I dunno. In well developed cities people used bikes and public transport instead since decades now. Driverless cars sounds so silly, if I ever used a car, it wouldn't be in the city, be to go out somewhere outside the normal infrastructure.
>Driverless cars always in motion are basically public transit
Minus the cost of the driver.
The point of ubiquitous driverless cars, is that one could get to you so quickly that for all intents and purposes it would always be there.
Also they don't always have to be in motion. Just give people a discount on service if they let cars park in their driveways while waiting for instructions.
Driverless cars would be very useful; it would mean I can use my time in the car in a more useful way, like reading. Now I have to use the train for that.
But maybe that's also the risk of driverless cars: it would make them more attractive than they should be, because they're really too inefficient to be able to afford them as society's main form of transportation.
Why not? I'm seeing numerous, huge advantages to the driverless cars. The only advantage to a normal car is that sometimes they can be fun to drive. Frankly, I'd be more than happy to make that tradeoff, and I suspect I'm not unusual in that regard.
In my mind, the benefit of a driverless car is that you don't need to own one. You can just pay for the right to use one at any given time, then never worry about it otherwise.
There is a driver! It's just in software! The car's still got something driving it. It's just not a person!
People tell me, "Dude, that's pedantic. Clearly what people mean when they say 'driverless cars' isn't that there's literally nothing driving it. They mean that having people driving cars has a lot of downsides and having the benefits of cars available without having an in-person driver opens up a lot of opportunities and frees us from personally having to drive ourselves."
Also, I never understood what kind of problem companies are trying to solve with self driving cars to be honest. Traffic in cities will be the same, if not worse. And I consider driving as one of the things I really enjoy doing. Why take that away?
similarly, I don't get the whole automated driving thing.
-Would you get trust a car with your safety and the safety of other road users? Uber already killed a woman.
-"Planes already fly themselves" actually they don't and you wouldn't step into one that did.
If you frame it entirely as safety most people will say that they want everyone else to use a driverless car, but they will keep on driving themselves, because everyone thinks they are a great driver. The reason why people will choose to use driverless cars will most likely be convenience, safety will just be a nice additional win.
Economically, not everyone can afford self-driving cars. In the near future, they appear to be luxury items.
Trains move more people more efficiently and cheaply. That should remain the case even as driverless cars become popular, at least for another generation - maybe two.
For me, the driverless car isn't about providing a chauffeur service that is otherwise too expensive. That's a nice side benefit. To me, the main benefit is safety, as automated systems can be more 'alert' at all times, and have carefully tuned algorithms to know what the safe limits are, and keep enough 'slack' in the system to react etc etc. Automated cars are consistent drivers.
* Driverless cars means independence for people who otherwise are restricted (elderly, kids, blind, etc).
* Driverless cars are more fuel efficient. Sure, they aren't as efficient as not driving, but, just like driving with cruise control is better than not, complete automation will be better.
* Driverless cars will enable more productive use of the commute time.
There are probably many more benefits as well.
The one thing the author probably gets correct is that this will increase traffic load on the roads, and it is questionable whether it will increase efficiency of roadway usage more than it increases traffic load, but I'm guessing it won't. I can imagine a case where I have a single car, driving me to work, then going back to take my wife, then back to the house to pick up kids, then back to pick up my wife, and so on. In other words, a lot of empty drive time. This would be mitigated by a taxi-like "call the nearest car".
I think there is no reel need for driverless cars. Having technological difficulties aside we should question whether there is really a need for self-driving cars. Life is not that bad without autonomous cars. I don't hear anybody complain about in real life not having driverless cars. Basically a driverless car is same thing having a private chauffeur and I know quite a few people who don't want to use their private chauffeurs lots of time.
I just really don't understand the whole self-driving car craze. What is so attractive about it? Why do people want it so badly? Personally, I like driving, rarely even use cruise control. I would never fully trust these auto-pilots. Ever. So what's the point? If I can't crawl into the backseat and take a nap and wake up at my destination, then what's the use?
Really? It might sound crazy but I think people would just buy them because they are, you know, useful for getting places.
reply