I think the article is holding self-driving cars to a higher standard than regular cars.
> City parking -- lots, street spaces, garages -- are designed with adequate space for people to get in and out of those cars. Driverless cars can be parked tightly together to conserve space.
> At this stage, it's unclear exactly how we'll handle parking self-driving car. When not in use, could they be tucked away in garages outside of the city center? If that's the case, how do those who own the cars summon them?
Being able to store cars more compactly is a benefit. It shouldn't confer an obligation that must be met immediately. Self-driving cars will have no trouble using regular parking spaces in the meantime.
kinda seems like a poorly thought out idea in the first place... i mean a train, maglev capsules shot through tubes, a normal car, a bicycle, ok makes sense... self-driving car? not high on my wish list, i guess
You don't see the benefit of being able to go anywhere roads go without having to drive?
A one-hour car commute is no longer a waste of an hour. You can use that time to write software, or sleep, or study, or watch TV. Living an hour's drive away from work (or near work but an hour away from your parents, like I do) is no longer a major inconvenience.
30,000+ traffic deaths each year? Vastly increased convenience? And in the long run, potentially reduced parking footprint and higher capacity road lanes.
We shouldn't. Ideally, intra-city transportation would be handled by public transport, plus a bike in some cases. Cities could (and should) be similarly interconnected.
In a sane world, cars would be niche. So one answer could be, "because the world is insane".
> It turns out we're not really planning for self driving cars at all. Most cities seem not to be forecasting driverless cars in their future.
So what? Nobody knows exactly how self-driving cars are going to operate in cities, because they aren't here yet. In the meantime, it's fine to continue as normal.
reply