saying we need a variety of solutions on the table to ease urban congestion and make life a bit better for everyone.
Yes, Iām sorry, I should have clarified; I see self driving cars in urban and suburban areas as bus and tram replacements (trams use up the roads and cause congestion.) There are uses for long haul buses to places where the economics donāt permit dedicated rail, and high speed rail. In dense urban areas underground metros have a place, but we should be asking more and more why we need job patterns that cause the ebb and flow of large numbers of people into congested areas every day. In my last job I was doing almost all my work by telecommuting, frequently working with people who were physically present in city offices but in many cases could themselves have been remoting in.
However, I do think that the automated car is potentially a much better replacement for the urban bus, for the reasons I stated. As a simple anecdotal example, I can walk a few hundred metres and catch a bus into the centre of Bath, which is faster and cheaper than driving when parking time is added. But if I need to go to the hospital, the need to change buses and the scheduling means that a journey of forty minutes or so by car becomes an hour and a half by bus, and the uncertainty of schedules means in practice the need to allow two hours. As a result, I drive the journey which appears to be the one which should have the biggest benefit from bus use. The self-driving car is designed for just this ālast three milesā situation.
I think Teslaās distraction mode is a terrible idea, but they (and the law) are very clear that the driver must pay attention to the road at all times.
I donāt see how Tesla could be held responsible for this.
In the US, itās a given that real people, the ones who matter, drive. I lived in Seattle when there was real advertising on the inside of the bus, directed at riders. Now itās just PSAs talking down to poor people, and poetry on the inside of the bus, while the real advertising, the stuff urging us to spend money on something, is on the outside of the bus to be read by people in cars. Of course mass transit is a behaviour sink. Thereās no percentage in improving it, if all the real money is wrapped up in the automobile and its driver.
Itās different in Asia and Europe, where mass transit is used by everyone, not just the people who canāt afford to drive. Iām not saying itās utopia or anything, just that the low expectations America has of mass transit are not universal. If gas cost as much here as it did in europe, thereād be a culture shift on the road, and on the bus.
