I can imagine them being cheaper and I only would use people to transit other people when you can have 40 people or so. Where security on big vehicles like bus or train need more caution. A person driving a single person feels like a waste of time or smth. Driverless cars could also be more efficient in routing.
Yes! And you know what, at that point, given the size of a minimum viable car, we could use some kind of algorithm to match people that are going similar places, and put them together to be more efficient. And I bet we’d find that a lot of the large scale transit patterns are common large parts of the population, so we could even use some kind of segregated, higher speed, more frequent vehicle for that.
While we’re at it, we might as well just warehouse some of these vehicles around places where the common cores end and start, and then we would only have to match one end of the trip.
I think that the solution is automated rail transit. Being in a dedicated place with lower likelihood of encountering people removes nearl every issue that self-driving cars have. Being automated means that 24/7 schedules are possible. If there are enough trains and high enough saturation, need for cars and even taxis is removed.
One train transports 100s of people, the driver is a fairly low proportion of the cost. And there’s other members of staff that are required even in a fully automated system. (network monitoring, security). Removing the driver is a nice step, but it doesn’t fundamentally change the economics of rail transport. If a route is uneconomic, that’s going to be the case without a driver too.
Removing the driver mainly removes barriers to running late - meaning things like drunk driving can be significantly reduced since transit in the US is virtually non-existant at drunk’o’clock, effectively pressuring people into bad decisions when their judgement is the poorest.
If a route is uneconomic, that’s going to be the case without a driver too.
Infrastructure is vital to economic and other activity. It needs to be treated as an investment or necessary cost, not a business. Doing otherwise inevitably results in collapsing bridges, toxic spills, and other symptoms of neglect as corners are cut to maximize profit.
We’re in agreement that night trains are a good thing, but you should push for them whether or not your trains are driverless.
You misunderstand my use of economic. Everything has a cost and a benefit which can theoretically be calculated, with infrastructure like transit that benefit extends beyond fares. Typically governments will do this calculation when deciding whether to pursue a new project, they include all the planning, construction, running costs, and externalities e.g. climate impact, and all the benefits from fares, economic activity, new opportunities for industries and development, ect. This produces a cost benefit ratio. In my research with transport, the best value projects are local safety improvements like cycleways, sometimes the ratio is as good as 10. Large public transport projects are maybe 1-2, and large motorways are usually less than 1. My point was a train driver is a small cost that isn’t going to significant affect this. Of course, this analysis often gets ignored and the overpriced motorway gets built anyway.
In fact, low speed electric cars are quiet enough that they’ve considered putting speakers in them to alert pedestrians and make the absence of feedback less disconcerting for drivers.
We’re so used to ICE cars that they’ve contemplated making electric cars pretend that they have an ICE.
They already do this in Europe and other countries where mixed car/pedestrian environments are more common. Electric cars must have some form of audible signature, usually a quiet whirring sound.
Internal combustion engines in standard small size convert 19.65-22.1% of their energy from thermal to kinetic.
The ratio of electron throughput from battery to electric motor can be as LOW as 88% but hovers between 92-98% efficiency.
Even if you had a fuel cell in the back, running electric motors quintuples (5×) the standard energy efficiency owing to the principle of energy quality type preservation in conversion (High to High vs Low to High):
Jevon’s Paradox states that improved efficiency of something will only increase its use, and in this case, electric cars will in fact, correlate to car use, and increased mineral demands.
This is a problem you cannot solve endemic to humanity.
The “when transporting a large number of people” is quite a caveat. Sure ok high saturation of public transport / walkable cities is probably achievable with high population density, but in rural / regional areas it’s just not possible.
I mean, Jevon’s Paradox works because the increased efficiency leads to decreased costs. It’s unclear if that’s going to be the case for electric cars because the hardware needed to get to that high efficiency is so expensive, and mostly made cost-effective by government assistance (I.e. eletric cars here in the UK do not pay road tax).
I’m also not sure if lowered costs would massively change the number of drivers (at least in the developed world) in the EU there’s one car for every two people. We’re not going to see that become 5 cars for every two people just because the efficiency increases, demand is too inelastic.
I think you missed the meaning of inefficency on this matter…
While it is undeniable that electric cars have a better supply-to-engine energy efficency than combustion cars, you can understand that they are equiparated in the meme as “equally bad” if you think outside of the box labelled “rubber wheels on high friction asphalt transporting usually a single individual”.
Compare that with a tram or a train, transporting multiple passengers with the same electric engine but also steel-on-steel friction on the wheels and the difference between an ICE and EV vehicle becomes a mere approximation error; god I can do the math for you if you want, but I bet even a disel bus with a lot of passengers has a better efficency/passenger ratio than an EV.
So 1 electric car = 4 less carbon liquid fuelled cars worth of pollution.
Also I think this is a bit misleading: if I buy an EV this won’t magically destroy 4 (where is this number from?) already existing carbon liquid cars, it merely means you avoided adding 1 other ICE car to the total.
I think fear grips people at every angle and none of us are brave enough to accept bold action for positive change in our society. It seems like most people are just retracting instead.
I vaguely remember that “Ye” (formerly Kanye West) once said something like he formed a think tank to build a city but the thing stopping his team was that “Ye” didn’t understand any of the concepts and he ran it into the ground.
I want public transportation, I think everyone wants it at this point but no no one understands why we need it. They all just want to escape.
(This message was brought to you by the new 2024 Ford Escape: just hit the road and escape to paradise)
There’s no comparison to the personal freedom of having a car versus being dependent on others to ferry you around. That’s why America will always be built around our great car infrastructure. We will never give up our freedom to roam our huge awesome land.
Nothing like freedom like actively removing people from having multiple choices of transit by making illegal to build anything that isn’t dependent on cars.
Nothing like freedom like being forced to spend thousands on a several ton machine to do any task outside your home.
Nothing like freedon like being forced to pay predatory insurance to private corporations in order to be legally allowed to drive your vehicle.
Nothing like freedom like being dependent on oil companies that actively lobby against you in order to drive the vehicle that you are forced to own.
Nothing like freedom like having infustructure that denies poor people and disabled people from participating in society.
Nothing like freedom like having no independence if you are too old, too young, too intoxicated, or too disabled to drive.
Nothing like freedom like being forced to have a license issued by your government in order to be independent.
Nothing like freedom like being forced to use a vehicle that spies on you and collects information such as your sexual activity, immigration status, ‘private’ conversations, location, and much more.
And here again we see the typical attempt to put words in somebody’s mouth. I never said anything about what poor people deserve, that’s your words, not mine.
When you don’t have a substantial rebuttal, you just make up a strawman argument.
IMO everyone, regardless of economic stature, deserves every form of freedom legitimately available in society. For this example, if a poor person couldn’t afford a car I would suggest a cheap used motorcycle. I’ve bought a couple of those, one was $900 and the other was $2500.
This is incredibly insane when you consider the cost incurred to maintain a vehicle. No poor person would do this in the right mind it would be nothing but a debt trap. It’s shameful that public transit is downright near illegal and most metropolitan areas in North America and it is the best solution get over it
You’re overestimating the cost to own a vehicle. My costs are very low overall. I spend about $50 a month on gas or less, and I have no car payments, and my insurance cost is about $100 per month. Total cost of ownership for my 2 vehicles is less than $200 per month, and I can drive them anywhere I want at any time.
I’ve both been poor and owned a few vehicles and $2000 repair bills happen, more than once in the life cycle of a car and much more than I could ever afford if I hadn’t been better off before I pulled the trigger in cars but down take my word for it John Oliver did a great peice on how bad of a debt trap they are on average
I would argue that a fast, frequent and comprehensive public transport system gives you more personal freedom. Being able to easily get around without having to worry about piloting a heavy vehicle, without the burden of maintenance, and being flexible once out due to not needing to worry about where you’re storing your car. Plug the gaps with (electric and/or cargo) bikes for shorter trips and car share for longer ones and you have a much better, more equitable transport system.
All public transport vehicles are heavier than my personal vehicle though. Also public transport doesn’t provide the freedom of choosing any destination that you want, and taking yourself there on your own schedule. That’s what I was talking about.
You aren’t piloting a public transport vehicle, a professional is and you are free to not worry about it.
A frequent and comprehensive public transport system does allow for that freedom, without all of the burdens of car ownership. Bikes and car share can be used to fill in the gaps when the public transport isn’t comprehensive enough.
As much as I celebrate metros… This city is built in the middle of a desert and only exists because of an immense amount of oil being burned to power gigantic desalination plants. It is hardly sustainable even with a metro.
The way car companies are working around this legislation is why it’s so hard to find and buy smaller sized cars even if there is demand (think smart car size). It also makes our community’s less safe for pedestrian traffic and less enjoyable to walk.
I was listening to a breakdown of this study on a New York Times podcast. It has to do with huge cultural differences between how Europeans and Americans interact with smartphones in cars, particularly because most cars in the United States are automatic and most cars in Europe are stick shifts, meaning that it’s very difficult for Europeans to screw around with her phones while they’re driving. Driving a car with a manual transmission requires both hands, meaning drivers, don’t have a free hand to fiddle with their phones.
Another part of the explanation for the difference between the United States and Europe in this regard is that suburban United States cities are designed in the auto age and designed very much around cars with a complete disregard for pedestrian safety, particularly at night. American pedestrians in these cities have to walk much farther and around much larger and more dangerous roads to get to their destinations, while having access to poor or even nonexistent transit networks. 
edit: one other data point they mentioned was the homeless, and while that population was rising in 2009, it sharply began to rise in 2016. these are people who are the most vulnerable in our society already, who often dwell near dangerous roads, highway overpasses, etc., and especially at night. Homeless people account for a significant portion of the increase in pedestrian fatalities in certain regions.
I was listening to a breakdown of this study on a New York Times podcast. It has to do with huge cultural differences between how Europeans and Americans interact with smartphones in cars
Funny thing, someone posted this Podcast, and there’s absolutely no mention at all about this: lemmy.ml/post/10124633
No, that is, in fact, a podcast by the New York Times. You do understand you can click on these things called links and then you’ll land on another page?
Oh, I can assure you that driving manual doesn’t keep people from dabbling with their phones… If anything, it makes it more dangerous, since… well you’ve only got two hands, right.
And automatic is becoming the norm here as well, at least with new cars.
I‘d say it has a variety of reasons. Cars are huge in the US, streets are wide, pedestrian safety is not really a thing, the driving exam is harder and more intensive here, and I feel just… safer.
For example, here I don’t really wait at a zebra crossing, I basically just step on the street and expect the cars to yield because they have to. I would never do that in the US…
according to the study, small cars have been responsible for just as many fatalities - or not an amount disproportionate to their number - in the US, so it’s not really big car problem as much as you might suppose. this may have to do with that drivers of small cars can often drive more recklessly, but that’s speculation. And, sure, you can fiddle with your phone with a manual transmission, but, seemingly, most don’t. The difficulty makes it far, far, less likely.
but the biggest takeaways from he study seems to be 1) modern road/highway infrastructure in the US is built to get as many cars moving as fast as possible and give little-to-no consideration to pedestrians or their safety, and this need to change, and 2) the particularly American culture around in-car smartphone use needs to change via far harsher penalties for distracted diving and other behaviors which endanger pedestrians.
Again, which study are you talking about? Neither this here nor the other article under which you also commented mention phones or automatic transmission at all.
What this analysis here does say though, that you’ve got a lot of DUIs with a BAC >0.08. In Europe, the max BAC 0.05 or lower.
I drive automatic in Europe. Simply it is illegal to have a mobile in your hand while driving. Fees are very high, and the license is suspended minimum 2 weeks
while i’m certain that automatic transmissions indeed do exist in Europe, i was simply referring to the fact that they’re far less common there.
but the fact that distracted driving is punished far more severely there, however, DOES have a major impact on how less common that habit is in European driver culture. also, probably, the culture of giving more of a damn about your fellow citiens than your average American does.
Modal transport design is probably a huge reason why this works. I would be interested to see the pedestrian deaths in a packed busy city like NYC vs the wide suburban roads of the rest of America.
My theory is that roads designed with the purpose of driving faster (designed with a higher modal level) are commonly placed within high pedestrian areas within the US (Stroads) and due to that higher modal mental state people are “comfortable” and thus use their phones as their brains are less occupied. While in a busy city street they’re in that 1st modal mental state so they are focused on their surroundings way more.
Can’t say for pedestrians specifically, but the variance of general traffic fatalities in the US is huge, and the average is way higher than the EUs: personalinjurysandiego.org/…/most-and-least-traff…
For reference, Mississippi does worse than Afghanistan, New York is comparable with the EU.
In totally, completely, and in all ways unrelatedly: smartphones on the rise, gigantic pickups and suvs are on the rise, and tactile buttons you can hit without looking at a screen are on the decline.
and anecdotally it seems like since covid and not driving as much, everyone seems to have gotten worse at driving and still hasn’t quite picked it back up yet.
just this morning some idiot didn't want to stop at a crosswalk in a 25mph downtown area....
the car that stopped going the other direction happened to be a cop car (who incidentally almost got rear-ended by some other idiot not paying attention).
as i stepped onto the curb on the other side of the road, i saw red and blue flashing behind me and heard them on their PA ordering the driver to pull over and stop at the next corner.
It’s not just car-centric Euclidean zoning and suburban sprawl.
The US also builds really dangerous stroads that you don’t really see in most other countries.
5+ lanes of 55mph traffic next to a sidewalk and tons of driveways for businesses is inherently unsafe.
It’s also interesting to note that the biggest spike in fatalities was during the pandemic.
The best explanation I’ve heard is that bumper-to-bumper rush hour traffic essentially disappeared with the switch to WFH during the pandemic. Streets artificially looked safer pre-pandemic due to drivers getting stuck in traffic at peak periods. The pandemic just revealed how inherently unsafe American stroads are.
fuck_cars
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.