this post was submitted on 08 Dec 2023
157 points (87.2% liked)

Technology

59605 readers
3754 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Driverless cars were the future but now the truth is out: they’re on the road to nowhere::The dream of these vehicles ruling the roads remains just that. Focusing on public transport would be much smarter, says transport writer Christian Wolmar

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 58 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Self driving cars have always been a solution to the wrong problem.

The problem isn't really "I don't want to steer this car". It's "I want to fast+safe+cheaply get from where I am, to where work/school/fun is". So you could spend billions on machine vision and car tech to try to accomplish that, and maybe you will eventually. Or you could invest in historically proven solutions that have incredible side benefits like public transit and better zoning. Because having your self driving car cart you around suburban sprawl is still going to suck. Living spaces that are built for humans first instead of cars are better on like every metric.

[–] grabyourmotherskeys 25 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (6 children)

I heard this guy going on about this amazing machine a company had invented to sequester carbon. They were not happy when explained that a tree does the same thing and they grow like crazy just about anywhere.

We already know what we need to do but people don't want to do it.

[–] aesthelete 5 points 11 months ago

We already know what we need to do but people don’t want to do it.

That's the thing that gets me about AI solving global warming or whatever. You think a computer telling you that you have to get off oil is going to make a difference?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Soon it'snot going to be we don't want to do that it's we are going to have to.

Also if you look at happiness. We do want that some people don't know that, some don't know it's possible and some people have been outright lied to.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Bye 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You missed part of the problem. It’s actually,

“I want to fast+safe+cheaply get from where I am, to where work/school/fun is, and I want to do it without sharing transportation with anyone else who might be sick, annoying, crazy, or a member of an ethnic group or economic class I don’t care for”

The good solutions for transit do not account for how much people hate being around each other. My city has phenomenal bus infrastructure, that often gets you to your destination faster than driving. But people drive anyways, because there are sick people and crazy people on the bus.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

You're not wrong, but I don't really think society should bend too far to the whims of it's most antisocial members.

Like, if they don't want to share the bus with a black person they can leave. And I don't want to subsidize their selfishness by ceding space to cars, for example.

Also that's a bit of induced demand, probably. People drive because it's easier. Take away the subsidies or internalize the costs of driving, and people's habits will change.

[–] silverbax 56 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

The problem is not that driverless cars won't be viable. The problem is the same as several other tech developments where a few startups promise tech that hasn't matured yet, taking in billions of 'stupid' money from investors who are greedy but not knowledgeable about the underlying viability of what can realistically be done in a decade.

One hundred years from now? Driverless cars will be old news, so common or maybe even surpassed with something newer. But investors want a 10 year explosion of cash, not a 50 year investment.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago (2 children)

One hundred years from now, it’ll probably mostly still be cars. Aerotaxis for the rich, maybe

[–] [email protected] 17 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Aerotaxis for the rich already exist: helicopters, Gulfstream, etc.

Or a 747 with everything inside gold plated if you're a Saudi Prince.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Can't land a helicopter at the club without a bunch of pansies whining about "public safety", as if a few heads on the street is such a big deal.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Aerotaxis would still be aircrafts.

I don't know why people imagine that making an aircraft the shape of a car suddenly landing would be as simple as going to a parking lot.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

It's just a joke, friend.

[–] ericisshort 1 points 11 months ago

Air taxis are sometimes helicopters or quadcopters, and while they aren’t parking in parking lots for cars, but could still end up landing in what equates to a parking space. In New York City, they are already presenting plans to expand an air taxi hub on a pier in lower Manhattan to transport people and goods to and from the city, and it looks like a bunch of parking spaces with a logistics facility attached.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago

Hahahahah.

You cut off a few pansy heads and everyone gets all upset.

[–] agent_flounder 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

A century from now humanity's population will be lucky to number in the 6 digits.

[–] grabyourmotherskeys 4 points 11 months ago

And we will all be merged with cars.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 11 months ago

It is because the tech is dumb. All cars should exist on a network together like ants don't make them respond to bullshit other people do it will never work and it will always make mistakes with judgement.

Or you know just give me fucking trains and trolleys

[–] [email protected] 25 points 11 months ago

If only there were a way for people to take an automated vehicle from A to B safely and consistently.

Shame no one has ever designed one of those before.

And it’s a damn shame no one has ever designed such a thing on multiple occasions only for it to be shut down by bullshit dreams of a nonsense technology only devised to maintain a transport monopoly that depends on people spending the equivalent of a small house every 10 or so years.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 11 months ago (1 children)

“ Artificial intelligence is a fancy name for the much less sexy-sounding “machine learning” “

This article is just a plug for this guys book and if the quote above from the article is anything to go by then I doubt the book will be anything more than a poorly researched 300 page opinion piece.

[–] Moneo 2 points 11 months ago

Yeah I'm mega anti-car and not at all optimistic about self-driving but this article says very little of substance.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I wouldn't bet against self-driving cars even now. It's fairly clear that existing AI technology is insufficient, but we're seeing such rapid progress in that field that a more advanced AI that can drive might be invented relatively soon.

[–] Moneo 8 points 11 months ago (2 children)

A perfect self-driving car is still way worse than a robust public transportation system. People are starting to catch on to the fact that cars are pretty fucking annoying/dangerous and hoping on a train/bus is less stressful. By the time self-driving is completely ready a significant portion of people are not going to want them.

[–] beebarfbadger 3 points 11 months ago

Sure, but a public transportation system only vastly improves the lives of millions of people. How is that supposed to increase the bottom line of the car monopolists etc, eh? Nobody's thinking how their selfish demands of "a comfortable life for the majority of people", "a livable planet for future generations" or "letting the bottom 99% of the world's population have a little money too" affects the richest few individuals on the planet - they might have to refrain from buying another couple dozen yachts or villas each year! Won't somebody think of the poor, poor billionaires!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Driving itself is stressful for some people but I'm not sure how simply being in a self-driving car is worse than being on a bus. I can see how public transportation might be cheaper than a self-driving taxi but I don't see how it might be better if price isn't an issue. Why would someone prefer a method of transportation that (1) isn't directly door-to-door (2) runs on someone else's schedule (3) is often much slower than driving and (4) has to be shared with strangers over a method of transportation that has none of those disadvantages?

[–] NeoNachtwaechter 2 points 11 months ago

how simply being in a self-driving car is worse than being on a bus.

That's easy:

You don't have a good self-driving car (yet).

Your comparison is: either being on public transport or on a level2/3 autonomous car, where you still need to watch traffic at all times and be ready to take over the steering anytime on very short notice. That is proven to be even more stressful than driving a normal car.

And that's going to be your choice for these next 100 years or so.

[–] dustyData 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Funny how, if we had weight and trip class segregated traffic infrastructure, walkable cities, car-free areas, etc. Then we would probably already have several successful self-driving taxi companies. As indeed, a point A to point B exclusive use highway would definitely be cheaper for mid and low density traffic areas than trains. But since everyone insists travel to be from front door to front door, then the transport network is just too complex and dangerous for the machines to deal with.

[–] BombOmOm 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (4 children)

since everyone insists travel to be from front door to front door

When it is wet and cold outside and you have a week's groceries for the family, nobody wants to walk for awhile with all that crap in the cold, then get into a public transit system, then walk even further at the destination, again having to hold all their crap in the wet and cold. Is the transit system going to let one wheel a cart into it? Because I can't hold the week's groceries for my family with just my arms in a single trip.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 11 months ago

There are millions of families in Tokyo (and other cities too) who don't own a car, and manage to get their groceries without one.

It can be done.

But yeah it usually involves getting groceries more than once a week.

[–] agent_flounder 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

If we could rethink everything from scratch we could probably easily solve that use case.

Of course the hard part is changing from what we have now to whatever better solutions exist.

Like, things would be better if suburbia wasn't just an ocean of houses with sparse islands or shops. If every house was in a community with most of the basics reachable by foot... But how tf do we get to that?

[–] Moneo 4 points 11 months ago

Strong Towns baybeeeee. As far as I know they recommend starting from the town center and working outwards.

You can't fix a suburb without demolishing it but you can revitalize areas that we're built pre-cars. Allow mixed use development in the town center with bike lanes and public transportation. Remove parking minimums and other unnecessary barriers to development. These types of development bring in much more higher revenue which can then be reinvested into further changes.

Iterative change is possible, don't give up!

[–] dustyData 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (7 children)

Yeah, the solution to that is to have local groceries shops where you can go shopping on foot or just with a simply grocery cart walking less than 10 minutes. The idea that you have to haul several tonnes of food from 20+Km away is stupid.

Add: I find laughable how, whenever anyone makes this kind of comments, there comes out of the woodwork the whiny manbabys who assume that it argues for taking away their cars. Read again, never did I suggest to take anyone's car away, I'm making suggestions towards a better city, better living and better infrastructure. It says a lot that you're so openly willing to hurt and inconvenience others to defend against an entirely imaginary threat against your 2 ton toy. A car is a tool, not a personality. And if your personality is your car, I think you have a POS personality.

[–] Xtremis77 7 points 11 months ago

Nooo, 15 minute cities are a communism plot to smoother America with comfort, or something 🤦🏻‍♂️

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (3 children)

You don't have to get a week's worth of groceries when you don't live in a car-first dystopia.

You walk five minutes to the store, spend 5-10 minutes grabbing stuff, then walk back with like a single bag. You shouldn't even need to get on public transit for basics like groceries, but even if you do a single bag isn't a problem.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

How many people live a 5 minute walk from a grocery store? I think the closest one to me is about 5 miles away in a city of 250k+. That'd be like a 4 hour round trip walk on average.

[–] Moneo 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

How many people live a 5 minute walk from a grocery store?

That's part of what we want to change. I live a 3 min walk from the grocery store and it's fucking glorious. Better designed cities are better for everyone.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

My main problem with this line of thinking is that our cities already exist as they are, and it would take Herculean effort from the government, citizens, and companies in order to raze and rebuild them in a more ideal way.

My city passed mixed use zoning to tackle exactly this years ago and nothing has changed.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Where do you live that has grocery so far apart? Are you actually in the city or like a suburb of it?

I'm in Brooklyn. I can't speak to all of Brooklyn but this neighborhood has a population of 100k from Wikipedia. Where my friend used to live wikipedia says is about 120k, and they had good walkable options.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I live on the west coast where cities aren't as dense as the boroughs of NYC or most eastern states.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Ah. Yeah, that's one of the reasons I don't want to live there. Too sprawled out.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] cbarrick 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Waymo seems to be the best and most successful robotaxi service. My friends in Pittsburgh and the Bay speak highly of them.

But it's a shame that none of the other robotaxi companies in the US were able to succeed.

We had a thriving robotaxi scene in Pittsburgh (R&D, no actual taxis), mostly because of CMU. But most of the work has shutdown since the pandemic (Uber ATG, Aurora, ...). Waymo still seems to be doing well here though.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Waymo the one.

Just because most of the other car companies are full of shit doesn't mean waymo isn't making slow yet consistent gains in the area. It might take 5 years it might take 10. But mass roll out of self driving cars is coming.

We are just in the "this touchscreen phone isn't ever going to take off" part of history.

load more comments
view more: next ›