Self-Driving Cars: A Coming Congestion Disaster?
-
Re 2 : Will dumb cars continue to have more prestige than smart cars?
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
Will dumb cars continue to have more prestige than smart cars?
Well it works for celebrities... :laugh:
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
-
Only within a closed system. And it will never be a closed system.
The first stage will be autonomous cars. And the benefits will vastly outweigh the disadvantages. No more DUIs. Old people will be mobile. Valet parking everywhere. Sleep in the back seat while driving to California. However, airlines will probably suffer. The second stage will be cooperative systems. When a robot car merges onto a freeway, where other robot cars are driving bumper-to-bumper at 100 mph safely, they will create a gap to let the new car in. I wish I could live long enough to enjoy it.
-
The first stage will be autonomous cars. And the benefits will vastly outweigh the disadvantages. No more DUIs. Old people will be mobile. Valet parking everywhere. Sleep in the back seat while driving to California. However, airlines will probably suffer. The second stage will be cooperative systems. When a robot car merges onto a freeway, where other robot cars are driving bumper-to-bumper at 100 mph safely, they will create a gap to let the new car in. I wish I could live long enough to enjoy it.
That doesn't refute my comment; it supports it.
-
I agree on the problem statement[^], but I don't necessary agree on the solution as it's just the standard reaction worthy of politicians.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
Why not simply make cars that are immobilised if there's nobody in them? It is after all what happens now! Technologically it cannot be that difficult. Exceptions could be made for registered public transport vehicles (taxi and bus equivalents) if that's thought desirable.
-
Why not simply make cars that are immobilised if there's nobody in them? It is after all what happens now! Technologically it cannot be that difficult. Exceptions could be made for registered public transport vehicles (taxi and bus equivalents) if that's thought desirable.
Partly because you can park'em better, and more densely, if there is no-one in 'em! No need for enough space for humans to get in and out. So you could have large underground automated car parks in strategic locations instead of parking randomly all over the city (and having to find a place first).
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
-
Partly because you can park'em better, and more densely, if there is no-one in 'em! No need for enough space for humans to get in and out. So you could have large underground automated car parks in strategic locations instead of parking randomly all over the city (and having to find a place first).
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
Not sure that would save as much space as you think; maybe 12 cars where now you get 10? You'd still need room for them to manoeuvre into and out of the spaces and you'd still need 'parking' spots on all the streets so that people could get out when they arrive and in the when they summon the car (I assume you're not expecting people to run behind the moving vehicle and enter when they've caught it up?) Most cities where congestion is truly a problem already have a gamut of good old multi-story car parks, park and ride schemes, and limited street waiting times already. I can't see them forking out extra just to squeeze a few more in.
-
I agree on the problem statement[^], but I don't necessary agree on the solution as it's just the standard reaction worthy of politicians.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
The problem with many (most?) of these analyses is that they focus on one variable (congestion, in this case), and ignore the many other variables that can affect people's choices. For example: 1. Given that electric cars are more expensive to manufacture than gasoline cars, how do the economics of a dumb gasoline car compare to those of a smart electric car? What, if any, is the crossover point? 2. At what stage does it become more economical for the individual to have one smart car, rather than two dumb cars? 3. At present only a small percentage of cars are electric. What happens to the demand for electricity (and therefore - to its price) when most cars are electric? ... I submit that these "side issues" will tend to dominate people's choices at least as much as congestion.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
1. Given that electric cars are more expensive to manufacture than gasoline cars, how do the economics of a dumb gasoline car compare to those of a smart electric car? What, if any, is the crossover point?
Depending on how you compare you'll get a breakeven at around 5-10 years (give or take depending on whether you're pro or against :rolleyes: ). The problem with the electric car is that the second hand value will be crap since the battery pack will need to be exchanged after that.
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
2. At what stage does it become more economical for the individual to have one smart car, rather than two dumb cars?
Here you have serious economy in numbers. Smart cars cost a lot to develop, but not much extra to produce.
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
3. At present only a small percentage of cars are electric. What happens to the demand for electricity (and therefore - to its price) when most cars are electric?
This is an interesting one. People are of the general belief that electric cars are efficient, and the answer is: it depends on how you calculate it. A synchronous electric engine has an efficiency above 90%, LiIon batteries 86% according to Tesla, the grid is at 92%. So far all is well, but then comes the problem. Electric cars would be an additional drain the electric grid. And since all efficient power sources such as hydro power is more or less already built out. So the most probable power source would actually be coal power at an efficiency of about 33%. All in all an efficiency of around 24%. Still better than petrol, but not at all by as much as some people claim. I'm fully aware that there will be people that claim that all added electric power will come from wind and sun, but it's not overly probable in most countries.
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
I submit that these "side issues" will tend to dominate people's choices at least as much as congestion.
Personally I think the vast majority will make their choices purely on economy and comfort.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
And yet another target for hackers.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
Why not simply make cars that are immobilised if there's nobody in them? It is after all what happens now! Technologically it cannot be that difficult. Exceptions could be made for registered public transport vehicles (taxi and bus equivalents) if that's thought desirable.
That's not a technical issue, merely a legal. And as I'm seeing it, quite a probable one too. As long as it isn't a closed system there needs to be safety measures.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
I agree on the problem statement[^], but I don't necessary agree on the solution as it's just the standard reaction worthy of politicians.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
All the author(s) does in that article is demonstrate is lack of understanding of a how a driverless society would actually work. Ownership would actually be ridiculous. You simply tell the system (not the car) where and when you need a vehicle, and a car shows up. The car you used to get you to work would be in use by other people, or parked somewhere waiting, especially in off peak hours, like work hours. Furthermore, a smart system would be able to automatically and dynamically create carpooling routes, reducing the number of vehicles but also ensuring that everyone gets where they need to get to at the right time. Ironically, there would actually be "less" congestion. The model the author describes is based on the (hopefully) soon to be archaic concept of "ownership" and "owner-vehicle" single relationship. If think of vehicles as a system (much like a subway or bus) then you start to see the real benefits of a driverless vehicle. Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Contributors Wanted for Higher Order Programming Project!
-
Not sure that would save as much space as you think; maybe 12 cars where now you get 10? You'd still need room for them to manoeuvre into and out of the spaces and you'd still need 'parking' spots on all the streets so that people could get out when they arrive and in the when they summon the car (I assume you're not expecting people to run behind the moving vehicle and enter when they've caught it up?) Most cities where congestion is truly a problem already have a gamut of good old multi-story car parks, park and ride schemes, and limited street waiting times already. I can't see them forking out extra just to squeeze a few more in.
Car parks are very inefficient: For every parking bay there is another full bay area for the manoeuvring lane between facing rows (any less than 1 1/2 car lengths is too tight for most people, and 2 times is normal) If you don't have to get people in and out then cars can not only be parked far closer to each other side-to-side, but they can also be parked end to end in short (say 10 cars deep) queues. When a car is needed, up to nine others also drive out, and then re-enter the queuing system to park again. We aren't talking about squeezing a few more in, we are talking about double or treble the density, which with the price of land in modern cities being astronomical is a major incentive to the parking companies. The car drives you to a drop off point very close to your destination, then heads off to a queuing storage facility until it's needed. There may be a short delay in getting to the drop off point at busy times, but that will be a lot less than the time to find a parking space or walk from the car park today.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
-
Car parks are very inefficient: For every parking bay there is another full bay area for the manoeuvring lane between facing rows (any less than 1 1/2 car lengths is too tight for most people, and 2 times is normal) If you don't have to get people in and out then cars can not only be parked far closer to each other side-to-side, but they can also be parked end to end in short (say 10 cars deep) queues. When a car is needed, up to nine others also drive out, and then re-enter the queuing system to park again. We aren't talking about squeezing a few more in, we are talking about double or treble the density, which with the price of land in modern cities being astronomical is a major incentive to the parking companies. The car drives you to a drop off point very close to your destination, then heads off to a queuing storage facility until it's needed. There may be a short delay in getting to the drop off point at busy times, but that will be a lot less than the time to find a parking space or walk from the car park today.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
So who manages this queuing system? Who's going to buy a car that can be controlled by any Tom, Dick, or Hal? One that's going to be started and driven round the block ten, twenty, or more times a day without your knowledge or involvement? All the fuss about MS monitoring W10 and you think the public's going to just hand over the keys to their brand spanking new cutting edge babies to some oik or computer at the parking facility? You really think that human beings are going to suddenly learn to play well with others?
-
All the author(s) does in that article is demonstrate is lack of understanding of a how a driverless society would actually work. Ownership would actually be ridiculous. You simply tell the system (not the car) where and when you need a vehicle, and a car shows up. The car you used to get you to work would be in use by other people, or parked somewhere waiting, especially in off peak hours, like work hours. Furthermore, a smart system would be able to automatically and dynamically create carpooling routes, reducing the number of vehicles but also ensuring that everyone gets where they need to get to at the right time. Ironically, there would actually be "less" congestion. The model the author describes is based on the (hopefully) soon to be archaic concept of "ownership" and "owner-vehicle" single relationship. If think of vehicles as a system (much like a subway or bus) then you start to see the real benefits of a driverless vehicle. Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Contributors Wanted for Higher Order Programming Project!
And all your response shows is that you don't understand human beings. Since when has being ridiculous stopped anyone doing anything? Of course people are going to want to own their own vehicles and have control of where it goes and when! Car owning is already ridiculous in the most congested cities. It's demonstrably faster and cheaper to use mass transit systems in such places but people still buy cars and still sit in jams. In any case, even if the technological bugs are all sorted out this afternoon it will take years, probably decades, to sort out the legal issues, and then years, probably decades more before there is anything like enough self-drive vehicles to be on the streets to make a dial-a-ride service practical. Private ownership is bound to lead the way and once it takes hold it will be a devil to shift.
-
I agree on the problem statement[^], but I don't necessary agree on the solution as it's just the standard reaction worthy of politicians.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
If self driving cars causes a traffic jam will it be considered a deadlock? What about race conditions?
-
So who manages this queuing system? Who's going to buy a car that can be controlled by any Tom, Dick, or Hal? One that's going to be started and driven round the block ten, twenty, or more times a day without your knowledge or involvement? All the fuss about MS monitoring W10 and you think the public's going to just hand over the keys to their brand spanking new cutting edge babies to some oik or computer at the parking facility? You really think that human beings are going to suddenly learn to play well with others?
That's a whole other question, but basically you won't get a choice in the matter. As soon as self driving cars are mass market, the choice of "who drives?" will be legislated out of your hands on safety grounds (the same way we are forced to wear seatbelts, have airbags, and not text while driving). Once cars decide, it will not be long at all until they coordinate via a civic system which tells them where to go for maximum efficiency (and minimum energy consumption - even electric vehicles contribute to emissions when the electricity is produced). And that will tell them which park to go to, which queue to join, and so forth, in concert with the parking company systems - and probably partly paid for from the parking fees and/or civic car tax. The kids born now will probably be horrified to think that you were allowed to drive your own car in traffic when they are old enough to "drive"! :laugh:
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
-
That's a whole other question, but basically you won't get a choice in the matter. As soon as self driving cars are mass market, the choice of "who drives?" will be legislated out of your hands on safety grounds (the same way we are forced to wear seatbelts, have airbags, and not text while driving). Once cars decide, it will not be long at all until they coordinate via a civic system which tells them where to go for maximum efficiency (and minimum energy consumption - even electric vehicles contribute to emissions when the electricity is produced). And that will tell them which park to go to, which queue to join, and so forth, in concert with the parking company systems - and probably partly paid for from the parking fees and/or civic car tax. The kids born now will probably be horrified to think that you were allowed to drive your own car in traffic when they are old enough to "drive"! :laugh:
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
Why in the world would you want to own a car that drives itself? Just pick me up, take me to work, drop me off and then go pick up someone else that wants to go somewhere. If you're not busy drive to a maintenance facility or to a parking lot that is not in a crowded urban area. After work take me to my favorite bar and again drop me off. After a few drinks come and get me and take me home. Did I mention that I'm blind, old, hearing impaired, young, lost my license, sleepy, a terrible driver, etc.
-
That's a whole other question, but basically you won't get a choice in the matter. As soon as self driving cars are mass market, the choice of "who drives?" will be legislated out of your hands on safety grounds (the same way we are forced to wear seatbelts, have airbags, and not text while driving). Once cars decide, it will not be long at all until they coordinate via a civic system which tells them where to go for maximum efficiency (and minimum energy consumption - even electric vehicles contribute to emissions when the electricity is produced). And that will tell them which park to go to, which queue to join, and so forth, in concert with the parking company systems - and probably partly paid for from the parking fees and/or civic car tax. The kids born now will probably be horrified to think that you were allowed to drive your own car in traffic when they are old enough to "drive"! :laugh:
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
-
All the author(s) does in that article is demonstrate is lack of understanding of a how a driverless society would actually work. Ownership would actually be ridiculous. You simply tell the system (not the car) where and when you need a vehicle, and a car shows up. The car you used to get you to work would be in use by other people, or parked somewhere waiting, especially in off peak hours, like work hours. Furthermore, a smart system would be able to automatically and dynamically create carpooling routes, reducing the number of vehicles but also ensuring that everyone gets where they need to get to at the right time. Ironically, there would actually be "less" congestion. The model the author describes is based on the (hopefully) soon to be archaic concept of "ownership" and "owner-vehicle" single relationship. If think of vehicles as a system (much like a subway or bus) then you start to see the real benefits of a driverless vehicle. Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Contributors Wanted for Higher Order Programming Project!
The problem I see with having one car for multiple people is I wouldn't want to get into a car that some of the people I have encountered have used. What about smoking, food, personal hygiene issues? All of these wouldn't go away with driver less cars, so from my perspective I don't see personal vehicles vanishing with a driver less solution. I know I certainly wouldn't like to share a car with someone doing something illegal or illicit, and the fact is, you wouldn't know who used it before you and what dangers/residue/odor were left behind by the previous user.
-
Car parks are very inefficient: For every parking bay there is another full bay area for the manoeuvring lane between facing rows (any less than 1 1/2 car lengths is too tight for most people, and 2 times is normal) If you don't have to get people in and out then cars can not only be parked far closer to each other side-to-side, but they can also be parked end to end in short (say 10 cars deep) queues. When a car is needed, up to nine others also drive out, and then re-enter the queuing system to park again. We aren't talking about squeezing a few more in, we are talking about double or treble the density, which with the price of land in modern cities being astronomical is a major incentive to the parking companies. The car drives you to a drop off point very close to your destination, then heads off to a queuing storage facility until it's needed. There may be a short delay in getting to the drop off point at busy times, but that will be a lot less than the time to find a parking space or walk from the car park today.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
OriginalGriff wrote:
If you don't have to get people in and out then cars can not only be parked far closer to each other side-to-side, but they can also be parked end to end in short (say 10 cars deep) queues. When a car is needed, up to nine others also drive out, and then re-enter the queuing system to park again.
To an extent this is already happening with dumb cars and valets. The hospital where my mom works has had some high density staff lots where the staff park cars end to end with just enough room for them to get in/out (maybe only on one side if they park alternate rows in opposing directions). AIUI they fill the lots by putting one car in each column before putting a second in any of them and take advantage of staggered working hours to minimize the shuffle; but if you're working daylight and need to leave mid-shift you'll probably need to wait while they move a bunch of cars to get yours free.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason? Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful? --Zachris Topelius Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies. -- Sarah Hoyt
