|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 15:45 |
|
|
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: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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
i wonder what quirk in human psychology makes you completely impenetrable to the fact that congestion is simply more demand than supply and no amount of gadgets can change that
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:I wonder what quirk in human psychology causes threads like this one to go down the automated-car rabbit hole over and over instead of pursuing less circular topics. instead of talking about things that will and do happen goons prefer to fantasize about what might happen this is why games is still the biggest subforum
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:If a pedestrian can step into the street at any point, then you're not going to be able to have the cars just tearing through the streets at high speeds, you'll have to settle for the cars distributing themselves in more efficient manner. we're pretty much talking about limited access high speed roadways here when OOCC is pretending it's possible to jam functionally infinite traffic on them so long as the ai drivers are maniacal enough
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
"i believe that one day, thanks to the magic of cloud computing, we will be able to fit two gallons of water into a one gallon jug"
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Okay, so what's you're opinion on something like this article on ride-sharing planning that I posted upthread? The point I was making wasn't that self driving cars would magically reduce congestion, but that self-driving cars could allow cities to adopt policies that reduce congestion while still allowing for taxi-style transportation. The claim here is that better route management would drastically reduce the total number of vehicles needed to serve the same number of people and self-driving vehicles will likely be better at following "perfect" routes planned out by a central authority. All you would need to do to leverage something like this into reduced congestion is to disincentivize single occupancy-only trips through added fees. the tradeoff here as a user of this system is time for money. there will still be exactly as many single occupant vehicles on the road as there are first class subscriptions to the network, people who would rather pay more to not participate in group rides. somewhere in the middle are people who might take the cheaper tier and do the auto carpool thing, so long as it doesn't take up too much time. and then at the low end of the spectrum, where you have a lot of time to go out of your way to ride a centrally-planned route with other people... buddy, that's mass transit Owlofcreamcheese posted:I just don't understand why this claim is even controversial. it's not controversial. you're just unable to accept that it wont solve anything because you're looking purely at technology and what it can maybe be capable of doing in the future, ignoring the context of how that technology exists in society. according to things we know right now, no level of self-driving car flocking behavior will be able to solve congestion. it's like saying you can design a spoon to end hunger, you're just not grasping the link between tool and tool use here boner confessor fucked around with this message at 00:57 on Jan 18, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Haven't you seen any of the endless studies that show how for example it's totally safe for most roads to quite significantly raise speed limits because they have virtually no effect on death rates until extreme rises because no one is actually straining at their limits of reaction times or car physical abilities? what do studies about speed limits being too low have to do with congestion on highways? absolutely nothing? this is just another impotent attempt for you to position yourself as having any idea what you're talking about? please stop embarassing yourself oocc and just drop the topic
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2017 01:56
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:How is it possible to raise speed limits if everyone is always pushed to their physical and mental limits at every moment of driving? how is it possible for you to be this lost in the conversation and so desperate to prove that you're not
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 15:45 |
|
|
Invalid Validation posted:Any statistics on how many accidents automated cars have compared to the general public? not yet, california requires 'disengagement' tracking aka how often a vehicle requires intervention from a driver, and there's a handful of fender bender accidents that don't mean much (many of these between human drivers are not reported). so the limited data we have on self driving cars isn't really comparable to the massive dataset of human driver accident/fatality stats
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2018 19:17
|
|