Not an ad hominem, a legitimate statement of fact; your English is so poor as to make your arguments unintelligible. Maybe it got lost in the Google translation? Regardless, again, from what I could understand, your position is exclusively political – statements like “America car-centrism (sic – not a word, btw)” kind of give it away.
Widespread deployment of AVs is coming, it’s inevitable, and it will happen within then next 10-15 years, and there’s really nothing you can do about it. It will be an absolute blessing, will save many, many lives, and will make the world a much better place. Luddite socialists like you who are so pathologically narcissistic as to want to control every aspect of everyone’s lives are just going to have to deal with a world where they don’t get to tell everyone else how to live. “Progressive politics” – if there was ever an oxymoron, that’s it.
Oh yes I was. My fault, reacting to someone pushing forward their vision, when it’s as strong as to involve ‘bans’ and ‘outlawing’, as the only true without considering any other ones.
‘your position is purely political, not scientific’
Said the person who argues for banning and outlawing, obviously political actions. When…
‘The impediment to Level V AVs is the unreasonable and unnecessary requirement that they operate in mixed traffic with non-AV, human drivers’
…when the actual impediment is the current state of computer vision, mapping, geopositioning, the cost of LIDARs, etc. Kind of demonstrates how ‘scientific’ is your position (so does the ignoring of modern urbanism which is all the rage across the globe).
‘Work on your English if you’re going to criticize’
Haha. Working hard but for just under one year so far, it’s my third foreign language and yes my command of it is still somewhat marred by my knowledge of the other two.
Before you continue your ad homenem argumentation, how many languages you’re at least remotely fluent in?
I’m not going to read all that vitriol – your position is purely political, not scientific. “Don’t mix technical requirements and possible impediments.” Huh? “And you have nothing to put up against geometry.” What? Work on your English if you’re going to criticize – at least then we can linguistically understand the point you’re trying to make. Wow were you triggered…
To the commenter above.
‘It would be easy to develop and deploy Level V autonomous vehicles (“AVs”) right now – all you have to do is ban human drivers’
Don’t mix technical requirements and possible impediments. Developing a true L5 car that can handle all conditions (including heavy fog, rain, snow obstructing its sensors; driving on unmarked and/or unmapped roads; to say nothing of off-road driving) has little to do with banning human driving – by definition. Get your terminology straight. In case of driving ban, even geofenced L4 cars would be enough – given that geofencing covers the operational area needed. But…
‘ An environment where all traffic is networked AVs would be easy to implement’
…but what an ingenuous American car-centrism. Travel the world and see that cyclists and pedestrians do also exist in addition to your beloved cars. That communities can be walkable and public transit can be crazy good. That streets can be walked on freely. You’d say, let’s fence the roads or otherwise keep people from jaywalking and keep the cyclists in their lanes? Naivete. Modern urbanism is focused on dense, walkable, cyclable, mostly car-free communities. Why driverless cars when you can have no cars at all (except for emergencies), huh?
And you have nothing to put up against geometry. A bus or a tram carry dozens of people, occupying the space of 6 or 8 cars at most.
What else? Possibly wild fantasies of AVs going at 100 mph within inches of each other? Congratulations, we’ve just invented trains. And few seem to take note of the fact that air drag (=energy consumption) and tyre wear grow dramatically as speed increases. 15 minutes at 100 mph? It’s 25 miles. Come on, we already have trains for that. And they carry hundreds of people. Yes, geometry.
Door-to-door transportation promised by AVs? For the elderly and/or disabled, yes. For the rest, well-organised public transit. Just as nations encourage walking and cycling, Americans are carried away by the idea which will likely further promote unhealthy lifestyles.
‘The result in the US alone would be 30,000 lives saved annually’
That classic ‘would be’. How do you know? You were sold the yet-unfounded idea by gullible media and now advocate for it. Of course, a fantasised ideal future with near-zero traffic fatalities is better than what we have now. But it’s speculative and the big awkward question is, how can we be sure that this exact ideal future will arrive. Will AVs deliver on their promise of safety? Or will they bring new types of accidents?
Next, you don’t have to wait for AVs to cut down on that number. Public transit? Walkable neighbourhoods? Built-in breathalyzers in cars? Low-speed streets? ADAS systems (anti-collision, pedestrian detection, etc.)? You name it.
But okay, for some ardent AV supporters, it may seem worth waiting another dozen years for unclear outcomes… while we can act now. The goal is safety, not AV implementation per se, let alone driving ban. And I certainly don’t want any neurotic ‘ban-it-now’ persons to define the agenda. Driving can be safe, it must be safe, and should persist.
Cheerz from a European public transit user. Don’t get too car-centric there in the US. It’s a great time to turn the tide back.
It would be easy to develop and deploy Level V autonomous vehicles (“AVs”) right now – all you have to do is ban human drivers. An environment where all traffic is networked AVs would be easy to implement and would be magnitudes more efficient and safer than human-driven traffic. The impediment to Level V AVs is the unreasonable and unnecessary requirement that they operate in mixed traffic with non-AV, human drivers. Governments should set a date – say, 2030 – after which all traffic will be AV and human drivers outlawed. The result in the US alone would be 30,000 lives saved annually, hundreds of thousands of injuries prevented, and hundreds of billions of dollars in medical and property damage prevented. None of this will be possible, however, if we insist that humans be allowed to continue to drive themselves. This is something the government can mandate easily – there is no Constitutional right to drive a car.
An additional issue pushing toward driverless cars: Cost of an accident.
When a train fails to stop or jumps the track you have millions of dollars lost — both to the lost goods/lives on the train, and lost capacity until the track is fixed.
A Boeing 747 costs 350 million dollars. The salaries of the pilots is pretty small.
Moving down to a freight truck — the tractor unit is about 100-150K, a 53 foot trailer about 80K The cargo? Another 100-200K. This is why truck drivers only make about 20 bucks an hour.
Locally one of the more or less continuously advertised jobs is “Swamper” This is a guy who goes with the truck driver to help unload. Going rate is about 3-4 bucks an hour under what the driver gets. It’s worth it to the companies to have a second guy there. This is in the oil patch, where stops are irregular — usually no loading dock, and possibility of hazardous conditions, and often terrible roads for part of the trip.
Empty driverless cars have some interesting new crimes. Rolling brothels?
If you are a single woman, who has bought a ride in a car, can you say, “no, don’t pick up anyone else?” What happens with a driverless people mover minivan when one man does a stickup of everyone else in the van?
Will one of the ‘costs’ of driverless cars be continuous video of the entire interior, stored on a 24 hour chip, and remotely retrievable?
Comments are closed.