More silliness.
It doesn't need to be accident-free. It just needs to have fewer accidents than cars with drivers. That's called a net gain. And we'll be there before you know it.
Should the coming self driving revolution cause us to rethink transit plans?
- Thread starter fuji
- Start date
It doesn't need to be accident-free. It just needs to have fewer accidents than cars with drivers. That's called a net gain. And we'll be there before you know it.
What if you could use self driving cars at will and have a hot rod to drive in the country?
I think instead the bar should be less than 150 collisions per 100 million miles driven with less than 1 of those resulting in a fatality. In other words, roughly a 20% improvement over human drivers.
I agree that five years is about the right timespan over which to assess that.
I note current transit plans have a twenty year horizon.
I agree that driverless cars are coming, but there are approximately 1.1 million cars in Toronto (I am assuming that means the GTA).
It will take many years to convert that many cars and drivers to a driverless system.
Wrt public transit like trains, they will always be more efficient than passenger cars. One average GO train can carry 1900+ people, and they are on 30 minute schedules. That's the equivalent of 316 cars carrying 6 people each.
It will take many years to convert that many cars and drivers to a driverless system.
Wrt public transit like trains, they will always be more efficient than passenger cars. One average GO train can carry 1900+ people, and they are on 30 minute schedules. That's the equivalent of 316 cars carrying 6 people each.
The problem with public transit in North America is that they don't solve the "last mile" problem. A lot of people are quite far from a transit station so some people will choose a car over transit. This is less of a problem in Asia and Europe since the cities are of much higher density.
I'l believe it when I see it. They said 40 years ago we'd have flying cars by now too, that never happened.
Although I will admit the challenges to make self-driving cars are probably a bit easier
Although I will admit the challenges to make self-driving cars are probably a bit easier
The problem is we humans: Until driverless cars reach the point of being for practical purposes collisionless or reasonably close to the same, basic human nature will be to say "I still trust my own driving better."
Then comes the cost, will people purchase them.
Finally as mentioned already by others even if this technology were made mandatory there will continue to be a sizable number of automobiles with drivers on the roads for at least two decades afterwards.
Yes, I too believe that this is both conceptually and theoretically beautiful, but not practical.
As fast as technology may be moving and as close as twenty years may seem, I just don't see the world in that kind of nirvana. Politically speaking, you're talking about lost jobs and dollars due to efficiency. Exactly who is going to let that happen?
By your theory, the oil barons should practically be out of business because of the influx of electric cars; the unions will be toothless because they won't have active, living members to take care of, or in turn, take care of them; the insurance companies won't be handling automotive departments anymore because there is no way they will be insuring a city full of driverless cars, much less me, who is having my vehicle transport people around the city while I work. There is a reason why insurance costs are so much higher for those individuals who are on the road so much more often, and for those who are responsible for the lives of others at the same time.
And what politician is going to convince the masses to pay for the infrastructure that you are purporting to be necessary? We can't widen roads, but we are going to widen subway tunnels? How many lanes do you honestly think will be required for high speed cars in these tunnels? And then, how many lanes can possibly be made to support these needs?
It's a nice dream. And maybe if we already had such an infrastructure... but we are already so far behind London, New York, and Hong Kong when it comes to public transit. We have to think of the "now" before looking at a future that may or may not exist. Or at the very least, which may not exist to the levels that you have pictured for us here.
And maybe driverless vehicles will be great for those unable to physically drive anymore, but on a simpler note, there will always be people--like myself--who just love to drive. How do you combat that appeal?
Aside from the monetary issues which I brought up earlier, when people in the aforementioned cities of the world are choosing to ride en masse in cars/vans on a limited amount of city roads with traffic lights, stop signs, and 4-way crossings, instead of a relatively free-flowing train line system... then... I will succumb to the age old expression, "I'll believe it when I see it."
Kudos for creating a nice, little pocket of discussion!
#11
As fast as technology may be moving and as close as twenty years may seem, I just don't see the world in that kind of nirvana. Politically speaking, you're talking about lost jobs and dollars due to efficiency. Exactly who is going to let that happen?
By your theory, the oil barons should practically be out of business because of the influx of electric cars; the unions will be toothless because they won't have active, living members to take care of, or in turn, take care of them; the insurance companies won't be handling automotive departments anymore because there is no way they will be insuring a city full of driverless cars, much less me, who is having my vehicle transport people around the city while I work. There is a reason why insurance costs are so much higher for those individuals who are on the road so much more often, and for those who are responsible for the lives of others at the same time.
And what politician is going to convince the masses to pay for the infrastructure that you are purporting to be necessary? We can't widen roads, but we are going to widen subway tunnels? How many lanes do you honestly think will be required for high speed cars in these tunnels? And then, how many lanes can possibly be made to support these needs?
It's a nice dream. And maybe if we already had such an infrastructure... but we are already so far behind London, New York, and Hong Kong when it comes to public transit. We have to think of the "now" before looking at a future that may or may not exist. Or at the very least, which may not exist to the levels that you have pictured for us here.
And maybe driverless vehicles will be great for those unable to physically drive anymore, but on a simpler note, there will always be people--like myself--who just love to drive. How do you combat that appeal?
Aside from the monetary issues which I brought up earlier, when people in the aforementioned cities of the world are choosing to ride en masse in cars/vans on a limited amount of city roads with traffic lights, stop signs, and 4-way crossings, instead of a relatively free-flowing train line system... then... I will succumb to the age old expression, "I'll believe it when I see it."
Kudos for creating a nice, little pocket of discussion!
#11
Another point is that at some point driverless cars may in divided highway (400 series/Interstate) situations be able to safely drive with less space between vehicles, but I still doubt that this will be able to increase the number of vehicles on the highways without expansion of the same.
Yes, which is why there will be a mix and a transition. It's going to take at least twenty years for the rolling stock to be replaced with self driving vehicles before the full benefits can be realized.
There will be a long transition.
But again note that timeframe of twenty years is the timeline of most of these super expensive transit proposals.
What about the hover board like the one in Back to the Future. I was a kid waiting for it and now I'm a man. The tech-science community let me down in a big way. Maybe they'll develop one that works when I'm 90. Oh the fun!
I think that will be the largest obstacle: unions will grieve it because it will eliminate unskilled driver jobs and replace them with a smaller number of higher skilled technician jobs. Unions always hate change.
I believe there will be a lot of electric vehicles but for long distance driving gas has a distinct advantage. I see electric vehicles being used heavily for short trips, under 200km. For longer trips gasoline vehicles will still rule.
Either kind of vehicle could be dispatched based on your needs but the electric vehicles have distinct advantages in the city where they can automatically drive themselves to charging stations between trips.
People said the same thing about the highway system before it was built. Sometimes the wheel turns slowly, but it turns.
We can widen all city streets just by removing street parking. That will increase capacity on city roads by a lot.
As for high speed automated lanes one lane in each direction is enough. That lane should be able to move at a constant 150kmph to 200kmph with the system fully controlling the entry of vehicles into the system. Instead of subway stations you would use the platform as a merging lane with the station real estate being a cloverleaf. You would board vehicles at your doorstep, no need for foot traffic access to the stations.
Same could be done with highways. Instead of HOV lanes reserve one lane for automated traffic, which could travel at up to 200kmph with computer controlled signaling (managed by the highway itself with individual vehicles adding safety features to avoid crashes in the event of a failure). Older human driven cars without the integrated signaling would drive on the other lanes at half the speed, and subject to the traffic jams that humans cause.
I would guess all new human driven vehicles would come with the signaling so that you could drive to the highway but then let the car take over on the highway and gain access to the high speed automated lanes.
Controlled access highway automation is actually the easiest problem to solve since the highway is a controlled environment that can have electronic signaling installed on its entire length to make automated driving efficient and safe.
The uber point is that we don't really know what the self driving revolution will bring other than that whatever we are currently planning to spend billions on is PROBABLY the wrong thing.
currently even during rush hour 50% of the space on the road is empty. So there is a huge increase in capacity if cars can follow super close. Also if you double the speed, you double the capacity. With driverless cars you can operate at 100 KPH on main roads and 200 kph on highways. Due to the close following fuel economy will be excellent.
Right up until the moment ice hits. Or better yet someone decides it would be funny to cause a multicar pileup with a malfunctioning vehicle. Or any number of disaster scenarios.
Right now apparently the cameras and computers can't tell the difference between a cat and a bag. Or a cardboard box and a human.
And despite the fact someone might not be driving they can still be quite injured in an accident.
And what about long distances. Driving to the cottage. Driving over provincial and national borders.
Hell what happens if someone throws up in it? Uses it as a fuck place? I can go on and on reasons why people will prefer their own vehicle.
Just because you like it(and I'm a transit user daily) doesn't mean others think like you.
They will happen eventually but unless you ban them in an area the benefits would not be as utopian as people here are surmising
That happens to human drivers too. But self driving cars have a huge advantage: if they are all connected and being managed by the system they can all brake at the same time so that they don't pile up.
And they can brake in response to the onboard diagnostics on the failing vehicle. Meaning within a millisecond of the lead vehicle detecting loss of traction or loss of tire pressure all the vehicles will receive a signal to slow down and they will do so in unison. As if the brakes in your car were being controlled by the brake pedal in the car six vehicles ahead.
Moreover the presence of ice will be remembered by the system and all the vehicles will adjust accordingly for the rest of the day at that spot.
Connected cars and a smart roadway simply have a lot more information than you do and can use it faster and more intelligently.
As for long distances that's likely to be the first problem solved as the trucking industry has a huge financial interest in automated long haul trucking.
If everyone in Markham had a self drive car then accidents would decrease followed shortly thereafter by falling insurance rates. My insurance went up 7% when I moved there and down 4% when I moved from there to downtown.
It should be based on postal codes....with these postal code areas you are only allowed to have a self driven car.
It should be based on postal codes....with these postal code areas you are only allowed to have a self driven car.
LOL...is this a joke??
What do you need a drivers license for if you're not actually driving the car??
