|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Just say no to self driving cars
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I say we should not have self driving cars - because they are still cars. Cars create congestion, crowd streets where people could walk. We don't need to find new ways to make cars work, we need to make it possible to not use cars. We need investment, not in roads for cars, but in public transit. We need an end to unpleasant commutes. We need investment in public spaces, like parks, streets where people walk, visit, have a rest and cars are absent. Where travel in out cities and towns is easy and stress free.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Completely disagree. Self-driving cars will mean a lot fewer cars. I would like to open up the car app on my phone, order up a car to take me somewhere, and have it come around and pick me up and take me there, and then go back into the queue of available cars for others to call up. We won't all need to have cars when they can drive themselves, and we won't need to have acres and acres of paved ground for so many cars to sit on because not only will there be fewer cars, they won't all spend the vast majority of the day just sitting there.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391
|
Posted
Absolutely! Self drive cars could make private transport public. They could also free up the roads for pedestrians if they can safely avoid running us down when we cross the road. Smart route planning could avoid traffic jams. They'll be the future. And if they prove to be safer than manual cars (which they will be, by orders of magnitude), the manuals will be banned before too long. Bring it on.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Completely disagree. Self-driving cars will mean a lot fewer cars. I would like to open up the car app on my phone, order up a car to take me somewhere, and have it come around and pick me up and take me there, and then go back into the queue of available cars for others to call up.
Currently, my car is a combination of a means of transport and a cupboard with wheels. It contains a load of stuff I might need from time to time, so that it's available to me as and when I need it. I have no desire to lug that stuff around by hand on the offchance, so your proposal for a fleet of robot taxis wouldn't help me.
There's also, of course, the feature that I don't have to wait for my car, and I know my car will be available when I want it. If you think it's bad getting stuck in traffic, how much worse would it be to be stuck without even a car to sit in?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Completely disagree. Self-driving cars will mean a lot fewer cars. I would like to open up the car app on my phone, order up a car to take me somewhere, and have it come around and pick me up and take me there, and then go back into the queue of available cars for others to call up.
This system already exists. The vehicles are called "taxis". I'm not sure that the human driver is the sticking point that would, with its elimination, cause a lot more people to forego a private vehicle in favor of a public one.
I'm also not optimistic about driverless cars' ability to reduce traffic. The problem there has to do with people's travel schedules being more or less synchronized to using the same peak travel hours. Unless you're radically shifting employment practices, the peak use problem will persist whether cars have drivers or not.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
quote:
This system already exists. The vehicles are called "taxis".
Or "Uber" or "Lyft" to be more modern.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
Self driving cars could make things much better, because they could take the stress out of the driving part. So I could log into work at home, and work on my drive in (and drive home). This could mean that I can arrive and leave at different times.
They could also reduce the blocking actions of some drivers, which should mean that the congestion is improved. If all cars drove within speed limits and slowed in good time,there would be less blocking and the traffic could more more smoothly.
Unfortunately, the technology needs to be much improved. People will always want cars, private transport, and anything that can make them safer and less prone to human error is an improvement. We might disagree with the desire for private transport, but that is an argument that cannot be won. Ways of making private transport safer in all ways should be applauded.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Completely disagree. Self-driving cars will mean a lot fewer cars. I would like to open up the car app on my phone, order up a car to take me somewhere, and have it come around and pick me up and take me there, and then go back into the queue of available cars for others to call up.
Currently, my car is a combination of a means of transport and a cupboard with wheels. It contains a load of stuff I might need from time to time, so that it's available to me as and when I need it. I have no desire to lug that stuff around by hand on the offchance, so your proposal for a fleet of robot taxis wouldn't help me.
There's also, of course, the feature that I don't have to wait for my car, and I know my car will be available when I want it. If you think it's bad getting stuck in traffic, how much worse would it be to be stuck without even a car to sit in?
Wouldn't it be better still to be stuck at home doing your work there? With a bit of imagination and technology many modern jobs don't require attendance at a workplace at all. No travel to work, possibly ten hours a week saved. Not the mention the expense.
Part of those savings could go towards funding decent transport for those who absolutely have to travel to work, often in the service sector for lousy pay.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
A self-driving taxi would be much cheaper than current taxis, and for long journeys it'd probably be priced more like a car rental (but without the hassle of getting to the car hire depot). It'd be perfect for me.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
quote:
This system already exists. The vehicles are called "taxis".
Or "Uber" or "Lyft" to be more modern.
There is also Car-2-Go, which sounds a bit more like what Ruth is describing- you log into the app, go to where the nearest car is waiting for you, drive to your destination park it, and walk away. (It's supposed to be a good idea if you are going to a party and know you are having more than one drink- take a car there, take a cab back, no need to figure out how to get your actual car the next morning with a morning head.) You see them here and there, but no, they don't seem to have made a huge difference in the traffic situation.
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Completely disagree. Self-driving cars will mean a lot fewer cars. I would like to open up the car app on my phone, order up a car to take me somewhere, and have it come around and pick me up and take me there, and then go back into the queue of available cars for others to call up.
Currently, my car is a combination of a means of transport and a cupboard with wheels. It contains a load of stuff I might need from time to time, so that it's available to me as and when I need it. I have no desire to lug that stuff around by hand on the offchance, so your proposal for a fleet of robot taxis wouldn't help me.
There's also, of course, the feature that I don't have to wait for my car, and I know my car will be available when I want it. If you think it's bad getting stuck in traffic, how much worse would it be to be stuck without even a car to sit in?
I doubt that private ownership of cars (whether they are self-driving or manual) will be mandated at any point in the foreseeable future. So if you wish to own a car you will of course be free to do so. I suspect, though, that you will quickly discover that it is a rather costly means of storage, and might find it far more efficient and cost-effective to invest in rolling luggage or some other system. Even duplicating items (reading glasses, over the counter meds, jackets, etc) at both work and home, installing lockers in the workplace, would be significantly less expensive than owning, insuring and maintaining a private car. That won't work everywhere or for everyone, which is why private ownership won't be outlawed, just diminished over time. Much like horse-and-buggies.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Wouldn't it be better still to be stuck at home doing your work there?
Sometimes, I do, and if I was just going to go to work and sit in my corner and get on with things, I'm often more efficient at home. Anything involving meeting with other humans, and the opposite is true. I have lots of phone meetings, often with people I know well. These meetings are very much more inefficient than in-person meetings. They're not less efficient than spending a day on a plane, followed by an in-person meeting, which is why we have them. For local people, I'd far rather make them all spend half an hour driving to a conference room so we can talk face-to-face.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
So if you wish to own a car you will of course be free to do so. I suspect, though, that you will quickly discover that it is a rather costly means of storage, and might find it far more efficient and cost-effective to invest in rolling luggage or some other system.
You're probably right that should such a system arise, it would do 80% of what my car does, and if it's significantly less money, then I won't be able to justify not choosing the cheap option. It will be worse, though.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
The real benefits of driverless cars in the near future are likely to be on long journeys cross country. It's pretty clear that if you've got to drive London to Inverness or, worse, New York to San Francisco, that there are benefits to not having to pay attention the whole time.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
There's also, of course, the feature that I don't have to wait for my car, and I know my car will be available when I want it. If you think it's bad getting stuck in traffic, how much worse would it be to be stuck without even a car to sit in?
I am okay with you wanting to take a car, either as self driving or drive yourself. Myself, I want an app that tells me when the bus is coming, and to bring my bike on the bus and commute without gridlock or stress, and I want you to pay for the privilege of taking a car including for the road construction for it, maybe by a per mile or per km charge to infrastructure. Because if I don't need the road, what should I pay for its construction and your use of it? I also want the bus (or other transit) to have priority, because there are 60 of us versus 1 of you in your self-driven car.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
on long journeys . . . there are benefits to not having to pay attention the whole time.
That's why God created passenger trains.
[ 05. July 2016, 21:55: Message edited by: Amanda B. Reckondwythe ]
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
They could also free up the roads for pedestrians if they can safely avoid running us down when we cross the road.
Unlikely, if they can't tell the difference between sunlight and a tractor-trailer.
The tesla isn't a self-driving car though. It's not meant to be left unattended while the driver watches a film, it's just sophisticated cruise control at this point.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
on long journeys . . . there are benefits to not having to pay attention the whole time.
That's why God created passenger trains.
And if you've ever travelled by train from London to Inverness you'll know that Satan is responsible for setting fares.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
They could also free up the roads for pedestrians if they can safely avoid running us down when we cross the road.
Unlikely, if they can't tell the difference between sunlight and a tractor-trailer.
Early days. And the first fatality in millions of kilometres. Do you know how many fatalities manual cars have had in the mean time? (I don't, actually. I'm just assuming it would be a high number.)
Posts: 241 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
They could also free up the roads for pedestrians if they can safely avoid running us down when we cross the road.
Unlikely, if they can't tell the difference between sunlight and a tractor-trailer.
Early days. And the first fatality in millions of kilometres. Do you know how many fatalities manual cars have had in the mean time? (I don't, actually. I'm just assuming it would be a high number.)
I think the figure I saw was something like 1 death per 100 million miles on US roads vs 130 million for the Tesla with the cruise control activated. Obviously the statistical significance of the latter figure is highly questionable.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curious Kitten
Shipmate
# 11953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
on long journeys . . . there are benefits to not having to pay attention the whole time.
That's why God created passenger trains.
And if you've ever travelled by train from London to Inverness you'll know that Satan is responsible for setting fares.
And the journey times.
Why does it take me the same amount of time to get to Inverness as my mum? I live 150 miles nearer.
--------------------
Happiness is not having what we want but wanting what we have.
Posts: 107 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I don't mind the journey times if I can take the sleeper.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Wouldn't it be better still to be stuck at home doing your work there? With a bit of imagination and technology many modern jobs don't require attendance at a workplace at all. No travel to work, possibly ten hours a week saved. Not the mention the expense.
I tend to agree - insisting that everyone move around at the same time has multiple effects of which congestion is merely one symptom, it should be seen as the madness for which it is.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
anoesis
Shipmate
# 14189
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
Absolutely! Self drive cars could make private transport public.
At which point cars will start to have most of the same problems that buses and trains do. Grease, grime, graffiti, litter, and lingering B.O. Granted, you would not have to put up with other people's crotches uncomfortably near your face, and things like that...
--------------------
The history of humanity give one little hope that strength left to its own devices won't be abused. Indeed, it gives one little ground to think that strength would continue to exist if it were not abused. -- Dafyd --
Posts: 993 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
anoesis
Shipmate
# 14189
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Wouldn't it be better still to be stuck at home doing your work there? With a bit of imagination and technology many modern jobs don't require attendance at a workplace at all. No travel to work, possibly ten hours a week saved. Not the mention the expense.
I tend to agree - insisting that everyone move around at the same time has multiple effects of which congestion is merely one symptom, it should be seen as the madness for which it is.
Another mental thing is the way that banking and insurance head offices, and other outfits that employ absolutely masses of staff, all cluster together in a 'city centre', when most of their staff don't need to be close to the head offices of competing firms. That creates untold traffic problems, local authorities focus their efforts entirely on mitigating those problems, and god help you if you need to catch a bus to work, and work is NOT in the central city.
--------------------
The history of humanity give one little hope that strength left to its own devices won't be abused. Indeed, it gives one little ground to think that strength would continue to exist if it were not abused. -- Dafyd --
Posts: 993 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
I have a problem with trusting a computer to safely get a car (with me in it) anywhere, on its own. Unless we're talking KITT, from "Knight Rider". He was a full, thinking, feeling person who had enough intelligence and knowledge of the world to make wise decisions. (And even he had a learning curve.) He just happened to be made of different stuff than we are.
Any kind of computer or AI built today isn't going to be like that.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
Where the HELL is the personal jetpack for consumers that I was promised in my comic reading days?
WHY CAN'T CARS FLY YET?
What the hell are you doing, science?
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I have a problem with trusting a computer to safely get a car (with me in it) anywhere, on its own.
Having worked in computers for 25 years, I must agree. Some idiot is going to forget to cross some T or dot some I in the code, and it will cause the car to crash into a mountain or something. Computers are only as good as the people who program them, and I trust coders less than I trust my own driving. Having been a coder for many, many years.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
My car is almost self driving already! Adaptive cruise control, parking stopping/starting automatically - all I do is steer!
We already trust computers with our safety all the time aeroplanes, traffic lights, hospital equipment, the list is endless. Tho computers can fail, they don't make anything like as many errors as humans.
Bring on self driving cars ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Originally posted by Croesus:
quote:
This system already exists. The vehicles are called "taxis". I'm not sure that the human driver is the sticking point that would, with its elimination, cause a lot more people to forego a private vehicle in favor of a public one.
I don't know how much taxis cost where you are, but here it costs £10 for a four mile journey from the train station to my home, £25 for the nine mile journey to the airport, and when my husband took ill and work and taxied home, it was £35 for a 13 mile journey.
Taxis are prohibitively expensive; that's why no-one uses them unless they can put it on expenses.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Self-driving cars will mean a lot fewer cars. I would like to open up the car app on my phone, order up a car to take me somewhere, and have it come around and pick me up and take me there, and then go back into the queue of available cars for others to call up.
Aside from the fact that the system already exists with human-driven cars, there is one big problem with this scenario.
If you have the same number of people making their journeys, then the number of cars on the road at the same time won't change. Actually, quite the opposite because you will have a lot of extra journeys with those driverless cars moving from where they're parked when not in use to where someone is who wants to use it, and back to parking again at the end.
The only way to reduce traffic is to reduce the number of individual journeys. That means either everyone travels less (eg: more working at home, or living closer to work) or increasing the number of people per vehicle (eg: use more buses/trains, or car share), or both. I don't see any requirement for driverless cars to do that.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
You can improve traffic flow (while not actually reducing traffic) with driverless cars as driverless cars can travel closer together as they're not reliant on human reaction times.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
On highways you would improve traffic flow by regulating speed and reducing distance between cars (and, reducing accident frequency). On urban streets where traffic flow is constrained by traffic lights then the benefits would presumably be less (you still gain from reduced accident frequency). The only way to really reduce congestion is to reduce the number of vehicles on the road at the same time.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
You can improve traffic flow (while not actually reducing traffic) with driverless cars as driverless cars can travel closer together as they're not reliant on human reaction times.
If you join the cars up it is safer still and you need far fewer engines.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I want you to pay for the privilege of taking a car including for the road construction for it, maybe by a per mile or per km charge to infrastructure. Because if I don't need the road, what should I pay for its construction and your use of it?
What's your bus driving on, then?
I'd be fine with a usage charge for roads, as long as it had some basis in fact rather than being plucked from someone's politically correct arse.
So vehicles will pay a per mile tax proportional to the fourth power of their axle weight (that's more or less the damage the vehicle does to the road). Your bus is a vehicle, so will have to pay, and recover the charge as bus fares from its passengers. My car will pay. Bikes can go free - they have so little mass that they're not worth counting.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Pedestrians and bicycles, wheelchairs and scooters to be banned? Streets are for cars and cars alone!
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
quote:
I don't know how much taxis cost where you are, but here it costs £10 for a four mile journey from the train station to my home, £25 for the nine mile journey to the airport, and when my husband took ill and work and taxied home, it was £35 for a 13 mile journey.
Taxis are prohibitively expensive; that's why no-one uses them unless they can put it on expenses.
And driverless cars on call would be appreciably less? Doubt it.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
A significant part of the cost of a taxi is the salary for the driver. Even on minimum wage and assuming the driver has a fare 70% of the time that's £10 per hour. Of course, a taxi driver will be on more than minimum wage, and is probably lucky to have a fare more than half the time, so £20 or more per hour is more likely, possibly more. In urban traffic at 30mph, a 4 mile journey is about 10 mins, which is more than £3 just for the drivers salary. That will be saved in a driverless taxi, but there will be additional costs for the vehicle (which will be more expensive than a car needing a driver), plus the depot will need people to make sure each car is clean before it goes back out again. Other costs - fuel, insurance, the staff taking bookings etc will be similar.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
Of course it would also create unemployment among taxi drivers as well. Just as an aside.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
Cars are expensive to own and cheap to use. If you have to own a car (in order to make some journeys - at times of night when public transport doesn't run, to visit people and places in the countryside where public transport is non-existent or one-bus-a-day from 5 miles away) then using it is often the cheapest and quickest way to make even those journeys where you do have a choice.
Guarantee people an affordable low-waiting driverless taxi option for every journey, then they don't feel compelled to pay the upfront costs of car ownership, and they can afford to take public transport for those journeys for which it is an option.
And if it's automated you can put in differential pricing to incentivize spreading the peak.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Never mind all that. If they're more likely to pass with a safe clearance than human drivers and if they're less likely to overtake whilst also turning left, then I want them, and I want them tomorrow.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A significant part of the cost of a taxi is the salary for the driver. Even on minimum wage and assuming the driver has a fare 70% of the time that's £10 per hour. Of course, a taxi driver will be on more than minimum wage, and is probably lucky to have a fare more than half the time, so £20 or more per hour is more likely, possibly more. In urban traffic at 30mph, a 4 mile journey is about 10 mins, which is more than £3 just for the drivers salary. That will be saved in a driverless taxi, but there will be additional costs for the vehicle (which will be more expensive than a car needing a driver), plus the depot will need people to make sure each car is clean before it goes back out again. Other costs - fuel, insurance, the staff taking bookings etc will be similar.
But another cost savings should be insurance for self-driving cars, at least at whatever point you can demonstrate they're far less likely to be involved in accidents.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
But the argument is not merely self-driving cars versus normal cars. It is self-driving cars versus public transit.
Who needs transit when you've got the Google Car coming down the road?
They can replace public investment in transit infrastructure and can be privately owned and run. The article goes on to suggest that we should probably stop public spending on roads and infrastructure for cars if we're going to ditch public transit in favour of these self-driving autos.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
But the argument is not merely self-driving cars versus normal cars. It is self-driving cars versus public transit.
Who needs transit when you've got the Google Car coming down the road?
They can replace public investment in transit infrastructure and can be privately owned and run. The article goes on to suggest that we should probably stop public spending on roads and infrastructure for cars if we're going to ditch public transit in favour of these self-driving autos.
Wait, don't self-driving cars still need roads? I'm a little unclear why privately-owned driverless cars would not need roads but privately-owned human-driven cars do.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The argument in the article is that private cars spend 90% of the time doing nothing but sitting parked somewhere. Therefore, so the argument goes, you only really need 10% of the number of cars if they're shared resource. 10% of the number of cars = less space for roads.
The weakness of the argument, indeed the fatal flaw, is that the private cars we currently have spend 10% of their time being driven, and it's the same 10% of the time almost everyone else is driving their car. To reduce the road capacity would require everyone to be driving at different times. But, if you could do that you would make the same road space savings with driven cars.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Or - reduce road space and make conditions for the cars of either type congested and troublesome so that public mass transit (anything non-car) is the preferred option?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
...and I want you to pay for the privilege of taking a car including for the road construction for it, maybe by a per mile or per km charge to infrastructure. ...
Ever heard of gas taxes? In Ontario, that's 37.7 c/l now, and another 4.3 c/l coming in 2017, for a total of about 42 c/l. What do you think that is for?
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Or - reduce road space and make conditions for the cars of either type congested and troublesome so that public mass transit (anything non-car) is the preferred option?
So you've been to Minneapolis, then...? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Ever heard of gas taxes? In Ontario, that's 37.7 c/l now, and another 4.3 c/l coming in 2017, for a total of about 42 c/l. What do you think that is for?
It doesn't pay for roads. It goes into general revenues at both provincial and federal tax levels. A B.C. analysis indicated something like $50 per car per year gets spent on roads via gas taxes. Even if Ontario has a much more directed gas tax toward roads, say $100, it is a pittance toward the total spent on roads which are paid for out of other tax revenue. Not fair!
I'd like to see a per km (or per mile) fee to drive so that drivers pay directly for roads. Or make gasoline much more expensive I'd be willing to pay my share as a pedestrian and cyclist, but not for car infrastructure.
[ 09. July 2016, 00:29: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
