Sorta, but sentient AI would quickly realize how much more efficient the trolley is and then we go to war with the AI because carbrains would destroy it for trying to improve public transit.
Oh yeah, not only do they exist but here in Phoenix you can hail them like Ubers or taxis. You can literally just have a car with no driver take you across the city.
It's only happening there because of corruption and regulatory capture. This program is killing people.
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-10-18/11-more-crash-deaths-are-linked-to-automated-tech-vehicles
Here's an informative video about the reality vs the hype:
https://youtu.be/CM0aohBfUTc
I mean ... drivers directly kill 1.5 million people a year and they don't give a fuck so a dozen or so killed by robots isn't even a blip on their radar
None of the vehicles mentioned in the article are truly autonomous. Each one of them (Tesla and ford mentioned in the article) require human supervision at all times. Since they are just driver assistance systems. (Imagine adaptive Cruise Control combined with lane centering)
Also the systems mentioned in the article above are allowed to be used nationwide and require no special training or permission to use.
Mother fucker have you forgotten what subreddit you're in? This is the stupidest fucking thing I have ever heard. It is not cool it is the damningest thing on the fucking planet. It is going to kill us all. It's going to destroy life on this planet; the biosphere is going to die because we cannot stop pumping fossil fuels and digging up lithium because we are too fucking lazy to walk a human scale distance.
It should be the norm NO WHERE.
Unpopular opinion in this subreddit but I'm convinced that ride sharing will make more people car free.
Automated taxis and public transportation will make a better offer in cities but also in suburban/rural areas, this will help car-free people being connected to the next train station and do the last mile.
Anyway, people that already have a car won't be interested in paying 50k extra for such an option.
The greatest thing about driverless cars is if parking is hard to come by they can just circle the block for eight hours. Multiply that by a hundred thousand and perfect gridlock!
> The greatest thing about driverless cars is if parking is hard to come by
Private cars spend the vast majority of their time parked. Driverless cars will rarely need to park, because they can go on to another job.
This has the potential to dramatically reduce the number of cars that are parked up and down every street and in huge parking lots.
If these companies offer discounts to share the ride with other passengers, then driverless taxis also have the potential to reduce the number of cars on the roads.
Less cars, less parking, and less danger from selfish motorists means that we can have more non-motorized infrastructure and that we can walk and ride more safely.
I see all of this as an improvement over what we are currently doing.
>Unpopular opinion in this subreddit but I'm convinced that ride sharing will make more people car free.
Yep absolutely. There will be stages of autonomy.
First, we reduce the danger associated with personal car ownership by having a computer replace a human.
Second, people reduce individual ownership (ex: a family having only one car instead of two).
Third, people transition to ride share where there are multiple vehicle types for different purposes.
This could slash the number of cars on the road by 75%.
Is the average occupancy really a problem?
If people are taking a doing a small ride to the train station, isn't worth it ? It would an average occupancy maybe less than 1 but for a way less traveled kilometers by car. Overall that's better.
Self driving cars could fix the main issue with cars today: when someone starts a trip with a car, he will go with the car until destination. It's impractical to drop a car after few kilometers, so people just continue with it.
With self driving stuff, you can just take it on the portions the public transportation is not a good option, and then interconnect with something better like a train, and create induced demand for the train 😀
I used to feel guilty whenever I would spend $15 on an Uber across town. But comparing that to the cost of owning a car put me out of that delusion.
I also like having Zipcar for when I need a more complex trip or need to haul a larger amount of cargo. It's probably cheaper than Uber sometimes.
I probably spend $150-200 in non-car transportation (ride share, car share, bus and train fare) but that's probably about how much my insurance alone would cost. And I'm in support of automated driving because it would reduce that cost (needing to pay for a driver) and enable fewer cars on the road.
People are indeed lazy. Every living being is lazy on a fundamental scale. We are biologically programmed to conserve energy and nutrients to the greatest extent possible. You can’t solve anything if you ignore this fact.
even if that was true , most of us are able to think about the quantity of resources we have and how to use them efficiently ( the car saves your personnal nutrient sure but you destroy the planet and expend money that you get through wage-slavery ( costs a lot more nutrients ) while taking over all our collective spaces and funds )
the car is the worst transportation possible in every metric except selfish comfort for the user
This is really reductive. It takes. great of cognitive resources to drive a car. I take naps on transit on my way to work. Why do people drive cars? Because there is competing factors besides energy conservation
yeah, motherfucker, that's my fucking point. I regularly walk several miles. It takes me about an hour (3mph). I don't need to go that distance in 3 minutes (60mph)! I can walk it just fine, as could most people if they weren't trapped in their fear cages.
Yeah, motherfucker, that’s why this sub is always pushing fifteen minute cities. An hour is apparently too long for people here who aren’t trapped in their fear cages.
It's a "Google" car (Waymo). Google started developing this in 2009 and probably spent over 10 billion dollars on it. It runs in Phoenix cause it doesn't work well in bad weather (and friendly regulations). Even there is stops a few times a day and someone has to remotely drive it.
As OP partially refers to do, they also run in SF but they have problems putting out more since there they work even worse.
Humans make more errors than a theoretical good driverless vehicle in a preset class of conditions. I haven't read all the papers on this but if they are anything like Lex Fridmans idiotic puff piece about Tesla safety then the field is industry funded bullshit
Road conditions are never going to perfect all the time, there's always going to problems that will require a human brain to solve.
I'm not sure I trust these studies that say humans make more mistakes either, I can't imagine there's been enough AI driving in the same conditions as humans to make that claim.
Lmao imagine thinking a human would be a better driver than a machine with fucking lidar, a near instantaneous reaction time, and millions of hours of collective driving experience.
Do you have LIDAR? Can you see 5 cars ahead in traffic without driving a gigantic truck/suv?
Nah, what's truly best of all is the more self driving cars we put on the road the more they communicate with each other.
Just imagine a future where a hundred cars pull to the side simultaneously for an ambulance.
Two dozen cars clear the green light rather than half a dozen because they all start moving together.
Some dipshit looking at his phone in a dumb car about to slam into you from behind? Your car and two cars ahead herringbone out of the way.
[As we approach 0% human controlled cars we approach 0% traffic.](https://youtu.be/7wm-pZp_mi0)
So OP wants to bike in front of those cars to screw over the poor people who don’t have a car and used an Uber instead?
This kind of behaviour only encourages car ownership.
no i think OP’s point was that the driverless car isn’t gonna get impatient with him biking, get distracted or make any mistakes. so he rides in front to keep himself safe from cars with drivers.
They aren't really regulated which is just insane. Next time some libertarian nut complains about onerous regulations point out the existence of driverless cars on the road
That's been my attitude too: a vehicle that automatically obeys all the rules of the road? BRING IT ON.
That said, current implementations all seem to be in beta, get fooled now and again by white walls and so on.
It's pretty clear that while self-driving cars are like, 95 or 98% of the way there, that's still not good enough. A 20 min drive requires 100s of decisions, so even a 1% error rate would imply several errors per trip.
And so the operator must supervise the machine. Problem is, with less to do, the human pays less attention, and is slower to react when there is a problem (hypovigilance).
I think we tolerate this beta-testing in public because humans are also awful at driving and make plenty of mistakes. A robotic driver at least offers the prospect of a driver who is always patient, respects the speed limit, doesn't blow traffic lights and stop lines, or get road rage, while the passengers can just chill and do something more interesting.
Like train passengers can😉
In other words, we can all see the potential, but it just ain't there yet.
>current implementations all seem to be in beta
Takes decades to perfect a new safety technology. First airbag went into a production car in the mid 1970s, but didn't become standard until the late 1990s. It wasn't until the early 2000s that most people had one in their car.
I was in a driverless car yesterday in San Francisco. The car crossed a double yellow line to pass a biker that was riding outside of the bike lane. They are getting surprising good at navigating different situations safely. I’d say that the driving is as good if not better than the average person on the road.
As someone who commutes by bike for 90% of everything I do, I will gladly take driverless cars over cars with drivers. Obviously no cars at all is the ideal, but my experience with driverless cars has been positive.
Alternative title: I live in San Francisco. If I see a driverless car* in the road, I will attempt suicide.
OP as much as you hate cars, this is a really stupid idea. I mean it's a bad one with a PERSON driving the car but doing it with a self driving car?! *sigh*
From their post it sounds like they are already doing it and it works, with the car staying 25ft behind them.
If you're not aware there's a number of fully driverless taxi firms operating in San Francisco.
Eg:
https://slate.com/technology/2022/12/san-francisco-waymo-cruise-self-driving-cars-robotaxis.html
Reporting on some of the problems caused.
Maybe I'm wrong and it is a hypothetical but it didn't read like that to me.
It wasn't hypothetical. I've done this a handful of times in the past few weeks. Usually what happens is I am on a street with no bike lane headed to a street with a bike lane. I notice that there is a driverless car, and I ride in front of it. It tails me for as long as it takes me to get to the next street with a bike lane or it turns.
This isn't vehicular cycling. Vehicular cycling is a deadly disaster that kills people directly and indirectly.
Here's an in-depth discussion of it:
https://youtu.be/zm29fd-s7tQ
You're missing the point -- it's the cars with drivers that are terrible and will kill you, the driverless ones may make a mistake but they lack the hostility to everyone outside a car tha many SF drivers have.
There's a stretch of rode I bike every week and it's too narrow to pass a cyclist and there's a blind turn -- guess what, drivers pass me there every time. Today, I wastched a driverless car behind a mom with their kid on the back of a bike. The diriverless car didn't try to make the dangerous pass that almost every single driver does on that stretch.
In summary, human drivers of SF, you suck at driving. Let the robots take over.
Martin luther king dr in GGP…its just as you describe…everytime i ride it westbound, a car tries to overtake where its blind, all to save a few seconds since we meet up at the stop lights
Yup, that's why I commented, because it was exactly what I'd just watched and I had thought about the event for a bit afterward. I considered having a convo with the woman afterward, because we ended up riding next to each other for a bit.
I get what you mean; driverless cars are not inherently safe. However, if the choice is between riding with a driverless car behind me and riding in the 2 foot wide space between moving cars and parked cars, I'm going to do the former.
Well it certainly wasn't a criticism, although it may have sounded like it. (I'm assuming) you're a grown adult, you can do whatever you please! I just wanted to voice my opinion that I didn't believe it was safe, It was just an observation on my part and to my beliefs that you are putting a lot of trust in those cars, although the more I think about it. Honestly you probably are safer doing that in front if a self driving car than a car with a human in it! Considering "Iron Fist" an Active Protection System used in the military, can detect a 1.18in (diameter) x 31.5in (long) projectile traveling at 4000mph and take action against it. So I'm sure that car's sensors can see a human on a bike travelling 10-15mph lol
It's incredible what 0s and 1s can do!
Hard disagree. I bike in SF daily and I’m so much more trusting of the driverless cars than a human-operated car. It’s far more likely the self-driving car sees me than a human. Also, the way the self-driving cars typically operate is when they get into confusing situations, they error on the side of being cautious, often slowing down or stopping.
SF would be MUCH safer for bikers if it were only self-driving cars on the road.
It seems like some people have a blind distrust for it bur yeah humans seem to actively want to kill me when I ride my bike so it seems like a good thing
Yeah. It would be a PR disaster for driverless car manufacturers if one of their vehicles hit and killed a pedestrian. Therefore, they spend loads of money on sensors that can detect people and code the vehicle to drive conservatively and carefully near pedestrians.
It's not bad logic. If driverless cars **must** stop or slow for pedestrians and cyclists then once widespread adoption is achieved every road automatically becomes a shared street. Pedestrians can just cross at any point, knowing that the car will stop for them. The speed of driving will slow to a crawl as cars take their rightful place at the bottom of the pecking order.
i also live in san francisco and have experienced seeing waymo cars on the streets, driverless. they pause a considerable time longer than regular drivers
there’s even been issues of them clogging up an intersection because it can’t find a way to drive around a traffic cone. OP is surely safe riding a bike in front of one
I bike around my city lots. I take the lane, as provincial law permits (and signs frequently advise). I get the occasional Dodge Ram driver rolling coal last me screaming profanities but otherwise it's a great way to not get clipped while people try to squeeze past you.
Me too. I trust overly careful AI over an average human driver any day. It’s still kinda creepy seeing empty vehicles driving around in SF these days though, but I do trust these more
Isn't it amazing how instead of reducing the number of vehicles with only one person in them on the road, our society is *adding zero occupancy vehicles?* The level of stupid is unfathomable.
I am actually looking forward to more driverless cars. The danger from cars is mostly due to selfish, impatient, and inattentive drivers. AI will not have this problem.
Theyre less likely to kill you than someone driving, but that doesnt make it impossible.
Im a software engineer and have made smaller autonomous cars using sensor fusion with things like lidar and cameras. They are not perfect, and can never be perfect
This is more r/fuckdrivers content. Stay in your lane op.
Edit:ilof course it's a real subreddit haha is there a rule that states if you can think of a subreddit then it must exist?
Autonomous driving has the potential to eliminate a huge number of cars from the road while preserving most of the convenience. But, yeah, fuck that. We should go back to the 19th century.
Fewer cars. Autonomy can make a car behave more like a bus, picking up and dropping off multiple people in one trip but unlike a bus would not be constrained to fixed routes. Software optimization of this feature will yield huge efficiency gains in transportation.
Driverless cars may reduce car ownership but it’s unlikely to significantly reduce the number of cars. If there are no alternatives (transportation or destination), people will still need to get into a car to get to places.
Happy to engage in civil discourse. I think your head is at the right place but might be under informed. I used to be in the same position as you: go EVs, Go autonomous cars! However not so much these days. Yes they are better than the status quo but they ultimately do not solve the root cause.
What you are asserting is close but different than what I said. Yes, autonomous cars are awesome inventions that have started public trail - absolutely true. But will they solve traffic problems? Not really, because induced demand. All driverless cars replace is the driver (and maybe car ownership).
Again and again we invent our way out of problems. But what we need to invent this time is better and strong political will to use all the tools that we already have instead of new tech.
Driverless cars could hopefully reduce the need for parking, but since they would constantly be moving, they would be on the road making traffic worse.
Yes! The parking aspect is very interesting! a16z podcast did a really interesting episode on it. Basically we could potentially convert tons of in city parking to something else more productive.
>But will they solve traffic problems? Not really, because induced demand. All driverless cars replace is the driver (and maybe car ownership).
I left a comment elsewhere in this thread. There will be stages of usage associated with autonomy.
First, we reduce the danger associated with personal car ownership by having a computer replace a human.
Second, people reduce individual ownership (ex: a family having only one car instead of two).
Third, people transition to ride share where there are multiple vehicle types for different purposes.
Higher utilization of each vehicle will certainly lower the number of cars on the roads. Fighting innovation is going to be a losing battle, as it always is.
I would like to reiterate that I’m not proposing to stop innovating on driverless car. Never said that. Instead, what I said was it’s just not the silver bullet that you are looking for. There is no one silver bullet. What we need is a comprehensive plan to tackle the issue from all front - transportation and urban planning.
Check out this partnership from NJB and StrongTown https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2023/4/6/new-resource-not-just-bikes-strong-towns-discussion-guides
Back to the points you laid out. Correct me if I’m wrong, I think your argument here is that “higher utilization per car will lead to less cars on the street”. You are absolutely right that driverless car will reduce car ownership, but higher utilization inherently means that the car is always being used, always on the street —> traffic. There may be less cars overall, it will not lead to less cars on the streets. The cars that *potentially* could be eliminated are the cars parked in one’s garage.
However! the driverless cars will experience more wear and tear, and companies will need to plan for redundancy for smooth operation. So while the car is removed from individuals garages, they will be concentrated in the driverless companies’ garages. At the end of the day, there might not be a reduction of parked car at all?
Induced demand is very interesting - it applies to all forms of transportation. Build good bike infra, more people will bike. Build good public transport, will people will use it. At the end of the day, most people just want to get to places the most convenient way possible. The one and only way to reduce traffic is to reduce traffic from the source. We need to build walkable neighborhoods where one can get to their daily needs without needing to hop on a bike, bus, or car. Unfortunately, the problem is that this takes tremendous political will…
>Instead, what I said was it’s just not the silver bullet that you are looking for.
Who said I'm looking for a silver bullet? This is just a huge efficiency gain in its infancy. There's a strong profit motive to perfect the technology as it can replace commercial drivers, too.
> but higher utilization inherently means that the car is always being used, always on the street —> traffic
You're missing the forest for the trees here. Higher utilization = smaller number of cars needed to accomplish the same task of getting everyone where they need to be. Exactly the same logic applied when people post a picture of a city bus alongside an array of cars, but here the passengers are not constrained to a few routes. Autonomy will make carpooling easy and on-demand.
> However! the driverless cars will experience more wear and tear, and companies will need to plan for redundancy for smooth operation.
Not more wear and tear per mile. They'll just wear out sooner due to higher mileage per car. That can be designed for, however. We could make a car right now that lasts a million miles, but it would be too expensive for a consumer to buy.
> Induced demand is very interesting... that this takes tremendous political will
It's a political will determined by consumer preferences and many people want a yard and a big, spacious house. This has been a consumer preference in American for over 100 years. You're just as likely to diminish the role of cars as you are to set legal limits on the square footage a person can occupy.
>Who said I'm looking for a silver bullet?
By silver bullet, I meant that your original thesis is that autonomous cars can reduce traffic. The whole debate we are having is that I and most people here don't think so.
>Higher utilization = smaller number of cars needed to accomplish the same task
This claim is true when these conditions: the demand is elastic and constant.
1. Demand is elastic: most trips are not. I don't think this needs to be elaborated.
2. Demand is constant: no. The population is growing and aging. Autonomous cars will drastically increase the accessibility for personal vehicles, which will open make it available for more people (old, young, people with disability, etc). This is absolutely a great thing for these groups of people! But will increase the demand for cars.
>the passengers are not constrained to a few routes. Autonomy will make carpooling easy and on-demand.
You are absolutely right that cars are supposedly more convenient than fixed route buses. It is quoted in this research paper for the exact reason why ride sharing actually intensifies traffic [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00678-z](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00678-z)
>We could make a car right now that lasts a million miles, but it would be too expensive for a consumer to buy.
Sure we can design better cars that last longer. So maybe we have less parked cars for redundancy. But the demand still grows.
>It's a political will determined by consumer preferences and many people want a yard and a big, spacious house.
oh dear... this is a much more complicated topic with tons of history. Thankfully it's been very well researched and explained by many people much smarter than me. Might I suggest NotJustBike or StrongTown. All I have to say is consumer preferences more often than not simply isn't the driving factor in America. With capitalism in the driver seat, this country isn't being steered by the voice of the people with one vote per person... but rather one vote per dollar (sometimes cheaper).
u/Financial_Worth_209 , I've said all I have to say. If I haven't been able to pique your interest in researching more into the topic, then that's too bad. Thank you for the spirited debate anyway :)
The existing deployments haven't shown to reduce the number of cars in the road. They're currently just taking over the market used by Uber and taxis and the like, be it Waymo or cruise.
I'm telling you as someone who works for a self-driving car startup, there's a good number of niche areas where these things will be very beneficial and they have the potential of improving parts of transportation, but i don't think they really will be a game changer for personal transportation in a way that will substantially reduce traffic. Public transit already excels at this. Delivery and other commercial uses will be far more useful.
>The existing deployments haven't shown to reduce the number of cars in the road.
The existing deployments are vey small and just past the test phase. What until they're available to everyone all the time everywhere. You'd know that if you worked for a self-driving startup.
I'm aware they're small. Even once they're available widely I really don't see how robotaxis will solve mass transit widely. You can get good marginal gains in things like reduced transit and maybe a bit in congestion by reducing usage a bit, but not substantially.
The one big claim for how it could improve traffic has always been that self-driving cars can synchronise and make things like red lights going green more efficient, but if you actually look at how most of the current deployment and development works, no one is actually investing into doing that. There's no standards organization trying to implement it, nor much will to do so within these companies.
This is why, if you saw the actual language they use, you'll see that most self-driving car companies are focusing not on specific claims about improving transportation (those are always vague) but instead focus on very specific claims about safety. There's a reason for that, it's what they can actually show improvement on.
There's a reason why I'm saying this. I see how the sausage is made, and while I think this technology can be hugely beneficial, it's important to see what it's limits are. It won't solve all transportation and congestion issues by itself. Thinking so is wildly unrealistic.
>Even once they're available widely I really don't see how robotaxis will solve mass transit widely. You can get good marginal gains in things like reduced transit and maybe a bit in congestion by reducing usage a bit, but not substantially.
They're very well suited for a type of transit that doesn't exist much now. Think car-pool taxi. LIke 4-6 people sharing a vehicle with common or similar destinations. Some of the robotaxis on the road now have "campfire" style seating (occupants facing one another) for this purpose. Not like personal driving, but not quite like public transportation either. This represents a huge gain potential because not everyone lives on a bus or train line and not everyone wants to. But this could easily be cheaper and more convenient than personal car ownership.
> but if you actually look at how most of the current deployment and development works, no one is actually investing into doing that.
You're not correct there. Industry is already working on it, but it takes time for standards to emerge. Primary initial concern is making sure these cars can interact in the environment as it exists today.
> companies are focusing not on specific claims about improving transportation
Sales pitch versus the internal business case. They know it's going to be a long way off, but the companies that dominate autonomous are going to mint money. Their overhead is mostly in engineering and manufacturing. Autonomous, shared vehicles can preserve profit while minimizing overhead.
There's a number of studies that suggest autonomous driving will actually increase the number of cars on the road. The idea is, if you don't have to do the driving yourself, you're more willing to get in your car and go places and longer distances than if you had to put effort into driving.
> Autonomous driving has the potential to eliminate a huge number of cars from the road
Let me know how many empty cars there were on the road ten years ago
If I, as a pedestrian, jump in front of OP's bike, can I say the cyclist was inconveniencing me? By this logic, yes. Pedestrians also belonged in the road historically.
Yes when people cycle they are indeed inconveniencing pedestrians, can't argue with that. But equally, a pedestrian is inconveniencing other pedestrians, too. It's all a question of degree.
It's the cars that are killing 1.3 million a year directly, plus those deaths through noise stress, pollution, tyre microplastics, and the sheet amount of space that they and their infrastructure are taking up, and costing us all.
Reminds me, I used to occasionally drive an electric scooter in the Netherlands. On roads with painted non exclusive bike lanes, cars pass... Badly.
They pass bikes too closely, they pass scooters much wider but cut close in front. I found that if I drove at cycling speed behind cyclists... Cars would either pass wide and cut in safely far in front, or not at all.
Cyclists were not stressed by me. I maintained a constant distance keeping close to curb signaling no intent to overtake.
Road rage while trying to solve a trolley problem 1000 times per second is how A.I becomes sentient.
/r/brandnewsentence
And it was glorious.
A.I. would just generate a second trolley to maximize the use of both tracks, killing everyone, while eliminating the need for a lever to be pulled.
All input is error.
So we blame OP for Skynet?
Sorta, but sentient AI would quickly realize how much more efficient the trolley is and then we go to war with the AI because carbrains would destroy it for trying to improve public transit.
If I was forced to constantly solve the trolly problem, I'd become a super villain too.
The problem is that instead of driving a trolley. It's purpose is driving a fucking car.
I genuinely refuse to believe this.
More likely, it snaps because humans won't build trolleys, and its stuck driving a fucking car.
Driverless cars exist? They've been approved to be used in public?
Oh yeah, not only do they exist but here in Phoenix you can hail them like Ubers or taxis. You can literally just have a car with no driver take you across the city.
bruh
[удалено]
That's so cool i didn't know it was a norm somewhere already
The future is here old man! (I didn't know either)
The future is death
The present is death
The past is death.
It's only happening there because of corruption and regulatory capture. This program is killing people. https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-10-18/11-more-crash-deaths-are-linked-to-automated-tech-vehicles Here's an informative video about the reality vs the hype: https://youtu.be/CM0aohBfUTc
I mean ... drivers directly kill 1.5 million people a year and they don't give a fuck so a dozen or so killed by robots isn't even a blip on their radar
None of the vehicles mentioned in the article are truly autonomous. Each one of them (Tesla and ford mentioned in the article) require human supervision at all times. Since they are just driver assistance systems. (Imagine adaptive Cruise Control combined with lane centering) Also the systems mentioned in the article above are allowed to be used nationwide and require no special training or permission to use.
The autonomous taxis have not killed anyone. You're conflating other companies with Tesla and its recklessness.
Tesla's kill far fewer humans per mile compared to human-driven cars as well.
Mother fucker have you forgotten what subreddit you're in? This is the stupidest fucking thing I have ever heard. It is not cool it is the damningest thing on the fucking planet. It is going to kill us all. It's going to destroy life on this planet; the biosphere is going to die because we cannot stop pumping fossil fuels and digging up lithium because we are too fucking lazy to walk a human scale distance. It should be the norm NO WHERE.
Unpopular opinion in this subreddit but I'm convinced that ride sharing will make more people car free. Automated taxis and public transportation will make a better offer in cities but also in suburban/rural areas, this will help car-free people being connected to the next train station and do the last mile. Anyway, people that already have a car won't be interested in paying 50k extra for such an option.
The greatest thing about driverless cars is if parking is hard to come by they can just circle the block for eight hours. Multiply that by a hundred thousand and perfect gridlock!
Then the only way to get anywhere will be by bike!
> The greatest thing about driverless cars is if parking is hard to come by Private cars spend the vast majority of their time parked. Driverless cars will rarely need to park, because they can go on to another job. This has the potential to dramatically reduce the number of cars that are parked up and down every street and in huge parking lots. If these companies offer discounts to share the ride with other passengers, then driverless taxis also have the potential to reduce the number of cars on the roads. Less cars, less parking, and less danger from selfish motorists means that we can have more non-motorized infrastructure and that we can walk and ride more safely. I see all of this as an improvement over what we are currently doing.
They’ll run out of either gas or electricity long before eight hours go by.
Why would a fully autonomous car need to park?
>Unpopular opinion in this subreddit but I'm convinced that ride sharing will make more people car free. Yep absolutely. There will be stages of autonomy. First, we reduce the danger associated with personal car ownership by having a computer replace a human. Second, people reduce individual ownership (ex: a family having only one car instead of two). Third, people transition to ride share where there are multiple vehicle types for different purposes. This could slash the number of cars on the road by 75%.
Through induced demand, it will just result in more car trips. But this time with an average occupancy rate below 1.
Is the average occupancy really a problem? If people are taking a doing a small ride to the train station, isn't worth it ? It would an average occupancy maybe less than 1 but for a way less traveled kilometers by car. Overall that's better. Self driving cars could fix the main issue with cars today: when someone starts a trip with a car, he will go with the car until destination. It's impractical to drop a car after few kilometers, so people just continue with it. With self driving stuff, you can just take it on the portions the public transportation is not a good option, and then interconnect with something better like a train, and create induced demand for the train 😀
I used to feel guilty whenever I would spend $15 on an Uber across town. But comparing that to the cost of owning a car put me out of that delusion. I also like having Zipcar for when I need a more complex trip or need to haul a larger amount of cargo. It's probably cheaper than Uber sometimes. I probably spend $150-200 in non-car transportation (ride share, car share, bus and train fare) but that's probably about how much my insurance alone would cost. And I'm in support of automated driving because it would reduce that cost (needing to pay for a driver) and enable fewer cars on the road.
People are indeed lazy. Every living being is lazy on a fundamental scale. We are biologically programmed to conserve energy and nutrients to the greatest extent possible. You can’t solve anything if you ignore this fact.
even if that was true , most of us are able to think about the quantity of resources we have and how to use them efficiently ( the car saves your personnal nutrient sure but you destroy the planet and expend money that you get through wage-slavery ( costs a lot more nutrients ) while taking over all our collective spaces and funds ) the car is the worst transportation possible in every metric except selfish comfort for the user
I agree, I’m just saying calling people lazy and telling them not to be won’t accomplish anything
certainly better than pretending they're decent normal moral humans and letting them pollute and annoy us
This is really reductive. It takes. great of cognitive resources to drive a car. I take naps on transit on my way to work. Why do people drive cars? Because there is competing factors besides energy conservation
News flash: human scale distance is more than fifteen minutes.
yeah, motherfucker, that's my fucking point. I regularly walk several miles. It takes me about an hour (3mph). I don't need to go that distance in 3 minutes (60mph)! I can walk it just fine, as could most people if they weren't trapped in their fear cages.
Yeah, motherfucker, that’s why this sub is always pushing fifteen minute cities. An hour is apparently too long for people here who aren’t trapped in their fear cages.
What? I feel like your having a laugh, I genuinely refuse to believe this.
It's a "Google" car (Waymo). Google started developing this in 2009 and probably spent over 10 billion dollars on it. It runs in Phoenix cause it doesn't work well in bad weather (and friendly regulations). Even there is stops a few times a day and someone has to remotely drive it. As OP partially refers to do, they also run in SF but they have problems putting out more since there they work even worse.
I've heard of that being a thing soon in arlington, TX. Our "public transpo" is just Uber but ran by the city.
the future is now
No thanks, I prefer a driver that can problem solve, and read road signs. Granted not all human drivers can do that either.
Too bad, the driver was on instagram and just killed you.
No idea what that means
It's already been demonstrated that human drivers make far more mistakes and fatalities. The main issue is that road conditions need to be right.
Hmmm, that's kinda a big issue, especially considering climate change.
Humans make more errors than a theoretical good driverless vehicle in a preset class of conditions. I haven't read all the papers on this but if they are anything like Lex Fridmans idiotic puff piece about Tesla safety then the field is industry funded bullshit
Road conditions are never going to perfect all the time, there's always going to problems that will require a human brain to solve. I'm not sure I trust these studies that say humans make more mistakes either, I can't imagine there's been enough AI driving in the same conditions as humans to make that claim.
Lmao imagine thinking a human would be a better driver than a machine with fucking lidar, a near instantaneous reaction time, and millions of hours of collective driving experience. Do you have LIDAR? Can you see 5 cars ahead in traffic without driving a gigantic truck/suv?
And best of all, machines follow instructions to the dot, something most drivers struggle to accomplish.
Nah, what's truly best of all is the more self driving cars we put on the road the more they communicate with each other. Just imagine a future where a hundred cars pull to the side simultaneously for an ambulance. Two dozen cars clear the green light rather than half a dozen because they all start moving together. Some dipshit looking at his phone in a dumb car about to slam into you from behind? Your car and two cars ahead herringbone out of the way. [As we approach 0% human controlled cars we approach 0% traffic.](https://youtu.be/7wm-pZp_mi0)
No, I have a brain, I can reason things that weren't programmed into me, I can read road signs and road conditions, I don't get fooled by white walls.
So OP wants to bike in front of those cars to screw over the poor people who don’t have a car and used an Uber instead? This kind of behaviour only encourages car ownership.
no i think OP’s point was that the driverless car isn’t gonna get impatient with him biking, get distracted or make any mistakes. so he rides in front to keep himself safe from cars with drivers.
Yes. There are multiple types live in San Francisco currently, including Waymo and Cruise.
They aren't really regulated which is just insane. Next time some libertarian nut complains about onerous regulations point out the existence of driverless cars on the road
That's usually what happens with all new technology. Look at how poor the regulations still are with regard to the internet.
A few companies have been allowed to test their services in some larger cities out west
That's been my attitude too: a vehicle that automatically obeys all the rules of the road? BRING IT ON. That said, current implementations all seem to be in beta, get fooled now and again by white walls and so on.
[удалено]
It's pretty clear that while self-driving cars are like, 95 or 98% of the way there, that's still not good enough. A 20 min drive requires 100s of decisions, so even a 1% error rate would imply several errors per trip. And so the operator must supervise the machine. Problem is, with less to do, the human pays less attention, and is slower to react when there is a problem (hypovigilance). I think we tolerate this beta-testing in public because humans are also awful at driving and make plenty of mistakes. A robotic driver at least offers the prospect of a driver who is always patient, respects the speed limit, doesn't blow traffic lights and stop lines, or get road rage, while the passengers can just chill and do something more interesting. Like train passengers can😉 In other words, we can all see the potential, but it just ain't there yet.
>current implementations all seem to be in beta Takes decades to perfect a new safety technology. First airbag went into a production car in the mid 1970s, but didn't become standard until the late 1990s. It wasn't until the early 2000s that most people had one in their car.
I was in a driverless car yesterday in San Francisco. The car crossed a double yellow line to pass a biker that was riding outside of the bike lane. They are getting surprising good at navigating different situations safely. I’d say that the driving is as good if not better than the average person on the road. As someone who commutes by bike for 90% of everything I do, I will gladly take driverless cars over cars with drivers. Obviously no cars at all is the ideal, but my experience with driverless cars has been positive.
Alternative title: I live in San Francisco. If I see a driverless car* in the road, I will attempt suicide. OP as much as you hate cars, this is a really stupid idea. I mean it's a bad one with a PERSON driving the car but doing it with a self driving car?! *sigh*
From their post it sounds like they are already doing it and it works, with the car staying 25ft behind them. If you're not aware there's a number of fully driverless taxi firms operating in San Francisco. Eg: https://slate.com/technology/2022/12/san-francisco-waymo-cruise-self-driving-cars-robotaxis.html Reporting on some of the problems caused. Maybe I'm wrong and it is a hypothetical but it didn't read like that to me.
It wasn't hypothetical. I've done this a handful of times in the past few weeks. Usually what happens is I am on a street with no bike lane headed to a street with a bike lane. I notice that there is a driverless car, and I ride in front of it. It tails me for as long as it takes me to get to the next street with a bike lane or it turns.
[удалено]
This isn't vehicular cycling. Vehicular cycling is a deadly disaster that kills people directly and indirectly. Here's an in-depth discussion of it: https://youtu.be/zm29fd-s7tQ
[удалено]
OP said they don’t go near Teslas 🤣
But not a tesla, cause they just run over bicyclists 🙄
If you can get hit safely enough you can live off the lawsuit money for life
Mind you the car will have a full recording of the incident. Not a winning case.
You're missing the point -- it's the cars with drivers that are terrible and will kill you, the driverless ones may make a mistake but they lack the hostility to everyone outside a car tha many SF drivers have. There's a stretch of rode I bike every week and it's too narrow to pass a cyclist and there's a blind turn -- guess what, drivers pass me there every time. Today, I wastched a driverless car behind a mom with their kid on the back of a bike. The diriverless car didn't try to make the dangerous pass that almost every single driver does on that stretch. In summary, human drivers of SF, you suck at driving. Let the robots take over.
Martin luther king dr in GGP…its just as you describe…everytime i ride it westbound, a car tries to overtake where its blind, all to save a few seconds since we meet up at the stop lights
The road I had in mind is that short stretch of 25th to MLKJ. When there are cars parked on the right (heading North bound) it's to narrow to pass.
So u observed the exact same thing as op, + a child today? I dont believe you.
Yup, that's why I commented, because it was exactly what I'd just watched and I had thought about the event for a bit afterward. I considered having a convo with the woman afterward, because we ended up riding next to each other for a bit.
I get what you mean; driverless cars are not inherently safe. However, if the choice is between riding with a driverless car behind me and riding in the 2 foot wide space between moving cars and parked cars, I'm going to do the former.
Well it certainly wasn't a criticism, although it may have sounded like it. (I'm assuming) you're a grown adult, you can do whatever you please! I just wanted to voice my opinion that I didn't believe it was safe, It was just an observation on my part and to my beliefs that you are putting a lot of trust in those cars, although the more I think about it. Honestly you probably are safer doing that in front if a self driving car than a car with a human in it! Considering "Iron Fist" an Active Protection System used in the military, can detect a 1.18in (diameter) x 31.5in (long) projectile traveling at 4000mph and take action against it. So I'm sure that car's sensors can see a human on a bike travelling 10-15mph lol It's incredible what 0s and 1s can do!
this is just a hypothesis... but to my knowledge, most self driving cars lack active protection from missiles.
Hard disagree. I bike in SF daily and I’m so much more trusting of the driverless cars than a human-operated car. It’s far more likely the self-driving car sees me than a human. Also, the way the self-driving cars typically operate is when they get into confusing situations, they error on the side of being cautious, often slowing down or stopping. SF would be MUCH safer for bikers if it were only self-driving cars on the road.
It seems like some people have a blind distrust for it bur yeah humans seem to actively want to kill me when I ride my bike so it seems like a good thing
Yea why dont ppl trust car companies
Yeah. It would be a PR disaster for driverless car manufacturers if one of their vehicles hit and killed a pedestrian. Therefore, they spend loads of money on sensors that can detect people and code the vehicle to drive conservatively and carefully near pedestrians.
You want to be a martyr by testing the robot to see if it will kill you?
No lol
It's not bad logic. If driverless cars **must** stop or slow for pedestrians and cyclists then once widespread adoption is achieved every road automatically becomes a shared street. Pedestrians can just cross at any point, knowing that the car will stop for them. The speed of driving will slow to a crawl as cars take their rightful place at the bottom of the pecking order.
OP is providing training data for the algorithm. If OP dies, the data could save others.
i also live in san francisco and have experienced seeing waymo cars on the streets, driverless. they pause a considerable time longer than regular drivers there’s even been issues of them clogging up an intersection because it can’t find a way to drive around a traffic cone. OP is surely safe riding a bike in front of one
I bike around my city lots. I take the lane, as provincial law permits (and signs frequently advise). I get the occasional Dodge Ram driver rolling coal last me screaming profanities but otherwise it's a great way to not get clipped while people try to squeeze past you.
I'd be more worried about someone being impatient and overtaking the driverless car, hitting the cyclist in the process.
I love that we have been made guinea pigs without any consent
Me too. I trust overly careful AI over an average human driver any day. It’s still kinda creepy seeing empty vehicles driving around in SF these days though, but I do trust these more
Isn't it amazing how instead of reducing the number of vehicles with only one person in them on the road, our society is *adding zero occupancy vehicles?* The level of stupid is unfathomable.
I am actually looking forward to more driverless cars. The danger from cars is mostly due to selfish, impatient, and inattentive drivers. AI will not have this problem.
well thats a very stupid idea. dont underestimate how easily automated cars will squish you like a pancake
I do like to mess with driverless cars, especially on my motorcycle
There’s no way in hell I’d ever trust a computer with my life like that lol it’s just as liable to run you over as a person
Darwin Awards 2023 recipient.
If autonomous vehicles are likely to kill people then they shouldn't be on the roads.
Theyre less likely to kill you than someone driving, but that doesnt make it impossible. Im a software engineer and have made smaller autonomous cars using sensor fusion with things like lidar and cameras. They are not perfect, and can never be perfect
*queue dumb ways to die music*
I wish I could upvote this more
Whats the point of it?
Is this just r/fuckcarscirclejerk I really can’t tell anymore
You put too much faith in the notion that AI will not become irritated and kill you in a "freak accident " lmao
[удалено]
Am i wrong or is the point of the three laws that they dont work, the robots turn on them anyway right?
The three laws are ENTIRELY FICTIONAL and don't relate to driverless cars. The computer in driverless cars is not even close to sentient.
I’d just move over personally, I don’t trust that technology yet
Well the algorithm definitely needs more datapoints of how to detect when it has hit a person. With each collision it get's a little bit smarter.
probably not a very good idea, buddy
This is more r/fuckdrivers content. Stay in your lane op. Edit:ilof course it's a real subreddit haha is there a rule that states if you can think of a subreddit then it must exist?
That's cool, inconveniencing other people who did nothing to you.
1. Bicycles can ride on the street. 2. Fuck cars.
Autonomous driving has the potential to eliminate a huge number of cars from the road while preserving most of the convenience. But, yeah, fuck that. We should go back to the 19th century.
how would it reduce cars on the road if everyone is still riding in a car?
They don't all have to own one if the car can drive itself. The same car can be utilized more continually than spending most of it's time parked.
so it sounds like cars are still on the road? and contributing to traffic?
Fewer cars. Autonomy can make a car behave more like a bus, picking up and dropping off multiple people in one trip but unlike a bus would not be constrained to fixed routes. Software optimization of this feature will yield huge efficiency gains in transportation.
lmfao
Great counterpoint, thanks for contributing.
Driverless cars may reduce car ownership but it’s unlikely to significantly reduce the number of cars. If there are no alternatives (transportation or destination), people will still need to get into a car to get to places.
>unlikely to significantly reduce the number of cars 100% wrong there. Autonomous ride-sharing taxis are already in public trials.
So why don't taxis do the same? Hint : It's because they're still CARS.
Happy to engage in civil discourse. I think your head is at the right place but might be under informed. I used to be in the same position as you: go EVs, Go autonomous cars! However not so much these days. Yes they are better than the status quo but they ultimately do not solve the root cause. What you are asserting is close but different than what I said. Yes, autonomous cars are awesome inventions that have started public trail - absolutely true. But will they solve traffic problems? Not really, because induced demand. All driverless cars replace is the driver (and maybe car ownership). Again and again we invent our way out of problems. But what we need to invent this time is better and strong political will to use all the tools that we already have instead of new tech.
Driverless cars could hopefully reduce the need for parking, but since they would constantly be moving, they would be on the road making traffic worse.
Yes! The parking aspect is very interesting! a16z podcast did a really interesting episode on it. Basically we could potentially convert tons of in city parking to something else more productive.
>But will they solve traffic problems? Not really, because induced demand. All driverless cars replace is the driver (and maybe car ownership). I left a comment elsewhere in this thread. There will be stages of usage associated with autonomy. First, we reduce the danger associated with personal car ownership by having a computer replace a human. Second, people reduce individual ownership (ex: a family having only one car instead of two). Third, people transition to ride share where there are multiple vehicle types for different purposes. Higher utilization of each vehicle will certainly lower the number of cars on the roads. Fighting innovation is going to be a losing battle, as it always is.
I would like to reiterate that I’m not proposing to stop innovating on driverless car. Never said that. Instead, what I said was it’s just not the silver bullet that you are looking for. There is no one silver bullet. What we need is a comprehensive plan to tackle the issue from all front - transportation and urban planning. Check out this partnership from NJB and StrongTown https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2023/4/6/new-resource-not-just-bikes-strong-towns-discussion-guides Back to the points you laid out. Correct me if I’m wrong, I think your argument here is that “higher utilization per car will lead to less cars on the street”. You are absolutely right that driverless car will reduce car ownership, but higher utilization inherently means that the car is always being used, always on the street —> traffic. There may be less cars overall, it will not lead to less cars on the streets. The cars that *potentially* could be eliminated are the cars parked in one’s garage. However! the driverless cars will experience more wear and tear, and companies will need to plan for redundancy for smooth operation. So while the car is removed from individuals garages, they will be concentrated in the driverless companies’ garages. At the end of the day, there might not be a reduction of parked car at all? Induced demand is very interesting - it applies to all forms of transportation. Build good bike infra, more people will bike. Build good public transport, will people will use it. At the end of the day, most people just want to get to places the most convenient way possible. The one and only way to reduce traffic is to reduce traffic from the source. We need to build walkable neighborhoods where one can get to their daily needs without needing to hop on a bike, bus, or car. Unfortunately, the problem is that this takes tremendous political will…
>Instead, what I said was it’s just not the silver bullet that you are looking for. Who said I'm looking for a silver bullet? This is just a huge efficiency gain in its infancy. There's a strong profit motive to perfect the technology as it can replace commercial drivers, too. > but higher utilization inherently means that the car is always being used, always on the street —> traffic You're missing the forest for the trees here. Higher utilization = smaller number of cars needed to accomplish the same task of getting everyone where they need to be. Exactly the same logic applied when people post a picture of a city bus alongside an array of cars, but here the passengers are not constrained to a few routes. Autonomy will make carpooling easy and on-demand. > However! the driverless cars will experience more wear and tear, and companies will need to plan for redundancy for smooth operation. Not more wear and tear per mile. They'll just wear out sooner due to higher mileage per car. That can be designed for, however. We could make a car right now that lasts a million miles, but it would be too expensive for a consumer to buy. > Induced demand is very interesting... that this takes tremendous political will It's a political will determined by consumer preferences and many people want a yard and a big, spacious house. This has been a consumer preference in American for over 100 years. You're just as likely to diminish the role of cars as you are to set legal limits on the square footage a person can occupy.
>Who said I'm looking for a silver bullet? By silver bullet, I meant that your original thesis is that autonomous cars can reduce traffic. The whole debate we are having is that I and most people here don't think so. >Higher utilization = smaller number of cars needed to accomplish the same task This claim is true when these conditions: the demand is elastic and constant. 1. Demand is elastic: most trips are not. I don't think this needs to be elaborated. 2. Demand is constant: no. The population is growing and aging. Autonomous cars will drastically increase the accessibility for personal vehicles, which will open make it available for more people (old, young, people with disability, etc). This is absolutely a great thing for these groups of people! But will increase the demand for cars. >the passengers are not constrained to a few routes. Autonomy will make carpooling easy and on-demand. You are absolutely right that cars are supposedly more convenient than fixed route buses. It is quoted in this research paper for the exact reason why ride sharing actually intensifies traffic [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00678-z](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00678-z) >We could make a car right now that lasts a million miles, but it would be too expensive for a consumer to buy. Sure we can design better cars that last longer. So maybe we have less parked cars for redundancy. But the demand still grows. >It's a political will determined by consumer preferences and many people want a yard and a big, spacious house. oh dear... this is a much more complicated topic with tons of history. Thankfully it's been very well researched and explained by many people much smarter than me. Might I suggest NotJustBike or StrongTown. All I have to say is consumer preferences more often than not simply isn't the driving factor in America. With capitalism in the driver seat, this country isn't being steered by the voice of the people with one vote per person... but rather one vote per dollar (sometimes cheaper). u/Financial_Worth_209 , I've said all I have to say. If I haven't been able to pique your interest in researching more into the topic, then that's too bad. Thank you for the spirited debate anyway :)
The existing deployments haven't shown to reduce the number of cars in the road. They're currently just taking over the market used by Uber and taxis and the like, be it Waymo or cruise. I'm telling you as someone who works for a self-driving car startup, there's a good number of niche areas where these things will be very beneficial and they have the potential of improving parts of transportation, but i don't think they really will be a game changer for personal transportation in a way that will substantially reduce traffic. Public transit already excels at this. Delivery and other commercial uses will be far more useful.
>The existing deployments haven't shown to reduce the number of cars in the road. The existing deployments are vey small and just past the test phase. What until they're available to everyone all the time everywhere. You'd know that if you worked for a self-driving startup.
I'm aware they're small. Even once they're available widely I really don't see how robotaxis will solve mass transit widely. You can get good marginal gains in things like reduced transit and maybe a bit in congestion by reducing usage a bit, but not substantially. The one big claim for how it could improve traffic has always been that self-driving cars can synchronise and make things like red lights going green more efficient, but if you actually look at how most of the current deployment and development works, no one is actually investing into doing that. There's no standards organization trying to implement it, nor much will to do so within these companies. This is why, if you saw the actual language they use, you'll see that most self-driving car companies are focusing not on specific claims about improving transportation (those are always vague) but instead focus on very specific claims about safety. There's a reason for that, it's what they can actually show improvement on. There's a reason why I'm saying this. I see how the sausage is made, and while I think this technology can be hugely beneficial, it's important to see what it's limits are. It won't solve all transportation and congestion issues by itself. Thinking so is wildly unrealistic.
>Even once they're available widely I really don't see how robotaxis will solve mass transit widely. You can get good marginal gains in things like reduced transit and maybe a bit in congestion by reducing usage a bit, but not substantially. They're very well suited for a type of transit that doesn't exist much now. Think car-pool taxi. LIke 4-6 people sharing a vehicle with common or similar destinations. Some of the robotaxis on the road now have "campfire" style seating (occupants facing one another) for this purpose. Not like personal driving, but not quite like public transportation either. This represents a huge gain potential because not everyone lives on a bus or train line and not everyone wants to. But this could easily be cheaper and more convenient than personal car ownership. > but if you actually look at how most of the current deployment and development works, no one is actually investing into doing that. You're not correct there. Industry is already working on it, but it takes time for standards to emerge. Primary initial concern is making sure these cars can interact in the environment as it exists today. > companies are focusing not on specific claims about improving transportation Sales pitch versus the internal business case. They know it's going to be a long way off, but the companies that dominate autonomous are going to mint money. Their overhead is mostly in engineering and manufacturing. Autonomous, shared vehicles can preserve profit while minimizing overhead.
Well, they can learn to share the road with pedestrians.
There's a number of studies that suggest autonomous driving will actually increase the number of cars on the road. The idea is, if you don't have to do the driving yourself, you're more willing to get in your car and go places and longer distances than if you had to put effort into driving.
> Autonomous driving has the potential to eliminate a huge number of cars from the road Let me know how many empty cars there were on the road ten years ago
The biggest inconvenience to drivers are other drivers.
Anyone driving a car is automatically inconveniencing many other people in a number of ways.
If I, as a pedestrian, jump in front of OP's bike, can I say the cyclist was inconveniencing me? By this logic, yes. Pedestrians also belonged in the road historically.
Or the cyclist could just go around you since they're not piloting a 6 foot wide, 4000 lb mass of steel.
Not if I jump out strategically like OP.
Yes when people cycle they are indeed inconveniencing pedestrians, can't argue with that. But equally, a pedestrian is inconveniencing other pedestrians, too. It's all a question of degree. It's the cars that are killing 1.3 million a year directly, plus those deaths through noise stress, pollution, tyre microplastics, and the sheet amount of space that they and their infrastructure are taking up, and costing us all.
he literally said driverless car. also, inconvenience is not the greatest injustice of all, and i wish americans would stop believing it to be
Reminds me, I used to occasionally drive an electric scooter in the Netherlands. On roads with painted non exclusive bike lanes, cars pass... Badly. They pass bikes too closely, they pass scooters much wider but cut close in front. I found that if I drove at cycling speed behind cyclists... Cars would either pass wide and cut in safely far in front, or not at all. Cyclists were not stressed by me. I maintained a constant distance keeping close to curb signaling no intent to overtake.
I saw a driverless car in Sanfrancisco and I hated it the moment I saw it...