|
Popular Thug Drink posted:why 2020? why not 2019 or 2022? 2020 is a nice round future number, it's not a hard date. self driving cars are coming for sure but nobody can really say "our ambitious technology will be ready 4.8 years from now" because projections don't work like that. especially when every car company worth its salt is positioning itself as a leader in The Future. it's all marketing speak, especially when all of your competitors are talking about that date you're going to say "yeah uh we anticipate having the same product at that time" I wouldn't be surprised if the date slipped either, especially since some of the people I quoted thought it would take a bit longer than 2020. I just think having an assumption of it taking 20-50 years as a starting point as people were claiming earlier in this thread is silly considering the state of the technology at this time.
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 02:14 |
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:here's a demo of self driving cars from the late 90's that was so promising it was certain that self driving cars would be on the road by the futurist year of 2002 Here's a hint: A lot of the research labs that were into self driving cars abandoned that topic and moved onto other stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
McDowell posted:In terms of how we will pay for and use it -sure - but it will be much more dynamic and individuated than trains. It could mean anyone in America could take out their phone, pick a city a couple states away, pay a reasonable fare- a car pulls up, brings them to a highspeed rail station or some other mass transit like self-driving van hub. Vehicles could be a socialized capital cost for most people, letting them focus on life and work in the 'smaller' modern world. This kind of thinking always frustrates me, because it ignores how unevenly distributed transit resources are even now. There are thousands of neighborhoods in this country where you can hardly get an ambulance to show up, much less a taxi. Whole sections of cities are intentionally walled off from train access to keep "those people" from getting out easily. But the robo-cars are just going to be allocated fairly for everyone, in what I believe would be a human civilization first? Not to mention the logistics are godawful. Instead of an apartment building's hundred cars all staying in the parking lot on-site and filtering out single-file at rush hours if need be, a hundred cars are coming to the apartment building and leaving again almost immediately, doubling traffic in that spot. And the buildings without parking? Instead of the thousand or so people on a block all walking to wherever they street-parked their cars within a square half-mile or so every morning, a thousand cars come right up to everyone's front doors and create a gridlock that'll be lucky to clear up by lunch. I've lived in cities all my life. A single taxi idling in the lane waiting for someone to come downstairs can gently caress up traffic for a couple blocks. You're fantasizing about a future where that happens hundreds or thousands of times on every block, every day. What's even the grace period on a car waiting for you? How are child safety seats going to work, and disability access? Sure we can have specially-equipped units for those, but then the stock is limited and somebody gets hosed over. I wonder if it will be the rich people or the poor people? Also: Rural people exist, and I'm pretty sure they won't want to wait the 45 minutes for their ride to show up from the county robo-car hub every single time they need to leave the house. And cleaning (people take shits in public transit kind of a lot), lost items, maintenance - every single thing about this just takes what's already difficult about buses and trains and multiplies it into more vehicles. I don't trust any automatic-car-as-public-transit plan that comes from people who don't already use public transit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:This kind of thinking always frustrates me, because it ignores how unevenly distributed transit resources are even now. There are thousands of neighborhoods in this country where you can hardly get an ambulance to show up, much less a taxi. Whole sections of cities are intentionally walled off from train access to keep "those people" from getting out easily. But the robo-cars are just going to be allocated fairly for everyone, in what I believe would be a human civilization first? Oh cool we are back to inventing easily solvable problems again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
Self-driving cars, like any major automotive innovation, will take years to filter down to midsize and economy cars, during which time you could always focus on improving public transportation directly instead of envisioning a utopia of alienation.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:Oh cool we are back to inventing easily solvable problems again. If you have a solution for "two objects can't occupy the same space at the same time" you should be collecting your Nobel instead of posting on a dead comedy forum.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Self-driving cars, like any major automotive innovation, will take years to filter down to midsize and economy cars, during which time you could always focus on improving public transportation directly instead of envisioning a utopia of alienation. b-b-but technology! robots! the future self driving cars are convenient but they're not going to address the fundamental problem of density/traffic that's going to hit as our experiment with distributed urban landscapes incurs increasing cost. by the time most people are in a position to afford or rent self driving cars daily the need to equip everyone with point to point transportation over a road network will be generally less important. VMT per capita has been declining and it's not like car transportation is all that expensive right now anyway. if anything the middle class will be able to forego car ownership entirely in favor of prestige travel such as public transit or biking (because you can afford to live in a place where these are viable) as the poor are pushed out to decaying suburbs, forced to rent 2030 uber to travel from suburb to suburb for their crappy service jobs. by the time self-driving cars are a majority on the roads only the rural gentry and suburbanized poor will want or need them this dream of being whisked from your nice suburb to a shiny downtown office in your robot car is just as jetsons crap as if the car actually flew
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
In the future there will be......traffic in densely populated areas! Amazing predictions of the future on this dead comedy forum.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 22:37
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:In the future there will be......traffic in densely populated areas! Why do you think that self-driving cars would be a good solution for public transit problems?
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:In the future there will be......traffic in densely populated areas! yeah there will certainly be less traffic in the future as robot cars will drastically reduce the amount of time that cars spend on the road with zero humans inside, being transported, as opposed to manually operated cars which Effectronica posted:Why do you think that self-driving cars would be a good solution for public transit problems? uh, the cloud. duh
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Self-driving cars, like any major automotive innovation, will take years to filter down to midsize and economy cars, during which time you could always focus on improving public transportation directly instead of envisioning a utopia of alienation. That's why I mentioned high speed rail and socializing transportation - dreams get people to pick up lotto tickets - is that not the case with ballots? The greatest dream of all can be an omniscient system that holds individuals accountable for delivering on their promises to the best of their abilities.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:yeah there will certainly be less traffic in the future as robot cars will drastically reduce the amount of time that cars spend on the road with zero humans inside, being transported, as opposed to manually operated cars which Who are you arguing with here? Maybe you quoted the wrong person.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 22:55
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:Who are you arguing with here? Maybe you quoted the wrong person. What are the advantages of self-driving cars for public transportation?
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:Who are you arguing with here? Maybe you quoted the wrong person. i am arguing with you, as demonstrated when i quoted you. i pointed out that self driving cars will not have much of an impact on traffic, and this is one of the ways in which self driving cars are more of an interesting gimmick then a revolutionary technology. you questioned the validity of this argument. i then responded by pointing out that self driving cars would naturally spend more time on the road, especially if they were autonomously summoned. it is now your opportunity to respond to this argument. i hope this post has helped you orient yourself in the discussion
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
Self-driving cars will probably actually make life worse for truckers and sales reps, since you'd still need someone in the vehicle to take over if necessary, meaning that you've made the drudgery even worse ("You don't need a hotel, you've got a car you can sleep in!"). Or, you know, the kind of infrastructural renovations that nobody will care about supporting.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Self-driving cars will probably actually make life worse for truckers and sales reps, since you'd still need someone in the vehicle to take over if necessary, meaning that you've made the drudgery even worse ("You don't need a hotel, you've got a car you can sleep in!"). Or, you know, the kind of infrastructural renovations that nobody will care about supporting. I dunno, that still sounds like an improvement if only because they don't have to be actively driving (and realistically, a lot of them will probably sleep even though they're not allowed to). Not as good as eliminating drivers entirely, but still not as bad as today.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 23:05
|
|
computer parts posted:I dunno, that still sounds like an improvement if only because they don't have to be actively driving (and realistically, a lot of them will probably sleep even though they're not allowed to). Think about how much longer you can push drivers when they're de facto allowed to nap or sleep while driving, though.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
The public transit model of driverless cars just puts thousands of tiny busses on the road - all of the drawbacks of current busses (traveling from hub to first rider empty, fleet maintenance, bunching, riders needing to plan travel ahead of time, traffic blockage during rider pickup), but without the massive environmental and congestion benefit of each bus replacing as many as fifty cars on the road. We can expect driverless cars to be at single occupancy about as often as cars are now, in addition to driving around empty at least some of the time. That's a whole lot of wasted resources just to avoid sitting next to strangers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
Also, driverless cars will still largely be operating point-to-point with all those problems attached.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:i am arguing with you, as demonstrated when i quoted you. i pointed out that self driving cars will not have much of an impact on traffic, and this is one of the ways in which self driving cars are more of an interesting gimmick then a revolutionary technology. you questioned the validity of this argument. i then responded by pointing out that self driving cars would naturally spend more time on the road, especially if they were autonomously summoned. it is now your opportunity to respond to this argument. i hope this post has helped you orient yourself in the discussion All I implied is that in the future there will probably continue to be traffic in cities. This will occur regardless of how vehicles are operated. Taking current problems and repackaging them as insurmountable barriers that solely impact self-driving vehicles is an interesting yet repetitive narrative. Effectronica posted:What are the advantages of self-driving cars for public transportation? Where I live there is no such thing as public transportation so autonomous vehicles would offer a 100% improvement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 23:32
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:All I implied is that in the future there will probably continue to be traffic in cities. This will occur regardless of how vehicles are operated. Taking current problems and repackaging them as insurmountable barriers that solely impact self-driving vehicles is an interesting yet repetitive narrative. Okay, and where I live there's inadequate and spotty public transportation, which would be downgraded by replacing it with self-driving cars, even this notion of a Disneyland/zoo train line of driverless cars. Why not push for actual public transportation?
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:All I implied is that in the future there will probably continue to be traffic in cities. This will occur regardless of how vehicles are operated. Taking current problems and repackaging them as insurmountable barriers that solely impact self-driving vehicles is an interesting yet repetitive narrative. i'm really not sure how you interpreted my statement "self driving cars are convenient but they're not going to address the fundamental problem of density/traffic" as me actually saying "self driving cars cannot exist because they cannot do anything about this problem" just to be explicitly and painfully clear, i do not think self driving cars will actually reduce traffic in the future. i think that self driving cars will make traffic worse. this should in no way shape or form be construed as an argument that self driving cars are an impossibility. self driving cars will certainly be on the roads, in the future! those roads will be more crowded, because it will be easier to place cars on the road when they do not require a person's time and attention to generate traffic. thank you
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:All I implied is that in the future there will probably continue to be traffic in cities. This will occur regardless of how vehicles are operated. Taking current problems and repackaging them as insurmountable barriers that solely impact self-driving vehicles is an interesting yet repetitive narrative. If you live in an area low-density enough to make public transportation unfeasible driverless public transportation will be unfeasible too. Again, hubs. Hubs require networks require density. And "traffic will always exist" is not a useful counter to "thing X will make traffic much worse." Death will always exist, but I categorically oppose things that increase death, you know? You know what works loving great as a public transportation solution for low density areas? Sidewalks, bike paths, busses, and park & ride. But none of that was promised to us in the space-future so nerds aren't agitating for it. Tiny Brontosaurus fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Jan 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
An automated public car might pick up other people along the way who might get out before or after you (unless you pay for a premium service I suppose) the car can contact emergency services, it will have internal cameras and every user has a profile registration. Crime will not be allowed. There will still be private fleets of utility vehicles such as moving trucks. You don't want one conglomerate controlling all the vehicles on the road - instead you establish a networking protocol so cars can signal to each other wirelessly (kind of a bluetooth that is signed off on with regards to insurance liability). Then you ideally get localized public and private vehicle operators as the main market for automobile manufacturers. This will be a more efficient use of gasoline.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
McDowell posted:An automated public car might pick up other people along the way who might get out before or after you (unless you pay for a premium service I suppose) the car can contact emergency services, it will have internal cameras and every user has a profile registration. Crime will not be allowed. Aaaa I don't even know where to begin with this nonsense. First off, crime isn't allowed now, Mrs. Kyle. The fact that cars would be point-to-point doesn't negate any of the drawbacks I listed, as Effectronica already pointed out. "Profile registration" in a public services context is a completely different beast than getting people to create a facebook profile or whatever - it's ripe for exactly the same kind of abuse that prevents marginalized people from accessing our currently-existing types of government profiles, like driver's licenses and voter registration, and also as you might notice, people like minors don't typically have those kinds of profiles, yet do use public transit. (Edit: And private cars too, which is what this scheme is supposed to replace.) "Internal cameras" are going to horrify significant sectors of the population for varying reasons, and also legitimately break and "accidentally" "malfunction" the same way so many police bodycams mysteriously do. I don't even want to dip into the mess you're conjuring up with this public/private sector combo transit nightmare. Somebody else can handle that one. Tiny Brontosaurus fucked around with this message at 00:13 on Jan 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
McDowell posted:An automated public car might pick up other people along the way who might get out before or after you (unless you pay for a premium service I suppose) the car can contact emergency services, it will have internal cameras and every user has a profile registration. so basically a bus
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:so basically a bus Yup - this is about creating a classless society and making the most of existing infrastructure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Yup - this is about creating a classless society and making the most of existing infrastructure. How about you respond to criticism of your dumb ideas instead of just doubling down on the buzzwords? I don't even need it to be mine - take your ADD meds and focus long enough to respond to anybody in the last few pages. Popular Thug Drink posted:so basically a bus You know what, loving focus on this one. Why on earth would a shared-ridership vehicle be magically better if it were car-shaped instead of bus-shaped?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Aaaa I don't even know where to begin with this nonsense. First off, crime isn't allowed now, Mrs. Kyle. The fact that cars would be point-to-point doesn't negate any of the drawbacks I listed, as Effectronica already pointed out. Who cares about identification when you have their payment information. If someone smears poop over the interior drive it back to the hub, steam clean it, send it back out and charge the rider for the cost.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:Who cares about identification when you have their payment information. If someone smears poop over the interior drive it back to the hub, steam clean it, send it back out and charge the rider for the cost. Funnily enough the world is not actually populated solely by single male tech workers. If we are replacing all car travel there will be people in these magical future vehicles who are not paying for their own rides, due to age, infirmity, or just that it's Tim's turn to pay this time. And remember, in McDowell's particularly genius vision of this future, you're sharing your poop-filled robocar with strangers. Like a bus. But smaller. Do you intend to pay for someone else's poo poo smearing just because you were in the car? Also I'd really love to know how your foolproof poop-detection system would work. Because again, speaking as a socially-capable human who has ridden public transit without descending into a stranger-danger panic attack, sometimes a riding compartment can be fouled and yet not immediately detectable. Do you want me to blame you for the piss bottle some other rider left, just because it happened to burst open on my ride and you were the last person in the car? Tiny Brontosaurus fucked around with this message at 00:31 on Jan 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Funnily enough the world is not actually populated solely by single male tech workers. If we are replacing all car travel there will be people in these magical future vehicles who are not paying for their own rides, due to age, infirmity, or just that it's Tim's turn to pay this time. If it's a shared vehicle you can put cameras in it just fine since it's effectively public. There's cameras in buses where I live to avoid assault, vandalism etc. and I see no reason to do it differently just because there's no bus driver.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:If it's a shared vehicle you can put cameras in it just fine since it's effectively public. There's cameras in buses where I live to avoid assault, vandalism etc. and I see no reason to do it differently just because there's no bus driver. Again I really really need you to wrap your brain around the part where these cars are supposed to replace all car travel. Nobody complains about cameras in busses because busses are for poor people who are probably all criminals anyway. Nice respectable middle class people are going to be using these robo cars and they'll want to get handies on the way home from dinner without the transit panopticon watching. Also, cameras require maintenance and every single loving thing about maintaining driverless car based public transit is literally fifty times more expensive and onerous than an equivalent ridership's worth of busses.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:If you live in an area low-density enough to make public transportation unfeasible driverless public transportation will be unfeasible too. Again, hubs. Hubs require networks require density. Possibly. But at the very least it would extend the reach of private transportation companies to provide service to areas like mine. Better for Enterprise and Hertz to send a car 50 miles from the airport to pick my rear end up than have it sit on the lot all day making zero dollars. Not to mention there will probably be all kinds of smaller scale competition and even locals who rent our their vehicles while they work or sleep as an extra source of income.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
None of the poo poo promised by techno-utopianists is going to happen. We're not going to be zipping around in driverless cars. There arent going to be robots and AIs doing everyone's jobs. Human cashiers and retail workers are going to be around for a long, long time. The future's going to be like today except with some cosmetic differences. We're basically living in the 90s right now, except the internet is a bigger thing and we've got tablets. Expect more of that: just small changes here and there. We still wear jeans and eat the same kind of crap. We still wear shoes and socks and brush our teeth the same old way. We still go to work. We just have a few extra gadgets. That's the future. Mind you I'm only talking about technology. I have no idea what politics, culture, etc. is going to be like.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 00:44
|
|
Blue Star posted:None of the poo poo promised by techno-utopianists is going to happen. We're not going to be zipping around in driverless cars. There arent going to be robots and AIs doing everyone's jobs. Human cashiers and retail workers are going to be around for a long, long time. The future's going to be like today except with some cosmetic differences. We're basically living in the 90s right now, except the internet is a bigger thing and we've got tablets. Expect more of that: just small changes here and there. We still wear jeans and eat the same kind of crap. We still wear shoes and socks and brush our teeth the same old way. We still go to work. We just have a few extra gadgets. That's the future. This is actually dumber than technofetishism, because it's just the last gasps of a dying imagination.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:Not to mention there will probably be all kinds of smaller scale competition and even locals who rent our their vehicles while they work or sleep as an extra source of income. it's gonna own when a teen of the future rents your van for a 2 am fuckathon using spoofed info
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:it's gonna own when a teen of the future rents your van for a 2 am fuckathon using spoofed info Yeah becuase cars don't get stolen or vandalized now. Good to see more "Taking current problems and repackaging them as insurmountable barriers that solely impact self-driving vehicles is an interesting yet repetitive narrative." Blue Star posted:None of the poo poo promised by techno-utopianists is going to happen. We're not going to be zipping around in driverless cars. There arent going to be robots and AIs doing everyone's jobs. Human cashiers and retail workers are going to be around for a long, long time. The future's going to be like today except with some cosmetic differences. We're basically living in the 90s right now, except the internet is a bigger thing and we've got tablets. Expect more of that: just small changes here and there. We still wear jeans and eat the same kind of crap. We still wear shoes and socks and brush our teeth the same old way. We still go to work. We just have a few extra gadgets. That's the future. You could have just said "I have my head firmly up my own rear end" and been done with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 00:49
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:Yeah becuase cars don't get stolen or vandalized now. Have you considered that Uber 2: Electric Boogaloo might actually make driverless cars more vulnerable to fuckathon hijackings then they otherwise would be?
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Have you considered that Uber 2: Electric Boogaloo might actually make driverless cars more vulnerable to fuckathon hijackings then they otherwise would be? It might make them less vulnerable. "Citizen you are engaged in an illegal act!" *doors lock *car drives itself to police station or nearest patrol car.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 02:14 |
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:It might make them less vulnerable. yeah people are just beating down the gates to privately own cars that narc on them when they dont put on their seat belt
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 00:59
|
|