Trump appoints Kalanick and Musk to committee
-
@scottalanmiller said in Trump appoints Kalanick and Musk to committee:
@travisdh1 said in Trump appoints Kalanick and Musk to committee:
@Dashrender said in Trump appoints Kalanick and Musk to committee:
I just thought of another advantage to self driving taxi thing - with electric vehicles, assuming it took more than just a few mins to recharge a car, you could just get into another car at a recharge station and keep going, little to no waiting.
Electrics make all sorts of sense in limited metro areas. They even make sense for longer hauls as well, with on-board turban generators anyway (think about it, the generator would only ever run at it's most efficient.) http://www.hybridcars.com/wrightspeed-combines-gas-turbine-and-batteries-for-big-fuel-savings/
Plus solar trickle charging, in road chargers and more.
Yeah, but nobody wants to talk about the hybrid all electric drive things for some silly reason. Granted that will make the largest difference in big-rigs in the near future, at least if these ridiculously overpowered things ever hit the road.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Trump appoints Kalanick and Musk to committee:
@Dashrender said in Trump appoints Kalanick and Musk to committee:
I really don't see it being that much cheaper for most people.. but I could be wrong.
I think that it will be. Like right now, I own one car. But I only need 1% of a car. Even if I pay 10x the per hour rate, I make out like crazy.
my concern is the amount of vehicles needed at times like rush hour. You don't really get to reduce the number of cars all that much - of course that's just a total guess on my part, I have no idea how many cars % wise are in use during rush hour.. that would be interesting to find out.
-
@Dashrender said in Trump appoints Kalanick and Musk to committee:
@scottalanmiller said in Trump appoints Kalanick and Musk to committee:
@Dashrender said in Trump appoints Kalanick and Musk to committee:
I really don't see it being that much cheaper for most people.. but I could be wrong.
I think that it will be. Like right now, I own one car. But I only need 1% of a car. Even if I pay 10x the per hour rate, I make out like crazy.
my concern is the amount of vehicles needed at times like rush hour. You don't really get to reduce the number of cars all that much - of course that's just a total guess on my part, I have no idea how many cars % wise are in use during rush hour.. that would be interesting to find out.
I bet it is no more than 50% and with some careful planning it can be much more. If you think of how long rush hour lasts, how many cars are idle (easily 90%, I'm just throwing 50% out there) and then spread those cars out over the time of rush hour which is normally 8-10x as long as a normal commute and then consider the additional efficiency possible with self driving cars (less congestion for rush hour) and combine it with scalable pricing to discourage congestion I bet you'll find that even rush hour becomes not a big deal.
And Texas roads already have scaling pricing with express lanes like $.50 off peak and up to like $12 at peak times. It really changes traffic patterns.
-
Self driving cars allow things like follow distance to be greatly reduced.
http://jliszka.github.io/2013/10/01/how-traffic-actually-works.html
Because self driving cars can act in tandem, rather than responding to serial stimuli, you can reduce follow distance from 2s to say 1s giving you far more cars per hour per lane. If we see up to 2,000 now, imagine if the same lanes could take 2,500 or 3,000! And merging would be a full speed, fully orchestrated, safe zipper (that's what the rest of the country calls it when cars take turns merging, Texas). And all cars automatically routing around congestion, accidents, construction, etc. The instant, shared knowledge different is so big, it's essentially impossible to calculate how big it could be.
-
My guess is that rush hour actually takes only 25% of working adults in any region. Totally a guess, but it seems reasonable. How many people do you know are actually affected by rush hour? My roommate is, but only because for some reason she is addicted to it. She also takes the congested highway when the direct route is fine and half the distance. She likes the rush hour thing and does it on purpose.
But of people I know, between working odd hours, shift work, work from home, flex hours, stay at home parents or whatever yeah, still lots of people driving during peak hours, but nowhere near even 50% of people. And that's without strong incentives to avoid that traffic window. Add incentives, make it a normal part of business life and I think things will change. And if the average family owns two cars per worker (which is reasonable in the US) and only 25% of people travel during rush hour and you can spread that out over several hours, I bet you still only need 5% of the cars that we have today.
-
Portland has a few car share programs from what I understand, and I think they make a lot of sense. They are private (not run by a municipality) which makes them competitive and innovative. I think they hold a lot of promise for certain parts of the country.
The thing that makes it viable is you need to have lots of people traveling between two points so that you can run more efficient public transportation for the long leg then just use the car for the last mile.
-
huh 5% that just feels very low - but I have no reasoning for it.
Your roommate likes rush hour? She told you this? You've told her about a better, faster route and she simply chooses to continue using the longer more dangerous way?
-
@Mike-Davis said in Trump appoints Kalanick and Musk to committee:
Portland has a few car share programs from what I understand, and I think they make a lot of sense. They are private (not run by a municipality) which makes them competitive and innovative. I think they hold a lot of promise for certain parts of the country.
The thing that makes it viable is you need to have lots of people traveling between two points so that you can run more efficient public transportation for the long leg then just use the car for the last mile.
I mainly suggested the municipality solution to get the technology out to everyone. If the tech is freely available then private sector could pull it off, as long as the government gets out of the way, doesn't allow monopolies, like the problem we have with ISPs.
-
@Dashrender said in Trump appoints Kalanick and Musk to committee:
huh 5% that just feels very low - but I have no reasoning for it.
Your roommate likes rush hour? She told you this? You've told her about a better, faster route and she simply chooses to continue using the longer more dangerous way?
I told her and she avoids it, she schedules everything around driving at the worst moment of the day, and takes the worst route. Whenever someone picks her up from work, they take a different route that takes half the miles, half the time.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Trump appoints Kalanick and Musk to committee:
You wouldn't have to worry about a creepy driver either in this case.
http://www.thermocow.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/robot1.jpg
-
@PSX_Defector said in Trump appoints Kalanick and Musk to committee:
@DustinB3403 said in Trump appoints Kalanick and Musk to committee:
You wouldn't have to worry about a creepy driver either in this case.
http://www.thermocow.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/robot1.jpg
That's part of the fun, though.
-
If you want to know what will cause self driving cars to become the law...
-
@scottalanmiller Yeah driver controlled wrecks will force autonomous drivers, but it will be a very long time until all of the current fleet of existing cars will be gone from the roads entirely.
So I understand what you mean, human drivers (and actions) will force humans globally to completely be gone with the common car in favor of autonomous cars.
The trouble will be that many people will insist on archaic approaches (driving them selves)
-
Another example of this would be the attack in Paris where the terrorist struck, driving a large truck through the crowd of people.
Obviously if you can't get the vehicle to drive through the crowd you have to come up with some other attack method, which would likely involve guns.
But at least some people might have a chance to run when they hear gun fire. . . maybe.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Trump appoints Kalanick and Musk to committee:
Another example of this would be the attack in Paris where the terrorist struck, driving a large truck through the crowd of people.
Obviously if you can't get the vehicle to drive through the crowd you have to come up with some other attach method, which would likely involve guns.
But at least some people might have a chance to run when they hear gun fire. . . maybe.
I disagree. but perhaps - I have no idea how easy it is to get guns in Europe.. clearly getting a car is much easier... but I'm guessing there are things that are easier than guns, yet harder than cars...
-
@Dashrender Well I agree, there is probably something, but if guns were to be used, they would likely be purchased illegally. Or from the black market.
So what could be as lethal as a gun, and more easily attained than a car? I suppose one could try to mix chemicals to make some kind of poison but how wide spread an area could that affect?
-
@DustinB3403 said in Trump appoints Kalanick and Musk to committee:
The trouble will be that many people will insist on archaic approaches (driving them selves)
That's what police are for. People used to just fly themselves too, not so much any longer.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Trump appoints Kalanick and Musk to committee:
@DustinB3403 said in Trump appoints Kalanick and Musk to committee:
The trouble will be that many people will insist on archaic approaches (driving them selves)
That's what police are for. People used to just fly themselves too, not so much any longer.
I don't disagree, that police will have new responsibilities. My point was more towards the fact that people will fight tooth and nail to still allow driver operated vehicles.
Even though the evidence shows that humans suck at driving.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Trump appoints Kalanick and Musk to committee:
@Dashrender Well I agree, there is probably something, but if guns were to be used, they would likely be purchased illegally. Or from the black market.
So what could be as lethal as a gun, and more easily attained than a car? I suppose one could try to mix chemicals to make some kind of poison but how wide spread an area could that affect?
I was thinking of things like pipe bombs.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Trump appoints Kalanick and Musk to committee:
@scottalanmiller said in Trump appoints Kalanick and Musk to committee:
@DustinB3403 said in Trump appoints Kalanick and Musk to committee:
The trouble will be that many people will insist on archaic approaches (driving them selves)
That's what police are for. People used to just fly themselves too, not so much any longer.
I don't disagree, that police will have new responsibilities. My point was more towards the fact that people will fight tooth and nail to still allow driver operated vehicles.
Even though the evidence shows that humans suck at driving.
That's what laws are for. The laws will ultimately say no non-self driving vehicles on the general road ways - or any non private roadway.
