This is something i've been suspecting ever since people have claimed automated cars would be a net benefit to mass transportation. Either way a very good article as it seems like the person being...
Not only did none of those promises come true, the opposite actually occurred. The San Francisco County Transportation Authority did an analysis in 2018 showing that almost half the increase in vehicle miles traveled in San Francisco was due to Uber and Lyft. They were displacing transit, walking and biking trips, they were adding to deadheading miles, and they were significantly increasing traffic in the most congested parts of the city.
This is something i've been suspecting ever since people have claimed automated cars would be a net benefit to mass transportation.
Either way a very good article as it seems like the person being interviewed actually knows what the hell they are talking about and isn't making outrageous claims either way. Very interesting point of view, and I'm curious how the data will evolve as we see more of this stuff.
I actually do think automated cars would reduce traffic still. But to do so, we would need a monolithic network for them to communicate with each other to choose the best routes, make all of them...
I actually do think automated cars would reduce traffic still.
But to do so, we would need a monolithic network for them to communicate with each other to choose the best routes, make all of them shared rides by default, and limit or abolish private ownership and manually driven vehicles. And all of those things are basically impossible.
I mean, at that point, why have cars and roads as is? Roads are designed for humans to drive on. If only networked vehicles will be on them, then yeah you might as well get rid of lights, stop...
I mean, at that point, why have cars and roads as is? Roads are designed for humans to drive on. If only networked vehicles will be on them, then yeah you might as well get rid of lights, stop signs, and everything else that contributes heavily to traffic in first place. Hell you don't even need cars to drive on one side of the road.
Lights, stop signs, and everything else is so that pedestrians and cyclists can safely move through roadways. The promised future where there is no traffic because of optimized car flow misses the...
Lights, stop signs, and everything else is so that pedestrians and cyclists can safely move through roadways. The promised future where there is no traffic because of optimized car flow misses the actual humans in the equation.
I mean at a certain point cars just don't make sense in dense areas. Tom Scott had an interesting video on personal rapid transit: https://youtu.be/iaSaWfw07Sw
I mean at a certain point cars just don't make sense in dense areas. Tom Scott had an interesting video on personal rapid transit: https://youtu.be/iaSaWfw07Sw
I can see this happening in SF This is politically feasible eventually - but not likely A man can dream. I really would love this but don't think it's going to happen in America
we would need a monolithic network for them to communicate with each other to choose the best routes
I can see this happening in SF
make all of them shared rides by default
This is politically feasible eventually - but not likely
and limit or abolish private ownership and manually driven vehicles
A man can dream. I really would love this but don't think it's going to happen in America
Well that's concerning. I had always taken issue with the claim that self driving vehicles have fewer crashes than humans. Because the data is comparing self driving vehicles at slow speeds,...
The most important is safety data. Unfortunately, state and federal regulators as well as the robotaxi companies themselves define safety as “collisions.” As long as the robotaxi is not colliding with other road users, there’s no safety data.
...
As long as the robotaxi itself isn’t hitting anything, it’s also not considered a safety incident — even though it may create significant safety problems for other roadway users.
Well that's concerning.
I had always taken issue with the claim that self driving vehicles have fewer crashes than humans. Because the data is comparing self driving vehicles at slow speeds, relatively good weather (maybe rain but not snow or ice), and in cities on roads it's familiar with - against all humans including people who are tired, under the influence, in unfamiliar places, bad weather, and of all driving experience levels.
But having no data on non-collision safety is probably a worse data vacuum.
Pretty interesting article overall. I don't know why I find it surprising that there's so little regulation around these cars that the city doesn't even know how many robotaxis are operating. I...
Pretty interesting article overall. I don't know why I find it surprising that there's so little regulation around these cars that the city doesn't even know how many robotaxis are operating. I feel like that's something pretty basic to track but the companies are the ones who write the regulations and they want to be as secretive as possible I guess.
I also find it depressing to hear that transportation technology conferences discuss pedestrians as if they're a problem rather than the actual user they need to cater to. I really do hope that the Bay Area can get its stuff together and truly focus on improving transit and its density. Robotaxis are cool but cheap, reliable, and safe public transit is cooler
Man, Bloomberg just gets more and more awful to use. This time they wanted me to agree to a class action waiver just to read this article that I was only mildly interested in anyway. I wish people...
Man, Bloomberg just gets more and more awful to use. This time they wanted me to agree to a class action waiver just to read this article that I was only mildly interested in anyway.
I wish people would just stop sending them traffic.
This is something i've been suspecting ever since people have claimed automated cars would be a net benefit to mass transportation.
Either way a very good article as it seems like the person being interviewed actually knows what the hell they are talking about and isn't making outrageous claims either way. Very interesting point of view, and I'm curious how the data will evolve as we see more of this stuff.
I actually do think automated cars would reduce traffic still.
But to do so, we would need a monolithic network for them to communicate with each other to choose the best routes, make all of them shared rides by default, and limit or abolish private ownership and manually driven vehicles. And all of those things are basically impossible.
I mean, at that point, why have cars and roads as is? Roads are designed for humans to drive on. If only networked vehicles will be on them, then yeah you might as well get rid of lights, stop signs, and everything else that contributes heavily to traffic in first place. Hell you don't even need cars to drive on one side of the road.
Lights, stop signs, and everything else is so that pedestrians and cyclists can safely move through roadways. The promised future where there is no traffic because of optimized car flow misses the actual humans in the equation.
Yeah, you get it.
I mean at a certain point cars just don't make sense in dense areas. Tom Scott had an interesting video on personal rapid transit: https://youtu.be/iaSaWfw07Sw
I can see this happening in SF
This is politically feasible eventually - but not likely
A man can dream. I really would love this but don't think it's going to happen in America
Well that's concerning.
I had always taken issue with the claim that self driving vehicles have fewer crashes than humans. Because the data is comparing self driving vehicles at slow speeds, relatively good weather (maybe rain but not snow or ice), and in cities on roads it's familiar with - against all humans including people who are tired, under the influence, in unfamiliar places, bad weather, and of all driving experience levels.
But having no data on non-collision safety is probably a worse data vacuum.
Pretty interesting article overall. I don't know why I find it surprising that there's so little regulation around these cars that the city doesn't even know how many robotaxis are operating. I feel like that's something pretty basic to track but the companies are the ones who write the regulations and they want to be as secretive as possible I guess.
I also find it depressing to hear that transportation technology conferences discuss pedestrians as if they're a problem rather than the actual user they need to cater to. I really do hope that the Bay Area can get its stuff together and truly focus on improving transit and its density. Robotaxis are cool but cheap, reliable, and safe public transit is cooler
Man, Bloomberg just gets more and more awful to use. This time they wanted me to agree to a class action waiver just to read this article that I was only mildly interested in anyway.
I wish people would just stop sending them traffic.
Try this:
https://archive.is/Z2Cyd