I completely agree. And autonomous vehicles solve none of the issues of regular cars, except maybe injury rate. The rest is the same -- emissions, inefficiency, expense, noise, traffic congestion, unwalkable cities, and so on.
back
2 comments
They're electric, so that solves the emissions and noise problems.
Once self-driving cars are common people will figure out that it's safe to jaywalk in front of them, and nobody minds inconveniencing a robot, so I expect jaywalking to rise substantially too.
A self-driving hire car isn't idle 23 hours a day like a normal car so that should solve some of the inefficiency and expense issues.
All I'm left with on your list is congestion, and that'll remain, even if the self-driving cars start communicating with each other to allow closer spacing. Making something cheaper and/or easier inevitably increases usage.
> They're electric, so that solves the emissions and noise problems.
Past a certain speed, the majority of noise is coming from the tires, which also result in emissions. An EV is certainly better than an ICE, but there's no way to make a vehicle per person more efficient than a vehicle per tens/hundreds/thousands of persons.
Part a certain speed, everything is noisy. An electric car is quieter than a train or a plane.
> All I'm left with on your list is congestion, and that'll remain
Smart car sized AEVs, rather than Hummer sized AEVs. Individual "pods" the size of motor cycles, rather than cars.
Today we all buy "peak usage cars". i.e. "Once a quarter I drive 300+ miles", "Once a week I drive my whole family to the park/hike/...", "I'm not yet an off-roading type of person, but might as well spend the extra $10k just incase I wanna get into it. (never gonna get into it)", "What about something that will go fast on the track, just incase I need that". Then 99% of the miles this giant 5+ person car with storage will ever drive is 1 person trips to and from work bumper to bumper.
When the car isn't owned, you don't need to buy "peak usage cars". You can order a car sized for the usecase.
This will reduce a lot of congestion!
I'm pro-electric car, but I wouldn't say they solve the emissions problem. Tailpipe emissions, sure. But tire particulates are a surprisingly large fraction of current automotive emissions, and they're not going away.
In fact, if real self driving ever becomes widespread, it's likely to induce demand (sure, why not live a 2 hour drive from work if you can relax the whole drive home?) which will lead to increased tire emissions.
>They're electric, so that solves the emissions and noise problems.
60% [1] of the electricity in the US is produced by burning fossil fuels (21% coal!), and this will not change in a long while. In California specifically it's a bit better, with ~40% fossil fuels [2]. Also, battery production specifically is a tremendously energy intensive industrial process that also involves a lot of emissions [3]. Factoring in efficiency losses it results that electric cars, while maybe better than ICE cars, are inferior to biking, walking, and electric trains.
As for the noise, as other commenters pointed out, at average city speeds most of the noise a regular car makes comes from the tires rolling, not the engine.
>Once self-driving cars are common people will figure out that it's safe to jaywalk in front of them, and nobody minds inconveniencing a robot, so I expect jaywalking to rise substantially too.
If this starts to happen, congestion will only get worse as the average speed of roads goes down. Cars suddenly stopping in the middle of the road isn't good for traffic flow. It also doesn't address the fact that most people in LA can't leave their homes and be anywhere just by walking.
>A self-driving hire car isn't idle 23 hours a day like a normal car so that should solve some of the inefficiency and expense issues.
I concede that this is strictly true -- having a single shared vehicle is more efficient than several privately owned. However, most people need to use their cars at the same time for their commute. Demand still peaks in the morning and in the afternoon, and if you have enough vehicles to cover that, during the rest of the day they will be idle, same as now.
>All I'm left with on your list is congestion, and that'll remain, even if the self-driving cars start communicating with each other to allow closer spacing. Making something cheaper and/or easier inevitably increases usage.
So poor people still don't have access to transport, and the congestion is even worse than before? Why would this be a good solution to the car problems of LA?
[1] https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 [2] https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/califo... [3] https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-much-co2-emitted-manufac...
> As for the noise, as other commenters pointed out, at average city speeds most of the noise a regular car makes comes from the tires rolling, not the engine.
If that's true, cars are driving too fast. EV's are silent to about 30mph, and any speeds above 20mph are lethal to pedestrians.
> So poor people still don't have access to transport,
Poor people are the population most reliant on taxis & Ubers. Because they don't own a car, they take taxis for emergencies. They can't afford to do it often but it is a key mode of transportation for poor people.
> and the congestion is even worse than before? Why would this be a good solution to the car problems of LA?
Because it solves the problem for rich people. If a robo-taxi is the best way of getting around for rich people, then some rich people will ditch their cars. And once you've ditched your car you stop using a personal car for everything and start choosing the best option based on circumstance. And sometimes that option will be the train, or walking and not necessarily a robo-taxi.
In some trite sense what you're saying is true, but if autonomous vehicles are widely available and cheap they'll drastically reduce vehicle ownership rates, which will help improve the status quo for most of the problems you listed.