Are these things in conflict somehow?
Comment on California just opened the floodgates for self-driving cars
CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
Yeah…Great…
How about building public transport and not such stupid things?
Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz 1 year ago
fluxion@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Yes, if there’s any chance in hell of self-driving becoming feasible at scale it will involve pre-defined routes, possibly with other sorts of monitoring systems, and new infrastructure/mandatory equipment for safe pedestrian crossing zones after the first handful of school kids inevitably plowed down thanks to the obviously-not-quite-there-yet image recognition systems.
Likely we’d see some rollback to a more achievable goal of a city-funded fleet of robo-taxis running pre-defined routes with standardized equipment at maybe some years into start thinking “hmmm… maybe we should’ve just improved our bus/rail systems…”
Cities are just as easily duped by guys like Elon Musk as any of these poor fuckers who died actually entrusting their lives to their shitty “autopilot” system. Especially when cities stand to profit from kickbacks very sorts. Don’t assume something like this won’t come at the cost of not investing in the obvious competing tech: public transport.
thbb@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Indeed, we’ve had autonomous trains for 3 decades now, and without ‘AI’ to make things murky. Automation in airplanes and industry is also very advanced. The key to success is not in the software, but rather in overall system design.
aesthelete@lemmy.world 1 year ago
They’re already in conflict everywhere. Infrastructure for cars robs public transit infrastructure blind in nearly every budget. The only public transit category potentially benefiting from car infrastructure is buses, which are arguably the worst form of public transit to begin with, and still also require dedicated infrastructure to get any better (e.g. dedicated bus lanes).
“Self-driving” cars obviously require car infrastructure which already steal from public transit budgets both federally and locally, but if we add government emphasis on this technology and start to develop specific infrastructure for “self-driving” cars (walled off routes, communications appliances, etc.) then they’ll start taking even more of the budget.
And all of this for something that’s arguably much more braindead and useless and consuming of R&D dollars than the obviously more efficient, already technically possible forms of transit that could be built or expanded upon today.
CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
Yes
EnderWi99in@kbin.social 1 year ago
Because one of them costs taxpayer money and the other one is just signing legislation?
aesthelete@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Yeah because roads definitely don’t cost taxpayers a single dime. 🙄
Imgonnatrythis@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Public transport has been around for many decades. The US infrastructure and now lifestyle / culture is not built for it and there’s not a great reason to think it’s suddenly going to catch on. Self driving cars have real potential in the US to have an environmental impact as well save many thousands of lives each year. I wish you were more excited about this.
Chetzemoka@kbin.social 1 year ago
Well, we're not. There's a reason you don't see New York City jumping to adopt this tech, and it's because they bothered to invest in a public transit system that makes cars obsolete for a lot of people. If we got decent public transit in more cities combined with an actually functional high speed rail system in this country, you'd see cars become obsolete for a whole lot more people.
This "lifestyle/culture" developed out of sheer necessity given the geographic size of this country and the complete failure to invest in mass transit. It can and must be changed, if we want our future to be viable at all.
bron@kbin.social 1 year ago
While it is exciting, I can see both sides of the argument here. The infrastructure here in the US is built around cars so it would be much less effort to automate the existing infrastructure. On the other hand, things could be so much more efficient if we focused on trains and other public transport that excels at transporting a large amount of people. But that would take so much more effort and money to update the infrastructure.
Chozo@kbin.social 1 year ago
Most SDCs in use currently are for public transport.
Uranium3006@kbin.social 1 year ago
well, LA is building out a lot of light rail as of late at least
Zalack@startrek.website 1 year ago
Self driving cars could actually be kind of a good stepping stone to better public transit while making more efficient use of existing roadways. You hit a button to request a car, it drives you to wherever, you need to go, and then gets tasked to pick up the next person. Where you used to need 10 cars for 10 people, you now need one.
Nioxic@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Thats still only a few people… compared to a bus?
Why not just have a bus??
monk@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I take the bus to work every day. It’s a set route for my set work schedule and it’s great.
But everything else I do in my life? Not on a bus route, schedules are slow on the weekend or stop completely after a certain time.
When you come up with a bus that goes wherever I want to go when I want, I’m in. Until then, a car that doesn’t require a driver and is easily shared between many people to take them the last mile is an actual solution.
aesthelete@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Buses suck because they’re like cars only worse.
Cars suck because of the amount of infrastructure you have to build for them all to avoid proper design of anything.
In a well designed area, you’d be able to get wherever you needed without having to take either of these things.
fluxion@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Uber