|
Paradoxish posted:I was mostly spitballing ways that cities could leverage autonomous vehicle technology to actually reduce congestion and improve things for their residents, though, not suggesting that eliminating curbside pickup would be an advantage of self-driving cars. self driving cars will absolutely not reduce congestion. people get real starry eyed about the possibilites of the future but this is just a nonstarter first off one of the known unsolvable problems in traffic engineering is triple convergence aka latent demand - basically there's a lot of elasticity in car trips, and if you work to improve the capacity of a congested road network then the extra capacity you free up via efficiency or new lanes or whatever will soon be taken up by people who previously weren't using a car at a certain time on a certain route but now they are. this plus steadily growing urban populations increasing demand for car travel means that you simply cannot fix automotive congestion without some external factor involved like alternate modes of travel (mass transit) or tightening O/D pairs (build more urban area that works with mass transit where you dont need car) also, the widespread adoption of cars will introduce additional 0 passenger trips. right now like 75%-80% or some huge number of all trips made by americans are in a car, solo. you're driving yourself somewhere although, technically, you are both the driver and the passenger. taxis are sometimes 0 passenger, though taxi drivers avoid this as much as possible because it costs money. the marginal cost of having a self driving car circling the block is marginal, and largely an externality - the cost of pollution and congestion by that car, with nobody in it, doing right turns until otherwise needed. this is something people often bring up when saying stuff like "oh well we wont need parking lots in the future the cars will just disappear down a rabbit hole" but this idea of the self driving fleet is contradictory to the idea of reducing congestion - cars which are parked are not causing congestion, cars which are driving are, and we have to accept that a much larger number of vehicles will be driving 'uselessly' as in waiting for someone to get in or headed to pick someone up who may be some ways away self driving cars may increase the throughput of large roads in the short term but in the long term it'll just attract more people back to using cars and then we're at square one again. cars themselves are not an efficient means of moving people, they are an expensive but convenient means that we're sort of locked into because of short sighted land development patterns etc. and at best they'll let us continue to avoid the hard work of actually pushing sustainable urbanism
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 22:53 |
|
|
boner confessor posted:self driving cars will absolutely not reduce congestion. A huge amount of congestion is based on the suboptimal way humans accelerate. If you stop people at a light you see the "first guy starts then second guy starts then third guy starts" instead of "everyone start rolling at once and match the speed of the guy ahead of you" and the same applies to things like people slowing down on the highway before speeding up again. It's a totally random quirk of human psychology but it causes a huge amount of traffic problems and will never change as long as humans are driving. Like you don't even have to get some idealized world where everyone at a stoplight perfectly times flooring it to sixty at the exact same moment to get huge improvement. That quirk of how people's brains work is one of the biggest contributing factors to traffic and there is no way to fix it because people basically refuse to do it the "right" way where the back of the line accelerates the same as the front of the line even if you give people enough space it's not unsafe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
Gloried Elon will waft us to the promised land of cars actually being trains on a wave of techno-musk
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:A huge amount of congestion is based on the suboptimal way humans accelerate. no OOCC you huge technofetishist weirdo, 100% of congestion is caused by there being more cars on the road than the road can adequately deal with. even if everyone were trained to accelerate and brake in unison, this efficiency gain would be quickly swamped by more people squeezing their cars into the gaps where previously they had avoided that road at that time because of congestion. if you read my post you didn't understand it at all, shame on you
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
Don't self-driving nuclear/wind/solar cars make a lot of the negatives of lower density populations magically go away? Your carbon footprint tanks, the unpleasantness of driving places goes away, and I think a lot of the social negatives of lower density are offset when socially-crucial alcohol can be responsibly consumed outside of walking/transit distance of your home. Why live in a crowded city at all if not to avoid DUIs and carbon emissions in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
shovelbum posted:Don't self-driving nuclear/wind/solar cars make a lot of the negatives of lower density populations magically go away? Your carbon footprint tanks no, you're still using up a pretty decent amount of land per capita in an energy inefficient way shovelbum posted:Why live in a crowded city at all if not to avoid DUIs and carbon emissions in the first place? personal preference. many people enjoy living in crowded cities, for the superior entertainment options available and access to a larger job market
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:no OOCC you huge technofetishist weirdo, 100% of congestion is caused by there being more cars on the road than the road can adequately deal with. The road can deal with the cars just fine. It's the drivers who didn't evolve to move 80 miles an hour moving a wheel to steer a giant metal box that limits everything so sharply.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:The road can deal with the cars just fine. It's the drivers who didn't evolve to move 80 miles an hour moving a wheel to steer a giant metal box that limits everything so sharply. yeah sorry you have no idea what you're talking about. throughput is an actual hard limit on traffic capacity, no matter how they are piloted only so many cars can pass by a certain point in a certain timeframe and then we're back to the efficiency increase which is always degraded by latent demand
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
Of course, roads aren't infinite. However you could get more people mobile with the same infrastructure so it's a plus.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
Automatic cars maybe can solve congestion in cities. Routing can be done using a weighted algorithm, like A*, that take into account the congestion of a route, and dinamically select the route with less traffic. Better than that. If we have automatic cars talk with the city server. The city may virtually close streets, so if you car id number ends in a odd number, you can use green streets, and if you number is not odd, you can use the blue streets. The city mayor personal car and services like cops, ambulances, could use yellow streets. This can be done digitally, so in a fraction of a second the blue and yellow streets change. I have a hard time thinking about something that can't be possible with this. Redirecting trafic around in a city, you can probably make the whole city play the Zelda theme... Tei fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Jan 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:no, you're still using up a pretty decent amount of land per capita in an energy inefficient way It seems like the major carbon emissions of suburbs come from vehicles and direct consumption of natural gas for heating. Surely luxurious energy expenditure isn't necessarily the devil himself if it's clean energy?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Of course, roads aren't infinite. However you could get more people mobile with the same infrastructure so it's a plus. given that populations are increasing in cities and will likely continue to do so, really this is just keeping up with increased demand rather than actually reducing congestion. the only reliable way to reduce congestion is to guarantee an inefficient oversupply of transportation infrastructure such that it's never filled up even at peak demand times. this is either unfeasibly expensive or a sign that your local economy is collapsing shovelbum posted:It seems like the major carbon emissions of suburbs come from vehicles and direct consumption of natural gas for heating. Surely luxurious energy expenditure isn't necessarily the devil himself if it's clean energy? actually yeah, unnecessary consumption of energy is the devil itself if you're concerned about climate change. pick one
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:yeah sorry you have no idea what you're talking about. throughput is an actual hard limit on traffic capacity, no matter how they are piloted only so many cars can pass by a certain point in a certain timeframe and then we're back to the efficiency increase which is always degraded by latent demand The hard limit of traffic is every car moving at 150 miles an hour with a micron between the bumpers nonstop forever. The laws of physics limit is so much absurdly higher than the practical limit of roads, the drivers are the actual limit that matters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:actually yeah, unnecessary consumption of energy is the devil itself if you're concerned about climate change. pick one Unless I have been horribly misled about climate change, the unnecessary consumption of fossil fuels is the danger, and other options are already scalable to the point of supporting present space inefficiencies, with present technology.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:The hard limit of traffic is every car moving at 150 miles an hour with a micron between the bumpers nonstop forever. The laws of physics limit is so much absurdly higher than the practical limit of roads, the drivers are the actual limit that matters. yeah and trains exist, cars aren't trains, and you're ignoring a ton of practical problems about 150mph highways in your weird futurist fever dream. imagine someone throws something out the window in the middle of the traffic flow that causes a ripple effect downstream as cars avoid the hazard, or a car gets a flat, or many other things that commonly happen on highways. let alone this level of efficiency would require 100% mandatory self driving car ownership and use across society which is decades away. once you're pretending this level of technology is feasible you might as well pretend teleportation exists shovelbum posted:Unless I have been horribly misled about climate change, the unnecessary consumption of fossil fuels is the danger, and that other options are already scalable to the point of supporting present space inefficiencies, with present technology. using a purpose built vehicle to commute thirty miles from your half acre plot in the woods will never be climate friendly, even if you're using zero-emission technolgy to do it, simply because of the per capita resource outlay to sustain that lifestyle
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:yeah and trains exist, cars aren't trains Trains have a lot of disadvantages, the main one being that train routes and proposed train routes outside the very largest cities are routed, scheduled, and used for strictly commuter purposes and can replace none of the social or recreational functions of the automobile. What fun, I can travel from a financial center, to an office park area, to a suburb, twice a day, no trains after 6pm. boner confessor posted:using a purpose built vehicle to commute thirty miles from your half acre plot in the woods will never be climate friendly, even if you're using zero-emission technolgy to do it, simply because of the per capita resource outlay to sustain that lifestyle By that measure, anything other than the absolute maximum of density is not "climate friendly" regardless of any actual emissions. If CO2 emissions are the cause of climate change, what is necessarily "climate unfriendly" about any generalized zero-emission luxury? shovelbum fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Jan 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
shovelbum posted:Trains have a lot of disadvantages, the main one being that train routes and proposed train routes outside the very largest cities are routed, scheduled, and used for strictly commuter purposes and can replace none of the social or recreational functions of the automobile. What fun, I can travel from a financial center, to an office park area, to a suburb, twice a day, no trains after 6pm. my point is we already have a vehicle which can go 150 mph with extremely little distance between the cars and can be driven automagically. that was the point i made
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:yeah and trains exist, cars aren't trains, and you're ignoring a ton of practical problems about 150mph highways in your weird futurist fever dream. imagine someone throws something out the window in the middle of the traffic flow that causes a ripple effect downstream as cars avoid the hazard, or a car gets a flat, or many other things that commonly happen on highways. let alone this level of efficiency would require 100% mandatory self driving car ownership and use across society which is decades away. once you're pretending this level of technology is feasible you might as well pretend teleportation exists You are the one that brought up the physical hard limit to the number of cars passing a certain point, now you are saying that limit is totally irrelevant? It's almost like the limits on roads actually have nearly nothing to do with the physical hard cap of how many cars could physically pass a certain point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:You are the one that brought up the physical hard limit to the number of cars passing a certain point, now you are saying that limit is totally irrelevant? It's almost like the limits on roads actually have nearly nothing to do with the physical hard cap of how many cars could physically pass a certain point and are actually just limits on the drivers! A software "driver" dealing with a real-life hardware car has some limits short of what you can do with spherical frictionless omniscient cars on an infinite road. Bumper-to-bumper at 150mph seems as unrealistic as assuming that these cars will not surpass human limits.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:now you are saying that limit is totally irrelevant? i dont even know how you could possibly have gotten that interpretation from my post so i'm just going to assume you're being a weirdo who is refusing to read on purpose
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:You are the one that brought up the physical hard limit to the number of cars passing a certain point, now you are saying that limit is totally irrelevant? It's almost like the limits on roads actually have nearly nothing to do with the physical hard cap of how many cars could physically pass a certain point. However, just specifying 'car' is placing an upper limit on persons per square foot per hour. Why not self-driving busses? Obviously, it's because people like to be alone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:A huge amount of congestion is based on the suboptimal way humans accelerate. If you stop people at a light you see the "first guy starts then second guy starts then third guy starts" instead of "everyone start rolling at once and match the speed of the guy ahead of you" and the same applies to things like people slowing down on the highway before speeding up again. OK but out here in the real world with real people doing real people things safety is a lot more important than it appears you seem to think it is. People don't accelerate in your "suboptimal way" because of a "quirk of human psychology", they do it because humans can only react so fast and at 60 miles per hour you need X amount of length between you and the guy in front of you to not end up dead. That's physics. When everyone is stopped at a red light that distance gets really short, and as speed increases that distances has to come from somewhere. Accelerating the "right" way as you proposed would have the guy at the back of the line doing 60 miles per hour with the same clearance he had while sitting at a stop light. Assholes and dead people do this right now and it is in fact very frequently illegal because of the damage it causes. If you instead meant to say people are limited by our biology and that this could be a case for automated driving there's a discussion to be had there, especially in a thread about automation. Saying it's a quirk of psychology and people just don't understand the most optimal way as plotted out on this graph is ignoring reality.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
Mozi posted:Why not self-driving busses? Obviously, it's because people like to be alone. Who cares about being alone? Carpooling to work is alive and well, which highlights the true desire: transportation (ideally that you do not have to drive yourself) directly from your point of origin to your destination. It's just that in most cases, that incidentally involves being alone. edit: I think with enough people to justify something like a good subway, mass transit can be good. I think that Hong Kong/Singapore densities and also the inevitably decrepit and expensive housing stock that crop ups in places like NYC that otherwise do seem to hit a happier density medium aren't worth dealing with except for the carbon reduction. shovelbum fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Jan 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
shovelbum posted:Who cares about being alone? Carpooling to work is alive and well, which highlights the true desire: transportation (ideally that you do not have to drive yourself) directly from your point of origin to your destination. It's just that in most cases, that incidentally involves being alone. the most convenient way for many people to travel is via a car they own and store at their origin, to a destination where they can also store their car for quick access. it's highly energy inefficient, but it saves a lot of time if you can afford it. if you start messing with parts of this paradigm, like "the car is no longer stored at your house but you summon it on demand after a 5-15 minute delay depending on your subscription level" then you start eating into people's time saving and change their behavior. one of the big hurdles of mass transit is that people really hate waiting to be picked up - people regularly overestimate how long they had to wait for a ride by a factor of five
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
shovelbum posted:Who cares about being alone? Carpooling to work is alive and well, which highlights the true desire: transportation (ideally that you do not have to drive yourself) directly from your point of origin to your destination. It's just that in most cases, that incidentally involves being alone. I think being alone (or at least not with strangers) is a big part of why it's self-driving cars that are a thing. If you're really concerned about improving public transportation, more personal automobiles would be just about the worst possible thing. People like having their own cars that are their own personal space, and the fantasy is that this could be preserved while simultaneously solving our car-created traffic problems. But cars are simply too expensive on a person per square foot basis and automation aside cannot be a part of our future public transportation infrastructure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:the most convenient way for many people to travel is via a car they own and store at their origin, to a destination where they can also store their car for quick access. it's highly energy inefficient, but it saves a lot of time if you can afford it. if you start messing with parts of this paradigm, like "the car is no longer stored at your house but you summon it on demand after a 5-15 minute delay depending on your subscription level" then you start eating into people's time saving and change their behavior. one of the big hurdles of mass transit is that people really hate waiting to be picked up - people regularly overestimate how long they had to wait for a ride by a factor of five Yes, if the car can careen around algorithmically doin' 150 and round up a bunch of people who are all going to places within 5 minutes of each other the self-driving share cab is going to do just great. So long as it is at least as convenient as Uber I can see using it for pretty much anything. Mozi posted:I think being alone (or at least not with strangers) is a big part of why it's self-driving cars that are a thing. If you're really concerned about improving public transportation, more personal automobiles would be just about the worst possible thing. People like having their own cars that are their own personal space, and the fantasy is that this could be preserved while simultaneously solving our car-created traffic problems. But cars are simply too expensive on a person per square foot basis and automation aside cannot be a part of our future public transportation infrastructure. My question here is what does "too expensive" even mean? I understand that current cars and homes are carbon disasters but that seems to be on its way out pretty quickly, and the pace could be accelerated drastically using long-established technologies. If we can do it without causing a global existential catastrophe, what is actually wrong with having a ludicrously car-focused gimmick economy and society? shovelbum fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Jan 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
shovelbum posted:Yes, if the car can careen around algorithmically doin' 150 and round up a bunch of people who are all going to places within 5 minutes of each other the self-driving share cab is going to do just great. So long as it is at least as convenient as Uber I can see using it for pretty much anything. it's almost certain that the future fleet will not be as convient as uber. right now, uber is doing many tricks and burning VC cash to make themselves as convenient as possible to build a market human mammals are largely diurnal, their schedules follow the rise and fall of the sun. this means that most people go to work in the morning, and go home in the evening. this is why rush hour exists, also known as peak demand. peak demand is way higher than the lowest points of travel demand, around 3am typically. in the future, we can assume there will be two primary providers of self-driving cars -private owners, who rent out their vehicles to the fleet during times they are not using the car. it is likely someone who privately owns a car in the future will want to use it during peak demand and make it unavailable to the network -for profit organizaitons, who own and maintain large fleets of cars. you subscribe to one or more of them and summon a ride when necessary. it is unlikely they will provide sufficient capacity to fully meet peak demand, because all those cars being used at 5pm are just sitting around costing money at 3am. instead it's more likely they will charge a premium for less wait during peak demand and those in lower tiers will have to wait, a more efficient allocation of resources maybe you'll see some independent small time fleet operator or a municipal authority also providing self-driving cars but in the former case it would be a very marginal business (you only make money during rush hour underbidding the big players) and in the latter they'll probably just stick to buses and trains shovelbum posted:what is actually wrong with having a ludicrously car-focused gimmick economy and society? just the sheer amount of land and resources consumed. if i live in a single family house on an acre then i and my 3 family members are consuming the resources for our house, yard upkeep, vehicle usage, infrastructure to connect my house to the rest of the world, etc. imagine if i built two more stories on my house and moved in two other four member families - suddenly our resource consumption has dropped to roughly a third. that's how density scales, and you get network effects from density like less cost to provide goods, less cost to travel etc. boner confessor fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Jan 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:OK but out here in the real world with real people doing real people things safety is a lot more important than it appears you seem to think it is. People don't accelerate in your "suboptimal way" because of a "quirk of human psychology", they do it because humans can only react so fast and at 60 miles per hour you need X amount of length between you and the guy in front of you to not end up dead. That's physics. People just aren't perfect at driving. Particularly in stuff like congested traffic human minds just don't have good heuristics for what would be the best course of action. People have bad psychology heuristics for what they should do to most benefit a flow of cars. Not even some thing where all the cars communicate and an automatic car could definitively take the best course, humans just always take bad courses because it's just not a thing humans can predict correctly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:human mammals are largely diurnal, their schedules follow the rise and fall of the sun. this means that most people go to work in the morning, and go home in the evening. this is why rush hour exists, also known as peak demand. peak demand is way higher than the lowest points of travel demand, around 3am typically. in the future, we can assume there will be two primary providers of self-driving cars The congestion horrors of rush hour are only what they are because of businesses and people living in different places. It's an artifact of good ol' American white flight, not a biological imperative. Furthermore it will only be reduced by the loss of jobs to automation that will take place alongside (and perhaps because of) the self-driving car. Also building two stories onto your house and having a low-rise apartment block with a lot of greenspace is a long way from the density advocates' view of an entire world of Hong Kong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
shovelbum posted:The congestion horrors of rush hour are only what they are because of businesses and people living in different places. It's an artifact of good ol' American white flight, not a biological imperative. Furthermore it will only be reduced by the loss of jobs to automation that will take place alongside (and perhaps because of) the self-driving car. no? peak demand has always been a thing, it took on a different form with mass suburbanization but in every culture around the world people largely start working in the morning and stop working in the evening with a few job-specific exceptions. european cities in the early modern period are known to have rush hours as carriages and wagons filled the streets. the only way to change this pattern is to eliminate mass employment and then we're talking about a different society, not the one we currently live in shovelbum posted:Also building two stories onto your house and having a low-rise apartment block with a lot of greenspace is a long way from the density advocates' view of an entire world of Hong Kong. well i dont know what the density advocates in your head are saying, only you do, so i guess i'm just glad you decided to shut down a strawman before you posted it, thanks. sounds like a grudge though
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
If peak energy efficiency is the goal, there isn't really a density where things start getting LESS efficient to operate, is there? I guess maybe there are limits to building height that ultimately cap it somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
shovelbum posted:If peak energy efficiency is the goal, there isn't really a density where things start getting LESS efficient to operate, is there? I guess maybe there are limits to building height that ultimately cap it somewhere. i didn't say it was a goal - we only got on this topic when you questioned if the energy inefficiency of suburban living would be less bad if it were zero carbon emission. i dont care how much energy theoretical suburban person uses, im just pointing out it's being used
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:i didn't say it was a goal - we only got on this topic when you questioned if the energy inefficiency of suburban living would be less bad if it were zero carbon emission. i dont care how much energy theoretical suburban person uses, im just pointing out it's being used I don't really consider an all-suburban society an ideal, either, it's mostly interesting to consider the idea of various gimmick cities without the hideous sword of carbon emissions already halfway through our throats.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
shovelbum posted:Also building two stories onto your house and having a low-rise apartment block with a lot of greenspace is a long way from the density advocates' view of an entire world of Hong Kong. Wait, what are you using hong kong as an example of? Like hong kong's whole thing is that it's amazingly tightly packed clusters of buildings in huge seas of natural landscapes. It's like if you switched central park and manhattan but kept the same population.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Wait, what are you using hong kong as an example of? Like hong kong's whole thing is that it's amazingly tightly packed clusters of buildings in huge seas of natural landscapes. I thought they were forced into that because of mountains, and couldn't sprawl if they wanted to. I am thinking of the <100 sqft apartments people are commonly jammed into once you reach those densities and consequently those rents.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:People just aren't perfect at driving. Particularly in stuff like congested traffic human minds just don't have good heuristics for what would be the best course of action. People have bad psychology heuristics for what they should do to most benefit a flow of cars. Not even some thing where all the cars communicate and an automatic car could definitively take the best course, humans just always take bad courses because it's just not a thing humans can predict correctly. You have a point that can be put forward for debate, you need to refine your choice of phrasing. That delay in starting after a red light and all the extra space on a road isn't because people are psychologically incapable of understanding the most optimal method of driving. It's because of physics and biology. The physics of stopping a ton-ish box on wheels at speed and the time it takes for human reaction. These things could most certainly be addressed in the automation thread. It's just not a psychology issue like you keep trying to cast it as.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:The hard limit of traffic is every car moving at 150 miles an hour with a micron between the bumpers nonstop forever. The laws of physics limit is so much absurdly higher than the practical limit of roads, the drivers are the actual limit that matters. No it's not, because there are physical limitations on how quickly a car can change its speed. Speed limits and distances between cars don't exist because of inefficient human reaction times or something, they exist because of physical limitations on how fast a car can decelerate from a given speed. Even with literally instant reaction times, a car going 150 mph still requires a specific amount of time and distance (based upon its mass and other factors) to decelerate to safe speeds. No amount of automation is going to change that. Self-driving cars could possibly result in slight increases in traffic throughput due to more efficient driving...but it would also result in dramatic increases in congestion because making driving more convenient causes more people to drive, and the increased number of cars on the road would well outweigh any efficiency gains from better driving.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
I wonder if it would cause less driving, as things like grocery delivery from a local store would become much easier with automated route planning and not having to hire drivers. A lot of little trips could be solved by a truck coming to you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:You have a point that can be put forward for debate, you need to refine your choice of phrasing. That delay in starting after a red light and all the extra space on a road isn't because people are psychologically incapable of understanding the most optimal method of driving. It's because of physics and biology. The physics of stopping a ton-ish box on wheels at speed and the time it takes for human reaction. These things could most certainly be addressed in the automation thread. It's just not a psychology issue like you keep trying to cast it as. It literally is though. traffic jams are often started by things like car accidents but then persist and gridlock because humans consistently make suboptimal choices in congested traffic. People simply do not know how to work out the patterns they personally should make to optimize the flow of traffic holistically, even in cases they do not need additional information.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 22:53 |
|
|
shovelbum posted:I wonder if it would cause less driving, as things like grocery delivery from a local store would become much easier with automated route planning and not having to hire drivers. A lot of little trips could be solved by a truck coming to you. a vehicle is still in motion on the roadway, whether or not someone is driving it. that much wont change. it'll possibly make things cheaper but so long as a car is involved the net number of car trips is unchanged. at this point you'd be talking about using a cargo drone to remove the need for a self driving car stuck to a roadway Owlofcreamcheese posted:It literally is though. traffic jams are often started by things like car accidents but then persist and gridlock because humans consistently make suboptimal choices in congested traffic. People simply do not know how to work out the patterns they personally should make to optimize the flow of traffic holistically, even in cases they do not need additional information. the fanciest technology in the world isn't going to increase throughput past a critical point because individual vehicles making individual decisions on a roadway is an inherently inefficient method of travel that we have adopted en masse because it is convenient, mostly, so long as you can afford it
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 21:30
|
|