A
self-drivingcar would save me at least 45 minutes during my commutes (one way), purely because of the flexibility.
Fixed that for you. I don’t see how “self-driving” would be 45 minutes faster.
Comment on Someone should really develop this idea
AliOski@feddit.nl 2 days ago
The problem with this is that they don’t solve the same problem.
I use the train for almost all my transportation, trains are amazing.
However, the train doesn’t bring me to my front door. The train doesn’t bring me to my exact destination.
A self-driving car would save me at least 45 minutes during my commutes (one way), purely because of the flexibility.
raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 1 day ago
AliOski@feddit.nl 1 day ago
True, but that requires me having a drivers license + requires me driving. We are talking about the comparison to train commutes and the usefulness of self-driving technology. I don’t drive the train.
raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 1 day ago
You used the self-driving bit saving you time as an argument in favor of self-driving cars, hence the correction. The time save has nothing to do with who operates the car (unless it’s a F1 driver).
The problem is that this whole debate is poisoned. Self-driving cars are not, and will likely never be safe. They can be safer on average than human drivers, it’s just that other people will die in accidents than those killed by reckless drivers. The ones dying will die due to software errors / profit calculations and the likes. As such, promoting self-driving without a mechanical guiding control (as in railways) is highly unethical.
It might be possible to overcome the technological challenges of safe self-driving, but humankind as a whole is too selfish and profit-driven to ever reach a point where that kind of research will even be funded with any meaningful budget. That’s my prediction.
AliOski@feddit.nl 1 day ago
In one of my other comments I mentioned the reduce of traffic jams as an argument, due to coordination between vehicles.
About the accidents: reckless drivers also (mainly even I think, no source) kill innocent people on the road. Reducing the total amount of deaths is more important than some supposed moral superiority of only reckless drivers dying vs people dying due to technical faults.
Jiral@lemmy.world 2 days ago
A city built for cars (no matter if “self driving” or not) has to be built much more spread out. Distances for everything multiply. At the same time that spread out infrastructure leads to heavily mono-directional traffic, making rush hour load much worse.
That is why people in car only cities aren’t any faster than cities well designed for public transit.
AliOski@feddit.nl 1 day ago
Who said car-only? I said that self-driving cars and trains/buses/subway do not solve the same problem. They can coexist just like how they do now.
The only thing this technology does is allowing commute time to become more productive and allowing more automatization for a job that always has shortage (think of bus drivers). If self-driving technology would become sufficiently good, the bus in my village could drive 4 times an hour, purely because there is no bus-driver necessary.
Also, things like traffic jams are supposed to become rarer too with autonomous vehicles, because all those cars are supposed to coordinate with each other. You ever realized that many traffic jams could be solved if everybody would start driving at the exact same speed at the exact same moment, instead of accelerating, slowing down, accelerating, slowing down. This is all because of human reaction time and the lack of coordination between vehicles. Traffic accidents are also supposed to go down.
Jiral@lemmy.world 1 day ago
The car share can be replaced with self driving cars, however if you make self driving cars more attractive than cars now, you’ll shift the balance and are heading towards more car centric and therefore more hostile and less attractive places again.
It is a nice fairy tale hat self driving cars are more space efficient. Real service patterns have shown that they fill up road infrastructure more than regular cars as they will do either fill up trips or need to drive everything twice. Also, making use of these fancy advantages (higher speeds, shorter breaking distance, dynamic crissings without traffic lights) make roads much more pedstrian hostile, more highway like.
wezzzy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 days ago
Better train infatructure plus busses and metrolines will help with this problem
AliOski@feddit.nl 2 days ago
I don’t live in the USA, I live in the Netherlands, infrastructure here is very good, public transport-wise too. It’s just that a train can’t go to every little village that exists. There is a bus, but it only comes and goes once an hour (which is entirely reasonable for my village), which severely affects the travel time.
wezzzy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 days ago
Ns is wel tof ja maar het kan altijd beter en self driving cars gaan dit probleem niet fixen je kan beter de fiets of een normalen auto pakken en met beteren aansluitingen hoef je geen uur te wachten
AliOski@feddit.nl 1 day ago
Voor die betere aansluitingen zul je toch echt zelfrijdende bussen moeten hebben (als zelfrijdende auto’s zo’n zonde zijn), want geen ziel wil buschauffeur worden in de huidige economie. Hoeveel jaren hebben we al een tekort aan buschauffeurs? Hoeveel jaren moeten we stakingen aanzien omdat de werkomstandigheden niet te doen zijn, eigenlijk gewoon door een tekort aan buschauffeurs?
Het gaat uiteindelijk om de technologie dat een vaartuig op 4 wielen autonoom kan rijden waardoor chauffeurs overbodig worden. Automatisering is de enige manier om ongewilde banen te elimineren.
Jiral@lemmy.world 2 days ago
And self driving cars will do nothing to change anything. I you push for them, more than for cars currently, cities in the Netherlands will be much worse places and traffic will get much worse as well.
Cars are of course part of the mobility equation, especially in rural regions with small settlements. 1 hour connections can still be perfectly fine for commuting but it can only be a supporting service there. The story is completely different one as soon as you get anywhere close to any major city. In the Netherlands, most people live in such locations.
VitoRobles@lemmy.today 2 days ago
After visiting Tokyo, I’m convinced that both can exist. Trains take 95% of the travel and the 5% of the time you need to be someplace specific, car it is.
As for to your door… I was a 10 minute walk to every single destination I needed.
Fedizen@lemmy.world 1 day ago
A real self driving car would increase your commute because it would be able to transport children etc and the overall effect would be a like 30%+ increase in traffic as people buy or rent more self driving trips for people normally not able to rent rides.
The effect would be analogous to “Jevon’s Paradox” where more efficiency increases demand.
fodor@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
Well yeah, of course there’s no way to build more train tracks. Can’t be helped, oh well, tough luck.
AliOski@feddit.nl 1 day ago
No, you can’t build train tracks to literally every village. Do you want all the land area to be covered in train tracks instead of roads?
fodor@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
Define “village”. Lol, seriously though. What exactly do you mean? I’ve seen hundreds of ultra local train lines in my life.
AliOski@feddit.nl 23 hours ago
Village in the Netherlands is the definition of “village” I am using.
I would recommend studying Dutch infrastructure and get some general knowledge about this country.
I’m not talking about very small villages like in Romania that are amidst huge swaths of empty land that are connected by little trains. The Netherlands is densely populated, all the landmass already has a purpose.
“Just build more train tracks” obnoxious naive response.
ParadoxSeahorse@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
Literally buses?
If you have volume/demand problems:
This will naturally increase the more people use them. So the only limiting factor is you, your family, neighbours etc.
AliOski@feddit.nl 11 hours ago
Thought about the limiting factor called “workforce”?