Cars were status symbols even in the soviet union. I find it hilarious that fans of autonomy are all about making things driverless without recognizing that their shining future could have been accomplished 50 years ago by vanpools if their vision had any merit.
I disagree with your premise here. Some people will always regard cars as status symbols and others will always regard them as transportation utility maximizers. Besides, if anything we're trending away from the American car fetish (or more likely it's taking a different form). Kids don't generally grow up familiar with cars anymore, they don't build their own, they don't maintain their own ... it's just much rarer. So to some people (an increasing number), one car is much the same as another. Not to say we'll all share cars in futuris; that's an odd conclusion to come to as well. But I think we'll care less and less if our cars drive themselves.Cars were status symbols even in the soviet union.
Just because a person refuses to acknowledge the status accorded a car does not mean it is not a status symbol. I wear jeans and t-shirts. I also recognize that this choice to opt out of fashion is a fashion choice. Further, my choice does little to erode the profit margins of the fashion industry, whose choices trickle down to my available choices of jeans and t-shirts. Even when I opt out of a status-driven industry, my choices remain driven by status. We're driving less. This is what Facebook has blessed us with. Those who need to drive shall continue to drive. The problem with a "1-car 11-people" future is that they're all likely to need to drive about the same time, and they're all likely to need to drive along a predictable route. It makes a lot more sense to put them on a bus. If you don't want or need a car, you don't want or need a driverless, "mutual" car. You need a way to get from Point A to Point B. Guaranteed- a bus is going to be cheaper. We will not care less and less if The City takes 35 minutes to dispatch a Prius to our driveway when it said it would take 10. We just missed our dentist's appointment. Had we taken the bus, we'd be there.I disagree with your premise here. Some people will always regard cars as status symbols and others will always regard them as transportation utility maximizers.
Besides, if anything we're trending away from the American car fetish (or more likely it's taking a different form).
But I think we'll care less and less if our cars drive themselves.
I'm not talking a bus system, or some kind of delivery system, or any of the things you mention. I use the bus every day. I also own a car, not by choice, and I wouldn't if it hadn't been somewhat forced on me. In urban settings cars are the poorest transportation option. I rank subways first, then bikes, then buses. Cars a distant fourth. What I meant is something different, though. My point is that less people care about cars in a memento sense than ever, which will ease in the rise of the self-driving car (if it happens at all). That's all I meant.
Therefore they will always be status symbols? Vanpools have nothing to do with driverless cars.Cars were status symbols even in the soviet union.
I find it hilarious that fans of autonomy are all about making things driverless without recognizing that their shining future could have been accomplished 50 years ago by vanpools if their vision had any merit.
110 years of history says "yes." Hell, dude, bicycles are status symbols. Trapper Keepers are status symbols. If it can be possessed in better condition than that available readily on the market, it's a status symbol. The problem under discussion is getting pedestrians over a wide geographical area to their disparate destinations in an efficient way. "Driverless" is a red herring; the real issue is that these pedestrians are using a shared mode of transport. It isn't a "bus route" problem because the network is transitory; it's only a "taxi" problem because the authors presume that none of these individuals will share a ride. If they won't share a ride, it's back to status. If they will share a ride, it's a vanpool probem. Southeast asia is full of tuk tuks, rickshaws, scooter taxis, all the rest. The cost of transport is low even for the indigenous. Nonetheless, ownership persists. Status persists.Therefore they will always be status symbols?
Vanpools have nothing to do with driverless cars.
Status symbols are inherently generated from scarcity. The point with a distributed autonomous system of driverless vehicles of any and all kinds (whether they be cars/buses/hyperloop/whatever) (also not arguing that a hyperloop is a near-term reality) is that we essentially increase safety, decrease cost, and improve efficiency for everyone. Do I think that no one will own a car? No, I don't claim to know that. Will there be a radical shift in our culture towards relying on autonomous self-driving cars? Undoubtedly, and this will start to change notion of ownership. This may not change the culture of car ownership immediately, but it probably will in the long-term. At one point in the history of humanity, having a man-made source of light was a status symbol. Then we made light abundant (at least in the developed world). At one point, having clean water was a status symbol, now we have made water abundant (again, at least in the developed world). The same could conceivably happen to transportation. The mechanisms exist.
…and scarcity is an easily manipulated quality. If all the "mutually owned cars" in Phoenix are painted white to reduce cooling, a red car is "scarce" and therefore a status symbol. That's an allegation, not a given. In fact, your article argues that miles driven goes up radically. "Cost" is not an easy one to pin down, either - if I can afford a $50k car but my taxes are subsidizing a $10k "public" car, my costs have gone up pretty radically. And I vote. Automatic transmissions became common options in vehicles in 1954. Stick shifts remain common. Self-parking became available in 2003. It's still a rarity ten years later. In 1969, the NTSB argued that seat belts should be mandatory. The first seat belt law went into effect in 1986. You say these things, but you have no evidence. Dude. …Dude. I'd like to see you argue more about how light and water aren't status symbols. Status symbols are inherently generated from scarcity.
The point with a distributed autonomous system of driverless vehicles of any and all kinds... is that we essentially increase safety, decrease cost, and improve efficiency for everyone.
Will there be a radical shift in our culture towards relying on autonomous self-driving cars? Undoubtedly, and this will start to change notion of ownership.
At one point in the history of humanity, having a man-made source of light was a status symbol.
At one point, having clean water was a status symbol, now we have made water abundant (again, at least in the developed world).
The same could conceivably happen to transportation. The mechanisms exist.
Ok, I think we are talking about different things here. My point with the light and water is that there have been significant reductions in the ways they are culturally perceived as status symbols. I don't give a shit if there are people that care about ornate light fixtures or pristine bottled water. I just care that everyone on the planet has light and water. Hopefully we can work towards the same thing with transportation. If we had a driverless transportation system we could dramatically reduce traffic, ensure everyone had access to cheap and accessible transportation, etc. That is my point. Will people still use vehicles as status symbols? Probably. Again, I never claimed to be able to predict if car ownership would disappear. I find that unlikely. I didn't write this article, and do not defend every aspect of every article I post.your article
Except that you're mistaken. The examples demonstrate that. When "light" became ubiquitous, the presentation of that light became linked to status. When "water" became readily available, the presentation of that water became linked to status. The bottled water industry is growing faster than nearly anything else and most of the developed world has clean water galore.
It's been over 100 years and we haven't. Henry Ford struck a blow with the Model T and Ferry Porsche with the Beetle, but durable goods have always been and shall always be linked to status. But you haven't made it. And the article doesn't either. It states, in clear terms: Same number of cars, more miles traveled. The utopian future of the article basically eliminates the need for driveways, not anything to do with the vehicle fleet. No, but you made this statement: I pointed out that the material you linked - the article you used to start this discussion - contradicts your statement. If you have other evidence to support your statement, you should have posted that.My point with the light and water is that there have been significant reductions in the ways they are culturally perceived as status symbols.
I just care that everyone on the planet has light and water. Hopefully we can work towards the same thing with transportation.
If we had a driverless transportation system we could dramatically reduce traffic, ensure everyone had access to cheap and accessible transportation, etc. That is my point.
Kockelman is quick to point out the caveats. The biggest is that for all the savings in private car-ownership, vehicle-miles traveled doesn't go down in the Austin model. In fact, it goes up about 10 percent. That's because not only are SAVs making all the trips people used to make on their own, but they're repositioning themselves in between trips to reduce wait times (see below). The additional wear also means manufacturers produce about the same number of cars, too, though each new fleet is no doubt a bit smaller and cleaner than the last.
I didn't write this article, and do not defend every aspect of every article I post.
The point with a distributed autonomous system of driverless vehicles of any and all kinds... is that we essentially increase safety, decrease cost, and improve efficiency for everyone.
The potential benefits of driverless cars are stunning. From the article: Autonomous vehicles traveling in high-speed “platoons” that reduce aerodynamic drag could reduce fuel consumption by 20%. Up to four times as many vehicles could travel on existing highways if all vehicles were automated. The Texas Transportation Institute says traffic congestion wastes 5.5 billion hours and 2.9 billion gallons of fuel each year. Self-driving cars incorporated into car-sharing services like Zipcar could affordably transform cars from a thing people own to a service they call up on demand. If perfected, driverless cars obviously increase safety, decrease cost, and improve efficiency for everyone. And as Tim O'Reilly pointed out, they are improving at an exponential pace. If you have other evidence to support your statement, you should have posted that.
90% of automobile accidents are due to human error, leading to 30,000 deaths and $300 billion in damages in the US alone. Fully autonomous vehicles could slash those losses by huge margins.
Now we're arguing something completely different than "a carless society." Your statement was "increase safety, decrease cost, and improve efficiency for everyone." Note - I haven't said word one about safety. "Reduce fuel consumption by 20%" is something CARB set out to do in the '80s. They hit 11% without driverless cars. We learned in vehicle design that allowing aerodynamics to not count against a semi's taxed length would increase efficiency of the trucking fleet by 40%. For that matter, "following too close" cuts your fuel use by a shitload; we used to drag semis all the time on long road trips. You can get a '77 buick up to 60MPG if you're willing to play bumper tag. There's a lot of variables there, and you're just now starting to inject them. My point was that the benefits of "driverless cars" suggested by the article aren't actually the benefits of "driverless cars" and that if they actually were, vanpools would have accomplished them. Here we are. Before we start off on a whole 'nuther argument where I have no skin in the game, can we call the old one done? Lenin argued that if perfected, The State would increase safety, decrease cost, and improve efficiency for everyone. Thing is, people ain't perfect.
That's fair. Yup. People aren't perfect, but since the Industrial Revolution we have been increasing safety, decreasing costs, and improving efficiency. I see autonomous driverless cars as a way to reduce traffic in urban areas, increase access for people who currently can't afford cars/insurance, and improve safety for everyone. I don't see this as controversial. I haven't done enough research in this area to suggest timelines for the introduction of driverless public transportation (e.g., taxis, buses, zipcar-like services, etc.), but I've heard everything between 2017-2030. I personally think they will be successful in the long-term, but again I haven't do enough research to suggest a timeline for the establishment of a new grid. Although I am interested in learning more about it in the future. My point was that the benefits of "driverless cars" suggested by the article aren't actually the benefits of "driverless cars" and that if they actually were, vanpools would have accomplished them.
can we call the old one done?
Lenin argued that if perfected, The State would increase safety, decrease cost, and improve efficiency for everyone. Thing is, people ain't perfect.
I don't see them as a proletariat revolution. That's my umbrage with the article - it isn't about "driverless cars" it's about "a driverless carpool." Can you elucidate what "driverless" has to do with the following? - reduce traffic (All the benefits of driverless cars are about increasing traffic density) - increase access for people who currently can't afford cars/insurance (If you can't afford a car, you can't afford a driverless car) I personally think that the equivalent of "bitchin' cruise control" is being oversold as the equivalent of "magic."I personally think they will be successful in the long-term, but again I haven't do enough research to suggest a timeline for the establishment of a new grid
From this article: Result? Smoother traffic flow, an end to traffic jams and greater safety, as it would eliminate the frustration and dangerous driving that’s often triggered by sitting in heavy congestion for ages. Essentially, cars communicate with each other and smart grids to self-organize their own routes in ways that minimize physical friction. Theories on how to best organize these grids are still developing. IMO the first step will be making our public transportation driverless, which should reduce the cost. Furthermore, various Zipcar-like services should be able to offer "subscription" services for people. Subscriptions will obviously vary in cost, but they should prove fantastic and cheap alternatives for people like me that A) live in big urban areas, B) can't afford parking/insurance costs, C) find it inconvenient to own a car in the first place and don't like driving in congested downtown areas. Although there isn't likely to be a massive reduction in cost unless we can find a way to efficiently exploit renewable energies for transportation. I can understand that perspective. I think it's healthy to be so critical, as we have had many embarrassing technological failures in the past. But we have cars on this planet right now that have driven for hundreds of thousands of kilometers in real-conditions without getting into an accident once.reduce traffic
Using radar, cameras, GPS, sensors and wireless technology, cars will be able to “talk” to each other and navigate safely by knowing where they are in relation to other vehicles. And connectivity will mean they can communicate with objects like traffic lights, too.
increase access for people who currently can't afford cars/insurance
I personally think that the equivalent of "bitchin' cruise control" is being oversold as the equivalent of "magic."
"Reduce traffic" means "fewer cars on the road." "Smoother traffic flow, an end to traffic jams and greater safety" isn't talking about reducing anything. The advantage of fleet autonomy isn't about a reduction in traffic, it's about a coordination in traffic. Better coordinated traffic means denser traffic, means more cars on the road. This is where the hand-wavey shit starts to get out of hand: the way you "reduce traffic" is by increasing the attractiveness of driving alternatives. 30 people on a bus takes 30 cars off the road. 30 people on light rail takes 30 cars and a bus off the road. 30 people on bicycle lanes takes it all off the road. But 30 people in driverless cars is still 30 cars on the road. So I reduce congestion by requiring autonomous transport through the middle of London, for example. Now all the delivery drivers know that the majority of traffic goes through the middle of London. So they go around and take their traffic elsewhere, where they can still get ahead of the pattern. You haven't reduced traffic, you've moved it. Yeah, there's ten thousand people surfing Facebook on their phones while their Priuses sit in traffic... but what was a knot in the middle of town is now a knot going around that knot. Meanwhile, the cost of "congestion reduction" has been fobbed off on the individual consumer, rather than the tax base. Build a road? Public works. Require autonomous vehicles? Well, now you're dealing with a new car. Are you going to subsidize lower income levels the way they supposedly do with PACE lanes and the like? 'cuz now instead of your tax dollars going to local contractors building local roads for the local community, you're sending money to Toyota. By what logic? What percentage of the cost of a bus ticket do you really think goes to the driver? Better yet, what real cost of a bus ticket is paid for by direct subsidy? They do already. Friend of mine has had a Zipcar subscription since 2005. "Driverless" changes this how? 'cuz I guarantee - they're going to want you to have a license in case the computer fritzes. So why don't you have a Zipcar subscription already? Because it won't schlep itself to your door? Because driving downtown is that much of a hindrance? How does "self-driving" affect the equation here? Has nothing to do with vehicular autonomy. And millions more with similar brags being driven by humans. I'm not saying "autonomous cars are a stupid idea" I'm saying they're still cars.Using radar, cameras, GPS, sensors and wireless technology, cars will be able to “talk” to each other and navigate safely by knowing where they are in relation to other vehicles.
IMO the first step will be making our public transportation driverless, which should reduce the cost.
Furthermore, various Zipcar-like services should be able to offer "subscription" services for people.
Subscriptions will obviously vary in cost, but they should prove fantastic and cheap alternatives for people like me that A) live in big urban areas, B) can't afford parking/insurance costs, C) find it inconvenient to own a car in the first place and don't like driving in congested downtown areas.
Although there isn't likely to be a massive reduction in cost unless we can find a way to efficiently exploit renewable energies for transportation.
But we have cars on this planet right now that have driven for hundreds of thousands of kilometers in real-conditions without getting into an accident once.
I'd say instead that it means "A to B faster". What do I care how many cars there are? If I get there faster, there's less traffic. Autonomous cars have great potential to reduce traffic by driving together, closer to each other than people can do safely."Reduce traffic" means "fewer cars on the road."
What you say doesn't matter. The actual outcome of autonomous fleet driving is "more cars per road." With a bunch of autonomous drivers and no human ones, the driving distance can go down (until things go wrong - more discussion below) which means the effective speed can go up. Get a human in there, though, and it all goes wrong. Suddenly you've got a freeway full of tailgaters. Many of the glorious promises of "autonomous driving" presume that "human driving" is illegal. That's an entirely different discussion.
If you define "more traffic" as "more cars on the road", sure. That's a shitty definition of traffic, though.
Regardless of your opinions on the matter, it's the accepted definition.
In your link, it says traffic congestion IS typically measured by delays. See the "classification" section.
That's because it's independent of lane width. Check again. The actual metric depends on follow distance and stability of flow - automation, tying this all back to the fork that it all split off of, would decrease follow distance and increase stability of flow (effectively nuking the scale). The money quote is right here: Automation would increase the use of road networks. That's the point.Traffic congestion is a condition on road networks that occurs as use increases
There's an implied "all else being equal" there, though. All else isn't equal. You want to say that automation will increase congestion, and you're willing to assume the "more cars", but not the "tighter grouping" aspect.
I'm not trying to say one will outweigh the other (I couldn't begin to guess), but it seems to me you are dismissing the latter out of hand because it doesn't match your argument.Traffic congestion is a condition on road networks that occurs as use increases
You misunderstand my argument. I'm saying that in order for automated cars to "decrease traffic" (by your definition), "tighter grouping" is necessary. I'm further saying that with non-automated cars in traffic, the grouping is already maxed as it is. It's a lowest-common-denominator problem - if 80% of your cars are automated and can keep a follow distance of 50 feet at 70mph but 20% are piloted and require a follow distance of 250 feet at 70mph, your fleet pulls a lot closer to the wide spacing than the close. The way it actually gets handled is gonna be interesting to see; it'll depend on a lot of variables. "A to B faster" remains to be seen, and as we're now both saying, dependent on decreased following distance. Decreased following distance is dependent on pilotless saturation. Either way, the mechanism is "more cars with less road" and that's "traffic."
I'm not trying to be argumentative; I agree with most everything you've said here. I should also say that as an experienced embedded programmer, this whole idea scares the crap out of me. I'd still like to see it happen, but colour me skeptical.I'm further saying that with non-automated cars in traffic, the grouping is already maxed as it is.
I don't understand.
your fleet pulls a lot closer to the wide spacing than the close
This either. I'm assuming the automated cars will bunch up together and drift off each other. That right there reduces congestion, and the greater the percentage of automated cars, the more reduction (compared to a field of 100% human drivers).
Correct. But riddle me this: when you're driving down the freeway, do you maintain a safe following distance? Or do you tailgate? With a pilotless vehicle, the "safe following distance" is the "tailgating" of a piloted vehicle. Works great when you've got pilotless vehicles following other pilotless vehicles. Kind of comes apart at the seams when you've got a piloted vehicle following a pilotless vehicle. Consider the implications. I head out onto the 405. I'm the only person driving in a sea of Google Priuses. My safe following distance is the two second rule - at 70mph, that's 205 ft. call it 10 car lengths. The Google Priuses, however, are automated. Are infrared, laser and radar. Are running 8 cores at 3.5GHz. They're rawkin' a quarter-second rule, but for safety's sake, they're going for a half second. That's 50 feet. From a "traffic" standpoint, we just got 4 times as many cars on the road. So that's pretty dope. But here I come! The first thing that happens is that Google has no idea who I am or what I'm going to do. So anything that senses me is going to go "OH SHIT HUMAN" and make a little bubble around me. If it's clever, it'll give me the space to merge, to change lanes, to pass, to do whatever I need in 'human' spacing. So for the area directly around me, my density goes down to what it was originally. But Google has to do that for any vehicle that isn't part of its network. It has to presume that an object it cannot control is a lowest-common-denominator vehicle. It can tailgate the hell out of me... but I'll bet it doesn't. I'll bet that ends up being against the law, same as if Google were a person. Here's where the math gets interesting. I have no idea at what mix the traffic becomes dominated by "human accommodation." Your network also has to deal with merging "human bubbles" even where it is efficient. Throw a little snow on the road and all of a sudden these people that have been blissed out, stoned, and playing Words with Friends for the past 20 minutes are suddenly at the wheel of a vehicle on an icy road. And all this presumes that the system works as designed, works as intended. Google has FUCKED the 405 for the past few weeks because they started integrating Waze into their routing. Which means anybody using Google Maps during rush hour gets "In 600 feet take the off-ramp" even if they're 4 lanes over. It ain't pretty. Plenty of people are stupid enough to try.I'm assuming the automated cars will bunch up together and drift off each other.
I get all that. Congestion still goes down. Whenever two google-cars pair up and become (effectively) one longer car, it's a little less congestion. You might argue that it's not enough, but it's surely something. Those google-cars that see you coming on to the 405 - are you assuming they will give you more room than humans would? Because they are responsible drivers? I suppose that might negate some of the congestion gains, but I'm hard-pressed to see any other way congestion could be anything but improved with google-cars.
I would argue that it's an exponential growth curve and the tail is going to be very long. I would further argue that as more people get used to not having to drive, the more things are going to suck when they're forced to in a rainstorm. To be clear: I don't think driverless cars are a bad idea. I do think that their benefits are oversold, their timeline is overly optimistic, and as panaceas for reducing traffic they suck ass compared to viable mass transit.You might argue that it's not enough, but it's surely something.
Fair enough, and agreed on all points.
I think it would be a very bad idea to have driverless cars that people can take over from and drive, ever, for just those reasons you mention. Autonomous vehicles ought not to allow a human driver; just my opinion. "Smart cruise control" - no thanks. Recipe for disaster.
Sorry - I really should be talking about congestion, not traffic. My bad.
By reduction of traffic I thought you were referring to the phenomenon of actually being "stuck in traffic". I don't think we're going to necessarily reduce the actual number of people on the road with autonomous self-driving cars. But traffic flow should be smoother and definitely safer. And if all an autonomous grid reduces is number of deaths from accidents every year... than I'm happy with that. Other than that, you're definitely challenging some of my assumptions about driverless cars, specifically in regards to cost. However, I still think they will happen and re-organize our transportation grids.
"Stuck in traffic" is a lifestyle in much of the urban world. LA traffic is essentially one long traffic jam whose density varies with time. That's what "an increase of density" really means - either cars moving slower or cars moving so fast that people can't keep up. The basic premise of autonomous driving cutting down congestion is reliant on vehicles acting in concert. This works under predictable conditions, and a traffic jam is certainly that. In practice, the difference between a freeway going 60MPH and a freeway full of autonomous vehicles going 60MPH is the follow distance. The idea is that you cut out individual human reaction time (which is cumulative). Traffic flow models an awful lot like fluid mechanics. A traffic snarl is remarkably similar to a shockwave - whenever you see cars stopped for no reason, think of air blowing over a bottle. The resonance is functionally the same. Making that traffic act in concert turns the flow superfluid - and that's where things start to get tricky. There are already problems with inclement weather. A Google Car in a rainstorm likely has better traction control than a human car... but it doesn't have better judgement. The system works because it's a system and as soon as that system requires individual initiative, it's a bunch of particles again. It's important to note that while Google has had its cars out driving around for a half million miles, it hasn't had a half million google cars driving a mile. For places like Seattle or San Francisco or New York or Cleveland where "inclement weather" is an everyday occurrence, autonomy buys you nothing.