The Evidence for Better-Than-Human Performance is Starting to Pile Up

September 12, 2023 11:13 PM

Human beings drive close to 100 million miles between fatal crashes, so it will take hundreds of millions of driverless miles for 100 percent certainty on this question. But the evidence for better-than-human performance is starting to pile up, especially for Waymo. It’s important for policymakers to allow this experiment to continue because, at scale, safer-than-human driving technology would save a lot of lives. from Are self-driving cars already safer than human drivers?

However: Corporate Capture in California

And: Human Drivers Avoid Crashes 99.999819% of the Time, Self-Driving Cars Need to Be Even Safer

posted by chavenet (98 comments total)

The flaw is that Waymo and Cruise self report accidents and it is unclear how much spin they’ve put into those reports regarding who was at fault. They have a huge incentive to game the data.
posted by interogative mood at 11:20 PM on September 12, 2023 [40 favorites]

At a more fundamental level it's like making a robot to throw shit in the street rather than people throwing shit in the street. Build toilets and proper waste infrastructure, don't automate a failed, antisocial practice.
posted by BinaryApe at 11:58 PM on September 12, 2023 [93 favorites]

Thanks to the Ars subeditor who decided to frame their headline in such a way that Betteridge's Law supports my preconceptions.

I would also like to see a breakdown on how often people run into bot cars compared to how often they run into driven cars. I remain unconvinced that bot drivers behave in ways that are as predictable by human drivers as human drivers do.
posted by flabdablet at 12:03 AM on September 13, 2023 [6 favorites]

Please tell me I'm wrong but Waymo matching the fatality rate of US drivers is a low bar? The Republic of Ireland is about the same size ~75,000sq.km, and population ~5million, as South Carolina. But the raw data fatal car crashes are RoI ~180 vs SC ~1,000. In the pre-CelticTiger 1970s, Ireland (when there were far fewer cars and people) was clocking ~600 road deaths a year. Two interventions that probably have made a difference are
a) the first government scrappage scheme in 1996, which gave £1000 to anyone who traded in a 10+ year old car for a new model. That got a lot of old clunkers, including our 13 year old Opel Astra, off the roads.
b) the introduction of the NCT National Car Test in 2000. That ensured that all cars had functioning brakes, seat-belts, working lights and sound body-work. It is remarkable, to me, that 23% of the people killed on Irish roads in 2016 were not wearing seat-belts. In a spirit of de mortuis nil nisi bonum we don't report the alcohol content of the dead. Waymo defo sober.
posted by BobTheScientist at 12:13 AM on September 13, 2023 [16 favorites]

As the article correctly points out, there is about 85 million miles between fatal crashes for all humans in the US, so how could we possibly know from the 8 million miles put in so far? Particularly when this metric is very careful to draw a line around the autonomous vehicle program of Tesla, which has killed people. After the next tragedy, I'm sure we'll say well sure, Cruise killed a random passer-by, but Waymo, they're up to 6 million miles so far without killing an innocent bystander.

Or to put another context, drivers who are drunk over the common legal limit of 0.08 but below 0.15, they manage to drive about 18 million miles between fatal crashes. And they are included in the total of 85 million miles between fatal crashes! If you use sober 30-69 year old drivers as a baseline (and holy cow are there some shady, distracted, incompetent drivers in that tranche), the baseline is closer to 170 million miles, over double the whole-population baseline.

And then there is the fact that US roads are particularly fatal - even car-heavy, low-density comparable countries like Australia and Canada have about half the US fatality rate per distance driven.
posted by Superilla at 12:33 AM on September 13, 2023 [26 favorites]

Or to put another context, drivers who are drunk over the common legal limit of 0.08 but below 0.15, they manage to drive about 18 million miles between fatal crashes. And they are included in the total of 85 million miles between fatal crashes!

Yes, this has been a thing with me for a while. I haven't kept up with the latest self-driving numbers, but presumably you want your autonomous vehicles to be safer than sober drivers. At least if you expect sober drivers to use them. And they are much safer than the average (mean) driver, because DWI really bring down the average.
posted by mark k at 12:58 AM on September 13, 2023 [3 favorites]

OTOH the Jalopnik presentation of their numbers is making my brain bleed:

If you drive the average amount for American drivers (14,263 miles per year), and 99.9 percent of your miles are crash-free, you’re still going to spend 14.3 miles every year crashing. At 99.99982-percent crash-free, you’ll spend 0.03 miles per year crashing — a year almost entirely free of impacts.

You do not "spend" 14.3 miles crashing. And the sentence "0.03 miles per year crashing" makes no sense at all.

The way they did the numbers, they are merely saying you'd average 14 crashes/year and a 3% chance/year of crashing, respectively.
posted by mark k at 1:04 AM on September 13, 2023 [23 favorites]

It depends on which drivers self-driving cars are replacing. Will they replace the most dangerous drivers (drunks and teenage boys) or the safer-than-average drivers (truck drivers and taxis)?
posted by straight at 1:11 AM on September 13, 2023 [10 favorites]

US roads are particularly fatal - even car-heavy, low-density comparable countries like Australia and Canada have about half the US fatality rate per distance driven

That's more because of American vehicles than American roads. Monstrous SUVs and giant pickup trucks (which are less popular elsewhere in the world) cause more fatalities in collisions with pedestrians, cyclists, and smaller vehicles.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 1:29 AM on September 13, 2023 [11 favorites]

Until we see self-drive car companies--and their executives in particular--face (and accept) real consequences and regular jail terms for any fatalities or injuries caused by their products, we should proceed with the greatest of caution. So far many of these companies seem to prefer to lawyer up to the hilt and try to buy or bully their way out of any such consequences. Money/interests where their mouths are, please.
posted by senor biggles at 1:34 AM on September 13, 2023 [6 favorites]

I am someone who can’t drive due to disability. I want a system with NO serious injuries or deaths as well as one that has less congestion, noise and confusion, which works better for people who currently depend on transit. We’ve tolerated a system that isolates most everyone in little insulated boxes where they can easily ignore the interdependent nature of life.

So my bar for AVs being “better” is not easily manipulated stats by for-profit companies claiming fewer crashes than human-driven vehicles would have produced. My bar is at minimum no crashes of any significance, no more congestion (no dead head), no confusing blocking of curb cuts or emergency vehicles, etc.

To me right now the entire focus on AVs seems designed to promote a profit driven system that may work better for some, but doesn’t liberate everyone including people with disabilities.
posted by R343L at 1:42 AM on September 13, 2023 [19 favorites]

tl;dr: we don’t need hardly any AVs at all if we gave a damn about public transit and pedestrian and cycling.
posted by R343L at 1:43 AM on September 13, 2023 [44 favorites]

Mercedes with its Level 3 certification accepts legal responsibility for any accidents which may happen on their watch.

"Drive Pilot will allow Mercedes-Benz drivers to takes their eyes off the road and hands off the wheel, then do other non-driving activities like watching videos and texting. If the rules for use are followed, Mercedes (and not the driver) will be legally responsible for any accident that happens."

Endgadget - Mercedes becomes the first automaker to sell Level 3 self-driving vehicles in California
posted by xdvesper at 2:02 AM on September 13, 2023 [7 favorites]

That's more because of American vehicles than American roads. Monstrous SUVs and giant pickup trucks (which are less popular elsewhere in the world) cause more fatalities in collisions with pedestrians, cyclists, and smaller vehicles.

I specified Australia and Canada to avoid the what about comparisons. The top selling vehicle in Canada has been the Ford F-150 for 13 consecutive years now, and passenger cars are also about the same share of 20% new car sales. The Canadian and American auto markets are basically the same.
posted by Superilla at 2:43 AM on September 13, 2023 [13 favorites]

What are the fatality rates for light rail & high-speed rail?

I saw 5 Criuse vehicles in my neighborhood the other night, with no one in any of them. I am of the obviously uninformed opinion that we should have less vehicles on the roads overall, rather than more, especially if the additional vehicles are driving around pointlessly empty.

Would not less cars lead to less fatalities overall, per capita rates aside?
posted by Devils Rancher at 3:17 AM on September 13, 2023 [8 favorites]

The definition of 'safe' used here is one where the cars still kill us via particulates and climate collapse and the like, but in the meantime maybe crash into people at lower rates than before.

Which is nice, but we asked for solutions, not for self-driven problems.
posted by Ashenmote at 3:33 AM on September 13, 2023 [17 favorites]

You do not "spend" 14.3 miles crashing. And the sentence "0.03 miles per year crashing" makes no sense at all.

what if I told you I spent 12 parsecs crashing the Kessel Run
posted by taquito sunrise at 4:26 AM on September 13, 2023 [20 favorites]

safer-than-average drivers (truck drivers and taxis)

Funny you mention taxis, which have been functionally replaced by ride share drivers. It's been a while since I read this article, so I forget whether or not it notes the absurd crash rates among drive share drivers in San Francisco that far outstrip Cruise and Waymo. It's something like one crash in every 24,000 miles driven in SF. (Thankfully, it's almost all minor property damage and not crashes causing major injury)

Still, I can't disagree that fewer cars in cities is the way forward. Self driving vehicles would be grand for those who live in exurban and rural areas, though, where there are no other (reasonable) transportation options aside from private vehicles and people still manage to kill and seriously injure themselves and others all the damn time, usually without even the fig leaf of the involvement of an errant deer or moose. Most people drastically underestimate the impairment that results from driving while fatigued and just how often it goes on.
posted by wierdo at 4:28 AM on September 13, 2023 [7 favorites]

Cars or some form of private or semi private wheeled transport are going to be necessary for most people in America. You can't square the circle of "everybody should walk or bike" with "society should take into consideration the quality of life of people with disabilities or low mobility." Never mind all the able bodied people who can only afford housing with poor transit access.

The real question is: Who "drives" the autonomous car? Let's say you're going to the grocery store and you're tired. You pass a coffee shop, turn the car around, and stop in there to get a coffee. All the decisions are yours. In the autonomous car, the decision-making goes through the computer. I'm sure that the coffee shop will be fine, but what if you're going to a sex shop or a gay bar or a church/mosque/whatever the car doesn't like? Or what if you're going to a sex shop that didn't pay the developer for directory placement, is it going to reroute you to one that did? Can you forbid it from taking you certain places, like your mistress's house? Can you hack it to drive into a wall or off a bridge (not when you're in it, obviously)? So many questions!
posted by kingdead at 4:30 AM on September 13, 2023 [6 favorites]

>Mercedes with its Level 3 certification accepts legal responsibility for any accidents which may happen on their watch

*Terms and conditions apply. Offer not valid at speeds over 40mph. Refer to your system for which highways this program is available.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 4:39 AM on September 13, 2023 [3 favorites]

Cars or some form of private or semi private wheeled transport are going to be necessary for most people in America. You can't square the circle of "everybody should walk or bike" with "society should take into consideration the quality of life of people with disabilities or low mobility." Never mind all the able bodied people who can only afford housing with poor transit access.

I think the argument that a lot of anti-car people are making is basically: the physics of the planet don't care about our needs, safety or convenience.

We either develop much more centralized, energy/resource efficient means of transit than the private car as part of a larger program, or the future we're looking is going to be ghastly. This is going to entail a great deal of pain, and there are a lot of places - particularly in the US - that have no future once they can't be cheaply driven to.
posted by ryanshepard at 4:44 AM on September 13, 2023 [7 favorites]

You can't square the circle of "everybody should walk or bike" with "society should take into consideration the quality of life of people with disabilities or low mobility."

No we will not be doing the disabled people need cars thing. I am disabled. With decent transit, walking, rolling and biking access I do not need access to a car which I can’t drive anyway (barring emergencies I don’t even need anyone to drive me). SOME disabled people a car is their best option. In the state of Washingtin a high majority of disabled people either cannot use a car due to their disability or cannot afford one or do not have regular access to one via a partner or family member. We probably will always have a need for some cars but we could get by with vastly fewer as a society. A majority of all car trips today are 5 miles or less: perfectly achievable with various non-car means for most people’s abilities.More people who drive less leaves more resources and space for those that do genuinely need it, as well as reducing our impact on the earth’s hability.
posted by R343L at 4:51 AM on September 13, 2023 [44 favorites]

We either develop much more centralized, energy/resource efficient means of transit than the private car as part of a larger program, or the future we're looking is going to be ghastly. This is going to entail a great deal of pain, and there are a lot of places - particularly in the US - that have no future once they can't be cheaply driven to.

The autonomous car is part of that future. Instead of having a bunch of cars that everyone owns, you'll just hail the car from an app and it will come to you! One car can be active 24/7, and you don't even have to house and feed the driver. Less wasted energy creating the cars and digging up all the rare minerals needed to make them. (What happens to the professional driver... well, let's not think about that!)

I'm sure that what we think of as public transit will also play a part, but it can't go every place and let's be honest, plenty of people say they want it but wouldn't ride it once they see all the other germy people on it. Barring a collapse in public life so hard that every single person in this thread will have died of misery, there's going to be some form of small, private transport.
posted by kingdead at 5:16 AM on September 13, 2023 [4 favorites]

what if you're going to a sex shop or a gay bar or a church/mosque/whatever the car doesn't like?

This already happens today with human-driven taxis and ride shares. It's historically been difficult to get rides to or from "the wrong neighborhood," and I've known more than one person who's been harangued by their driver who didn't approve of the establishment or place of worship they were getting dropped off at. (Fortunately, this only becomes obvious at the end of the trip, because typically the driver just sees and address and presumably doesn't instantly know "oh that's the catholic church.") You're asking a lot of questions, kingdead, but honestly I don't think most of them are real questions, because we've already answered 99% of them with taxis, or self-driving vehicles would simply not exercise any judgement and your questions are all about what kind of judgement the car or its programmers exercise. "All that deciison making goes through the computer" - the computer, I promise you, does not give a hoot about the gay bar. It's run by a company that 1. wants to make money and 2. probably has no incentive to limit passenger destinations and 3. based on the taxi and lyft/uber precdents, has no desire to do so either.
posted by Tomorrowful at 5:18 AM on September 13, 2023 [6 favorites]

(What happens to the professional driver... well, let's not think about that!)

Why not? I'm skeptical of the degree to which self-driving cars can really become universal, but, yes, there's likely to be impacts on human employment. Lots of truckers may need new jobs. This is something we should think about and talk about, but if the promise of self-driving vehicles is anywhere close to achieved, then it'll be a very sensible tradeoff for us to help those folks find new jobs in a new world where motor vehicles don't kill and main lots of people all the time. This is a fairly routine problem to solve as technology progresses, no need to act like it's an unthinkable horror we should avert our eyes from.
posted by Tomorrowful at 5:20 AM on September 13, 2023 [4 favorites]

There’s already research and modeling that suggests AVs increase vehicle miles traveled (VMT) because it turns out no one wants to wait at all so the for-profit companies pushing this have to over provision to meet “demand” which does not reduce our impact on the environment.
posted by R343L at 5:20 AM on September 13, 2023 [10 favorites]

>Less wasted energy creating the cars and digging up all the rare minerals needed to make them

automobiles have a useful life measured in miles more than months tho.

autonomous rideshare proponents make the argument that the 40kWh LEAF in my garage is steadily crumbling into dust each day whether I drive it or not but that's not quite the reality.

if rideshares are dead-heading 2X for each 1X passenger-mile, I would think they will prove more resource-consuming than the one-time capital purchase I made in 2018 for my LEAF (which I plan on driving for the next 12 years or so).
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 5:33 AM on September 13, 2023 [3 favorites]

I'm pretty sure self-driving cars will eventually be a lot safer than human-driven cars.

What I'm worried about is that this will supercharge urban sprawl. If you can focus 100 percent on watching a movie or taking a nap or doing email/Slack/Zoom while your robot chauffeur does all the traffic-jam inching and high-speed merging, a very long commute might seem reasonable to a lot more people.
posted by pracowity at 5:43 AM on September 13, 2023 [5 favorites]

>robot chauffeur does all the traffic-jam inching

more robots should result in less jams, eventually, especially once car-to-car communication links are established.

The highways of the 2020s are still disappointingly similar to the highways of the 1920s, but the "Minority Report" future is in fact coming for us, I think.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 5:48 AM on September 13, 2023 [1 favorite]

In the state of Washingtin a high majority of disabled people either cannot use a car due to their disability or cannot afford one or do not have regular access to one via a partner or family member

Hi, disabled driver in the state of Washington here, and I would *love* to know where you are getting your statistics about "high majority", given that ten percent of the entire population of the state of Washington are veterans, who have a larger-than-usual disability percentage, with 1/3 of the population of all veterans in the United States having an *identified and government recognized* disability, and also whom, by and large, tend to drive and also tend to have a higher proportion of certain disabilities that make driving much better than any other method of transit.

It is fine to say that not all disabled people need cars, or that you personally don't, but please don't make sweeping claims about the majority of a population without evidence.
posted by corb at 5:59 AM on September 13, 2023 [8 favorites]

I saw 5 Criuse vehicles in my neighborhood the other night, with no one in any of them

If there are no passengers in them, then the stats for 'passenger accidents per mile' will be much lower - they can't be killed or injured if the passenger doesn't exist!
Perhaps the next stage will be deliberately programming empty robo-taxis to crash into one another so that the figures for passenger survival in an accident trend towards zero.
posted by Lanark at 6:00 AM on September 13, 2023 [6 favorites]

The only problem with driverless cars is the future being advocated by those who are enthusiastically advancing them. While there is certainly a place for autonomous vehicles, all of these visions of a driverless car future where people can watch movies on their way to the office, avoid all traffic jams because of perfect car-to-car communication, and then let their car earn extra income during the day acting as an autonomous taxi are pure 100% late-stage capitalist nightmare dystopia bullshit. It's a future where instead of addressing any of the fundamental problems car-ownership has introduced to society, we double-down on them. Public transit? Affordable housing? Equitable opportunities? Fuck, no. We have driverless cars!

Driverless cars are the last refuge of those who desperately want to keep the status quo.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 6:10 AM on September 13, 2023 [23 favorites]

>who desperately want to keep the status quo

These days Japan couldn't even build Japan the way it is now.

California's middle is a tabula rasa more or less but can't get the train built since it's impossible to push HSR into the places with people.

things can only evolve/devolve at this point.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 6:24 AM on September 13, 2023 [2 favorites]

I would think they will prove more resource-consuming than the one-time capital purchase I made in 2018 for my LEAF (which I plan on driving for the next 12 years or so).

I thought you were hoping to replace it with a Cybertruck when they enter mass production.
posted by ambrosen at 6:27 AM on September 13, 2023 [2 favorites]

Is there regulatory framework that can result in jail time for managers/execs/owners that fake the data? Because we've got that for pharma testing/manufacturing and folks STILL cheat.
posted by Slackermagee at 6:28 AM on September 13, 2023 [4 favorites]

@corb: this org has been doing work in this area for several years now. They got a study funded at the state level to answer questions like this. Disabled people in WA are disproportionately less wealthy so even many folks who are disabled and would prefer to drive cannot. We have folks in wheel chairs all over the state having to roll in the street next to 50 mph cars because of lack of sidewalks. This is why I get so annoyed at the assumption that cars are critical. I mostly only hear the argument from non-disabled people at public meetings where someone is upset about losing parking. But you can’t say that’s why so they’ll say “disabled people” even when a project maintains disabled parking access.
posted by R343L at 6:36 AM on September 13, 2023 [9 favorites]

Here are the statistics on disabilities and driving in the US. Have at it.

I can't drive and live in Texas, so self-driving cars could theoretically give me more independence than I currently have. Given a choice, I would rather limit myself to my walking radius and rely on the goodwill of my community than have unregulated and unaccountable multi-ton robots passing in front of my house daily.
posted by tofu_crouton at 6:36 AM on September 13, 2023 [8 favorites]

Citation, please

Sure; post-traumatic stress disorder often creates symptoms similar to/is comorbid with agoraphobia, which has a lot of outside factors but one of the main DSM-V criteria is fear or anxiety around public transportation (in part because of the crowds, lack of control, and lack of easy exit). Driving is often better because it creates a self-enclosed space which causes the illusion of being in a small area. Proportion of veterans with post traumatic stress vary greatly according to who you're asking because there's a lot of financial/political interest - studies and surveys from veterans resource groups include stats as high as 80% of post 9/11 vets, with the VA giving the range of "somewhere between 8 and 35 percent of all veterans" Regardless of who we believe, I think we can safely say that it's higher than the average civilian population. It's something that I see a lot of personally, given who I am and who a lot of my friends are.

It's particularly frustrating, because I think often people kind of make assumptions that anyone not wanting to be around masses of other people (on public transportation, walking, biking, etc) must be doing so because they're just kind of selfish monsters only caring about their own convenience, rather than the fact that doing literally anything else will often leave someone completely unable to function or sleep for 24 hours afterwards.
posted by corb at 6:38 AM on September 13, 2023 [4 favorites]

don't let them spin the narrative this way
posted by AlbertCalavicci at 6:42 AM on September 13, 2023 [1 favorite]

Driverless cars may be worse at detecting children and people with darker skin, tests on artificial intelligence systems suggest.
posted by chariot pulled by cassowaries at 6:46 AM on September 13, 2023 [3 favorites]

Again if we had more options for folks NOT to drive it makes it easier for folks who do need that drive alone option to not be stuck in soul destroying traffic. (Nearly) Everyone driving for everything is bad for us all.
posted by R343L at 6:47 AM on September 13, 2023 [7 favorites]

Re: being Disabled and using public transport.

Many buses do not have tie-down systems for wheelchairs.

Over 10 years ago, the bus I was in turned a corner and myself and my power wheelchair were THROWN ACROSS THE AISLE and I landed, hard, on my left hip on the floor of the bus with 150 kilograms (330 pounds) of power wheelchair on top of me.

Prior to this, I did not have pain in my left hip.

Since this incident, I have significantly disabling chronic pain in my left hip, even 10 years later. And it could have been much worse - I could easily have sustained a serious brain injury or even been killed.

There is a reason that many Disabled people are only able to SAFELY travel by wheelchair taxi.

(There are also issues with trains, which I might elaborate on in a separate comment)
posted by chariot pulled by cassowaries at 6:51 AM on September 13, 2023 [4 favorites]

This is impressive because these statistics reflect more than 2 million miles of driving (a Waymo spokeswoman told me the company has logged more than 1 million miles in San Francisco since the start of 2023). The National Highway Traffic Safety Board estimates that there are around 6 million car crashes reported to the police each year. Americans drive around 3 trillion miles per year, so roughly speaking, a “major” crash occurs on the roads once every 500,000 miles.

These stats barely have any relation to each other because they self driving side eliminates practically all the poor driving conditions like snow, ice, rural highways, flooding, weather in general, etc. Plus we shouldn't let self driving cars operate if they are merely better than the average driver. They need to be better than the sober, alert, awake, experienced driver.

the computer, I promise you, does not give a hoot about the gay bar.

And no restaurateur would close on Sundays for religious reasons or refuse to provide web services for religious reasons, or refuse to provide prescription medicine for religious reasons, or refuse to provide health services for religious reasons, or refuse to provide counciling to gay people, or black people. No business would refuse to provide mortgages to black people, or taxi service to black neighbourhoods. No business would refuse to do business with pregnant people.

No. Wait. That happens all the time. The right to discriminate in such cases often being enabled and enshrined by law because so many businesses demanded the right and ability to do so.

more robots should result in less jams, eventually, especially once car-to-car communication links are established.

This doesn't follow at all. At worst the number of miles per trip will double. And that assumes people don't move further out because they don't have to pay attention during their drive. And it ignores the miles autonomous cars might spend driving to and from depots or pre positioning on spec. If nothing else changes a significantly large autonomous fleet could mean traffic chaos.

And it'll be a long time if ever before the fleet will be so large that intrafleet communication will be able to operate without the interference of old school cars and drivers. Just getting the law changed to eliminate the restrictions on convoying will be an up hill battle fought by every driver caught up in or behind defacto rolling blockades.

Also my understanding is that speed limits are defacto ignored by much of the US driving public. Self driving cars will drive the posted limit to the best of their ability and that alone will result in a reduction in throughput.
posted by Mitheral at 6:58 AM on September 13, 2023 [4 favorites]

but can't get the train built since it's impossible to push HSR into the places with people.

Putting aside rabid NIMBYism for the moment, it is harder to get infrastructure to places with people, but only because we now care much more about communities and the environment than we once did. It is true that a lot of our current infrastructure only exists because generations ago planners didn't think anything was wrong with bulldozing through minority neighborhoods or paving over wetlands. We've made the collective decision that we don't want to repeat those mistakes. We have processes in place where we (attempt) to address the concerns of impacted communities while examining how the benefits of infrastructure an provide for them, and that's a Good Thing. Yes, it makes projects harder to execute and more expensive to build, but that's the cost of doing business.

Driverless cars represent the status quo because they're intended to preserve the same car-oriented society, now with extra rent-seeking as subscribing to autonomous taxis becomes the preferred car-alternative.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 6:58 AM on September 13, 2023 [5 favorites]

I'm not disagreeing that less people driving would be better; but I ask people to both remember that often other people with disabilities are in the room, and also that all disabilities are not alike, and travel-impacting disabilities are not limited to physical mobility-impacting disabilities that can be addressed by parking access.

How you talk about things matters, and it's important not to stigmatize people who make other choices. I'm pretty open about being disabled on multiple axises, with one of those being psychiatric. But not everyone is going to feel comfortable talking about that; there's still a lot of shame, especially for people around my age (Gen X). Sometimes people don't always even think about these things in those terms - they may know that if they ride public transit that they are nauseous and stressed and snap at their family and can't do anything for the rest of the day, but they may not know that it's because they are Disabled and have a Disability. So just because you see someone talking at a meeting about the importance of cars to them or their family, and they aren't visibly disabled and haven't identified themselves as disabled doesn't mean they aren't.
posted by corb at 7:00 AM on September 13, 2023 [6 favorites]

I thought you were hoping to replace it with a Cybertruck when they enter mass production.

2035 sounds about right then.
posted by Mitheral at 7:01 AM on September 13, 2023 [2 favorites]

Sure; post-traumatic stress disorder often creates symptoms similar to/is comorbid with agoraphobia, which has a lot of outside factors but one of the main DSM-V criteria is fear or anxiety around public transportation (in part because of the crowds, lack of control, and lack of easy exit). Driving is often better because it creates a self-enclosed space which causes the illusion of being in a small area.

That's not a citation showing direct links between veterans and inability to use transportation other than a personal vehicle. Those are figures about veterans, but nothing specifically about veterans and driving, and certainly nothing that supports any insistence that public transportation or pedestrian policies would be some sort of unsubstantiated attack on the autonomy of veterans. In fact, there seems to be evidence that PTSD among veterans actually makes them worse drivers, and therefore more dangerous on the road.

For instance: Problematic driving in former service members: An evaluation of the Driving Behavior Survey in veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder

Motor vehicle collisions are identified as the leading cause of accidental death in military veterans (U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 2009) with multiple studies suggesting elevated risk in former service members relative to the population as a whole (e.g., Bullman et al., 2017; Lincoln et al., 2006; Watanabe & Kang, 1996; but see Kang & Bullman, 1996). Veteran status is also associated with an increase in the occurrence of traffic violations and non-fatal accidents (e.g., Amick, Kraft, & McGlinchey, 2013). Difficulties with travel-related hypervigilance, disorientation, and aggression are shown to be further elevated in service members with symptoms of posttraumatic stress (Classen et al., 2017; Kuhn, Drescher, Ruzek, & Rosen, 2010; Lew et al., 2011), placing this population at greater risk for negative social, health, and financial outcomes associated with collisions and repeated citations (e.g., Hickling, Blanchard, Silverman, & Schwarz, 1992; Mayou, Bryant, & Ehlers, 2001; Possis et al., 2014).

Driving Difficulties Among Military Veterans: Clinical Needs and Current Intervention Status

Several empirical investigations have examined risky driving among military personnel. To illustrate, in a sample of 429 Army soldiers hospitalized for motor vehicle injuries, risky driving behaviors (e.g., driving under the influence of alcohol, speeding, less frequent use of seatbelts) were common and predictive of need for hospitalization following a motor vehicle crash. Among 474 veterans receiving residential treatment for PTSD, approximately 20% of the sample reported tailgating, cutting off, or chasing another driver during the past months and two-thirds of the sample reported aggressive driving. Furthermore, risky driving behaviors were more common among veterans than among the general population. A large percentage (20%) of military armed forces from the United Kingdom can be classified as risky drivers, as defined by not wearing a seatbelt or speeding. Others have similarly found that among U.S. veterans receiving outpatient mental health and primary care services, a significant percentage of individuals reported racing cars (24%), sacrificing safety for speed (37%), and cutting off or chasing another driver (27%). In sum, considerable research suggests veterans struggle with risky driving behavior.

posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 7:02 AM on September 13, 2023 [5 favorites]

I am of the obviously uninformed opinion that we should have less vehicles on the roads overall

FEWER vehicles < /stannis >
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 7:04 AM on September 13, 2023 [4 favorites]

Some of the reasons I can't safely catch trains:

a) The gap between the train and the platform is often too great - my power wheelchair can get stuck in the gap;

b) I am trapped in a small space with strangers, who often physically grab me [which can seriously injure me, or aggravate my chronic pain for weeks] or threaten me for the crime of being Disabled in public. Being a wheelchair user on the train often means you are trapped, and cannot get away from a threatening or dangerous individual. And if there is a person in the train carriage who is unsafe due to alcohol/drugs/mental illness, that person will always make a beeline for the wheelchair user as their first target, as you are seen as being different and also as being an easy target;

c) The lifts break down regularly, and are often out of order for 12 weeks, which means that you can get off the train only to discover the lift is out of order and be unable to get off the platform - you have to wait for a second train to take you to a different station;

d) If trains get cancelled and replaced with rail replacement buses, many rail replacement buses are not wheelchair accessible. Even if the buses are NOMINALLY wheelchair accessible, the drivers often don't know how to operate the wheelchair ramp safely (or in many cases, at all);

e) COVID risk due to lack of adequate ventilation, and the fact that sneezing coughing people blithely catch the train without face masks;

f) people wear perfume and spray-on-deoderant and body spray that is so strong that it can give me migraines that render me unable to function normally for up to 3 DAYS.
posted by chariot pulled by cassowaries at 7:06 AM on September 13, 2023 [7 favorites]

FEWER vehicles

Less vehicle would also be good, at least for anyone on the outside.
posted by Mitheral at 7:07 AM on September 13, 2023 [5 favorites]

Also my understanding is that speed limits are defacto ignored by much of the US driving public. Self driving cars will drive the posted limit to the best of their ability and that alone will result in a reduction in throughput.

Reducing travel speeds to the 40-50mph region creates optimum throughput, hence why the widest road in the world, Houston's Katy Freeway with 26 lanes can cope with at most 280,000 vehicles per day whereas the 10 lanes of M25 junction 13-14 manage 200,000 by using variable speed limits.
posted by ambrosen at 7:10 AM on September 13, 2023 [4 favorites]

Self driving cars will drive the posted limit to the best of their ability and that alone will result in a reduction in throughput.

That's assuming self driving cars obey the speed limit. I see lots of Teslas driving around town, but I've yet to ever get stuck behind one doggedly following the speed limit. Given the intersection of cars with masculinity, I don't doubt some manufacturer will begin selling self-driving functionality that is more aggressive than their competition.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 7:13 AM on September 13, 2023 [2 favorites]

One of the recent events where I saw the org that R343L links to above was a listening session for (Seattle maybe?) to listen to disability advocates putting down their needs for the services that these AVs would need to offer to use the service. Things like loading a wheelchair into the vehicle. Ways to address elevated curbs.

None of the services currently rises to the standards asked for, but they've said to do so would be "trivial." But if it isn't table stakes for allowing them on the streets at all, what incentive do they have to address this when they roll out to "mainstream?" This is a systemic problems sausage factory - the inflection point of exclusionary service emerging in this space. If we're serious about this talking point of "AVs address mobility issues for the disabled," specific requirements for addressing it should be centered in the discussion.

Link to additional research presented at that session.
posted by SoundInhabitant at 7:14 AM on September 13, 2023 [10 favorites]

As a person of post-traumatic experience, cars are terrifying and I'm not sure how immersing oneself in one of the deadliest, most aggressive experiences the average American engages in is all that great for managing ptsd. Public transportation has a different set of triggers that suck too. Hell, I've struggled to use my bike for years since a ptsd-related traffic incident.

One thing I'm sure of, though, is that my roommate's ptsd-fueled driving is absolutely putting the lives of everyone around them at risk. I'd rather she owned a self-driving dystopiamobile than a driver's license. A private vehicle as an adequate solution to unmanaged hypervigilance and aggression is a terrifying proposition.
posted by polyhedron at 7:19 AM on September 13, 2023 [3 favorites]

In fact, there seems to be evidence that PTSD among veterans actually makes them worse drivers, and therefore more dangerous on the road.

Leaving aside the frustrating implication that it sounds like you are suggesting that disabled people like me should just, I don't know, wall ourselves up in our houses and die, I think this is an excellent point towards the idea that if self-driving cars could be made safer, that it could address the needs of both people with certain kinds of disabilities and improve safety outcomes overall. I think this is probably also the case with people who suffer from physical or mental impairments which don't block them from driving overall, but where self-driving cars could probably improve on their driving and make things overall safer. For example: age-related vision impairment, or I believe ADHD was mentioned as an issue in another thread.
posted by corb at 7:20 AM on September 13, 2023 [1 favorite]

Leaving aside the frustrating implication that it sounds like you are suggesting that disabled people like me should just, I don't know, wall ourselves up in our houses and die

What the actual fuck? This is such a bad faith take that I don't think you actually read the comment or the links.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 7:28 AM on September 13, 2023 [11 favorites]

It is true that a lot of our current infrastructure only exists because generations ago planners didn't think anything was wrong with bulldozing through minority neighborhoods or paving over wetlands. We've made the collective decision that we don't want to repeat those mistakes.

That's not really true. Some projects EIS (environmental impact statements) are required for, and some aren't. The public meetings for highway projects are generally done after the land has been purchased, which is done over many years to limit complaints.

Reducing travel speeds to the 40-50mph region creates optimum throughput, hence why the widest road in the world, Houston's Katy Freeway with 26 lanes can cope with at most 280,000 vehicles per day whereas the 10 lanes of M25 junction 13-14 manage 200,000 by using variable speed limits.

Also not true. The throughput of a road is not determined by speed (because roads are not water), but by where all the drivers are going. If lots of drivers are entering or exiting, then the throughput is reduced. To maximize the throughput of the M25, it has very few exits. The Katy Freeway has one at least every mile, often more than that. Highways that are actually designed to be bypass options and not carry local traffic can carry 200k in 2-3 lanes each direction.
posted by The_Vegetables at 7:32 AM on September 13, 2023 [1 favorite]

Like, you're the one who discounted non-car options out of hand, if you think that vets only have the options to die or murder someone with a car rather than take a bus, that's all in your head.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 7:33 AM on September 13, 2023 [7 favorites]

if you think that vets only have the options to die or murder someone with a car rather than take a bus, that's all in your head

The fact that you felt it was reasonable to respond to a veteran with PTSD and agoraphobia giving a heartfelt "this affects me and my friends, I am asking for empathy and for people to recognize the impact of their words" with a "it's all in your head" brought me to literal tears and made me have to exit a classroom just now so that I can compose myself.

If I want to participate in this world, and have hope for the future (which, by the way, keeps people alive), I need to leave the house. I do not have the ability to pay for a taxi or a personal driver or a live in caretaker to drive me everywhere. I am aware of the connection between PTSD and driving. I see my friends die every year. But I don't have any better options. Nor did you offer me any - just try to make me feel guilt and shame about the one that I have.

Congratulations, you win. I'm out of this fucking thread. And my class, and probably the internet for the day. Thanks.
posted by corb at 7:42 AM on September 13, 2023 [10 favorites]

Mod note: Gentle reminder that everyone is fighting a personal battle that others don't know about, so please be kind and gentle and avoid jumping to conclusions.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 7:46 AM on September 13, 2023 [4 favorites]

Mod note: Comment removed. See above mod comment and if you feel you can't follow that suggestion, please walk away from the thread for a bit, thank you.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 7:57 AM on September 13, 2023 [1 favorite]

As to driverless cars not dropping you off at some particular place for “reasons,” I have a different question. Waymo = Google. I have come to hate Google maps, because the maps are now covered by paid for ads locating various businesses, etc. and it’s really difficult to find the street names on the maps. So, you get into a Waymo taxi, the destination is specified, and as you ride, you get a running monologue about all the various ad demarcated places along the way. Maybe even a suggestion as to a better place to go than the one you wanted. Almost every cab I’ve been in over the years had a couple print ads on the back of the front seat which you could easily ignore. The future will bring us an onslaught of sound and video ads nonstop in these vehicles. Driverless cars are just another ad delivery system. Waymo = Google: Ads = $$$. And don’t believe this isn’t coming to personal cars too. Smart TVs are both ad delivery and surveillance machines. Cars are surveillance machines now. Ads are coming.
posted by njohnson23 at 8:12 AM on September 13, 2023 [5 favorites]

Why is human car driving our safety goal? Car collisions are killing 40K people a year in the US alone. Why is that our safety threshold?

Why not target a better safety goal, like human bike riding?

(Not to mention the safety of climate change, tire particulates, other effects on the environment and health.)

It's like saying toddler gun deaths are a big problem, so let's give toddlers lower caliber guns to play with.
posted by splitpeasoup at 9:16 AM on September 13, 2023 [4 favorites]

Did the climate apocalypse and mass extinction crisis write this?

Public transit expansion is a necessity for both the climate, human safety, and disability access. I appreciate people with disabilities speaking up in this thread and I reject a false dichotomy between transit and disability access.
posted by latkes at 9:28 AM on September 13, 2023 [15 favorites]

Cars won't go away. Ever. Too many people have them and will never vote for anyone who wants to replace driving with waiting at a bus stop and sitting on a bus next to the people they are trying desperately to avoid.

All you can do is make cars cleaner and smaller and safer. And probably self-driving.
posted by pracowity at 10:05 AM on September 13, 2023 [1 favorite]

Too many people have them and will never vote for anyone who wants to replace driving with waiting at a bus stop

No one is suggesting that cars be replaced. The question is whether we invest in the kinds of infrastructure and development that could offer a realistic alternative to cars, or do we just continue to let cars define everything hoping that the magic AI fairies will somehow make things better?

Do we want a future with where resources (affordable housing, schools, hospitals, stores, employment, transportation etc) are within easy reach of all communities, or do we want a techbro hellscape future where your 2 hour ultra-commute from the exurbs is only tempered by the ability to perform your job while your car gets you to and from the office?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 10:27 AM on September 13, 2023 [10 favorites]

Driverless cars are the last refuge of those who desperately want to keep the status quo.

As a non driver, I disagree completely. I would love to get rid of the human drivers in the road, because I hate the status quo.

In a world where autonomous cars space human driven cars, we almost certainly get away from individual ownership of cars. This has the effect of making people thinking about how they're going to make each trip, instead of relying on the default sunk cost in their garage. This means the time, cost, and convenience comes into play when choosing between a car, bus, bicycle, ferry, or whatever, in a way that it often doesn't today for drivers. I expect this will lead to more demand for public transit options, not less.
posted by kaibutsu at 10:36 AM on September 13, 2023 [5 favorites]

Also, why not both? Our cities must be redesigned regardless of whether or not cars drive themselves or not. Car storage is choking cities. Moving cars is choking cities. Auto emissions are literally choking cities. Suburbs included.
posted by wierdo at 10:39 AM on September 13, 2023 [1 favorite]

Congratulations everyone! All those CAPTCHAs where we have to select tiny pictures with traffic lights forever finally paid off! (jk)

If we step back and look at how devalued public goods have become, like public transit, autonomous cars at this point are another neoliberal solution to what really is a problem of capitalism. As a technology, are they any good? I dunno. Maybe. As a solution do they even get to the root of the legacy problems of planning, erosion of the social safety net, etc. etc.? Not really. Could they be part of a solution if we addressed all the underlying stuff? Maybe! The whole solution? Don't think so.

I love the idea of 15 minute cities where people can reach 90% of their needs within 15 minutes. But that's a huge shift given that planning has been so heavily influenced by partisan politics, racism, gentrification, etc. and that's resulted in things just being too far apart and populations being forced to go long distances for essentials (groceries, medical care, etc.). What we need is density. Even in rural areas (where I am) a certain amount of density for the average person's day-to-day could be possible if areas weren't underserved. But again, this all relies on a revitalization of our public goods, and not doing things because they make a profit - which is exactly where we are regarding public transit... and exactly where we'll wind up with autonomous vehicles.

And just another thought - working from home! I've been able to reduce my car use to 3 days a week. But I have a 50 minute (round trip) commute on those days. The only real reason I can see for having to go in the office 3 days a week is because the corporate sentiment in most places is that people can't be trusted to work from home, but they've thrown us a bone because COVID. I could likely do my job 80% from home, and reduce my car use even more (possibly to the point where my household could become a 1 vehicle household). But that would require a shift in thinking away from our usual capitalist mindset.

So yeah. I think our woes are much more complicated than "are autonomous vehicles safe or not"...
posted by eekernohan at 10:44 AM on September 13, 2023 [4 favorites]

In a world where autonomous cars space human driven cars, we almost certainly get away from individual ownership of cars.

We already live in a world where Zip Cars and Uber exist. Neither of those things got us away from the individual ownership of cars. This expectation that if only cars were autonomous, we'd completely transition to some sort of on-demand ride system seems a bit like wishful thinking.

I expect this will lead to more demand for public transit options, not less.

There's plenty of demand for public transit options now and yet very little gets built.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 10:50 AM on September 13, 2023 [5 favorites]

The problem I always have with these comparisons is I don't see links to actual research. I just see stats for X miles per fatal crash on Y company compared against the entire US human population. I never see comparisons between like populations.

These autonomous vehicles are in really specific spots operating at specific times of day. Similarly, for Teslas, a specific set of humans in a specific set of areas are ones more likely to be driving Teslas with the FSD beta.

I'm not seeing a lot in the way of "we compared these two data sets specifically", but I don't really know how to look for it outside of news articles like these.
posted by Room 101 at 11:08 AM on September 13, 2023 [6 favorites]

>that if only cars were autonomous, we'd completely transition to some sort of on-demand

Well without the driver labor the theory is ridesharing will be $1/mile or so:

“Autonomous ride-hail operators should be able to curtail execution costs, importantly, the cost of finding a good driver,” the analyst wrote, adding that this would be akin to how Zillow eliminates search costs, Airbnb ensures fair transaction costs and Amazon eliminates distribution costs.”
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 11:23 AM on September 13, 2023 [1 favorite]

If only cost to consumer was based on cost to produce!
posted by tofu_crouton at 11:32 AM on September 13, 2023 [2 favorites]

> I thought you were hoping to replace it with a Cybertruck when they enter mass production

I’ll be keeping the LEAF for in-town driving

The Cybertruck will be for holiday travel… and perhaps to cart me around town when in my 70s …
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 11:37 AM on September 13, 2023 [1 favorite]

FWIW, Cruise actually operates mainly at night in SF. I was forced out of Miami thanks to absurdly high rents, so I can't say when their Miami cars are on the road. The state sure as shit ain't gonna say. (Or require them to publish the same statistics they do in California)
posted by wierdo at 11:39 AM on September 13, 2023 [1 favorite]

People who won’t take public transit because icky won’t ride share in cars that the public have access to. Rideshare therefore can’t replace public transit. (Maybe we’ll reintroduce first, worker, and hard seat class. Make that explicit.)
posted by clew at 11:39 AM on September 13, 2023 [2 favorites]

Well without the driver labor the theory is ridesharing will be $1/mile or so:

I think we've just answered the earlier question as to why "as good as the average human" is the safety standard everyone's trying to meet. That's all they need to move fast, break things, capture any attempts at regulation.

The Cybertruck will be for holiday travel… and perhaps to cart me around town when in my 70s …

Owning a cybertruck seems kind of short-sighted given that autonomous rideshare vehicles will reduce the cost of a ride to $1/mi.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 11:42 AM on September 13, 2023 [3 favorites]

Cars won't go away. Ever.

So Europeans in the 1970s had the same sense of car inevitability and fatalism that Americans do today. Cars ruled the roads, and the deaths and pollution they caused were accepted as inevitable. But then something remarkable happened.

Today, we take for granted that Amsterdam and Copenhagen are walkable and bikeable in a way that no American city can ever possibly be. But it wasn't always like this, and it didn't happen by chance. It was the result of a hard and bitterly fought battle over many years and by many people. It was the result of people believing that cars were not inevitable, that a better world was possible. And today, we see the results in these places, where car trips are the minority of urban travel.

If you sit on your hands, cars won't go away. But history and the examples of other movements have shown us that we can determine the future, we don't have to lie back and take it.
posted by splitpeasoup at 12:00 PM on September 13, 2023 [24 favorites]

FEWER vehicles < /stannis >

Come for the outrage, stay for the pedantry.
posted by Devils Rancher at 12:17 PM on September 13, 2023 [4 favorites]

I also want to approach this from a European perspective; the roads in many European areas are so different from American road planning that I don’t understand how it could possibly be useful to train cars in America. And that’s before we get to the question of car culture and how users operate - for instance, in countries like italy rules are regarded as a sort of suggestion. In France people stop on roundabouts to let people on, whereas in Austria people treat them as bendy bits of road, but stop at every pedestrian crossing if a person is even near it. Good luck programming these social differences into your autonomous system.
posted by The River Ivel at 12:56 PM on September 13, 2023 [3 favorites]

All you can do is make cars cleaner and smaller and safer. And probably self-driving.

And with some public will to develop mass transit infrastructure alongside, we can also make them become more few.

We need to do both.
posted by Devils Rancher at 2:02 PM on September 13, 2023 [2 favorites]

“Autonomous ride-hail operators should be able to curtail execution costs, importantly, the cost of finding a good driver,” the analyst wrote, adding that this would be akin to how Zillow eliminates search costs, Airbnb ensures fair transaction costs and Amazon eliminates distribution costs.”

... and once they've captured enough ridership they'll raise rates and stop doing any unprofitable or undesirable runs to distant or poor neighborhoods. Because they are private companies. They have no mandate to serve the public- something that everyone that says public utilities (like transit) should be run like private companies conveniently forgets. These companies exist to make shareholders money.
posted by oneirodynia at 2:27 PM on September 13, 2023 [7 favorites]

The top selling vehicle in Canada has been the Ford F-150 for 13 consecutive years now, and passenger cars are also about the same share of 20% new car sales. The Canadian and American auto markets are basically the same.
I don't think Australia is that different, either. Top-selling cars this year are:
Toyota HiLux
Ford Ranger
MG ZS
Tesla Model Y
Toyota RAV4
Isuzu D-Max
Mazda CX-5
Mitsubishi Outlander
Hyundai i30
Hyundai Tucson

Historically, the top-selling cars in Australia were large sedans from 1977-2010, small hatchbacks from 2011-2015 and twin-cab utilities (known as trucks in the US - much smaller than an F-150, but still of significant size with the high stance that makes them so dangerous to pedestrians etc) have held a strong lead since 2016.

I don't think the style of cars is the cause of relatively huge numbers of fatal accidents in the US. The common theme is the drivers. I don't know what it is about US drivers (and no doubt other countries) that makes them so dangerous, but it could be lower use of seatbelts, which massively increases the likelihood of a fatality.

I can see a future where all cars are autonomous at least in specific areas like big cities. I don't see it happening everywhere because there's not enough profit in servicing suburban and remote areas. The only way this would happen would be through public funding combined with legislation banning human-driven cars. I can't see a future where any government will be brave enough to pass legislation that will see them voted out at the earliest possible opportunity. If we somehow end up in that future, there's first going to be a horrible transition period where human-driven cars are mixing with autonomous cars. Humans are reasonably good at predicting the unpredictable ways other humans operate, but building an autonomous car that can do the same is enormously difficult when they have to also deal with human drivers and their unpredictable stupidity.
posted by dg at 3:49 PM on September 13, 2023 [1 favorite]

I don't think the style of cars is the cause of relatively huge numbers of fatal accidents in the US.

I actually think it's a huge part of it, if I recall correctly? Our cars are often taller and heavier than in years past and that pushes up fatalities.
posted by tiny frying pan at 4:50 PM on September 13, 2023 [1 favorite]

Gen Z has far fewer people getting drivers licenses, thanks to readily available ride sharing and increased costs of ownership. These things don't change overnight, but they are changing.
posted by kaibutsu at 5:54 PM on September 13, 2023 [4 favorites]

Why is human car driving our safety goal? Car collisions are killing 40K people a year in the US alone. Why is that our safety threshold?

Rather trivially, the point at which a self-driving car is safer than a sober driver is the point at which we should encourage all cars to be self-driving. It would make everyone better off. Doesn't mean it's the "goal" but it would be a meaningful milestone.

* * *
When I first learned a few details about the self-driving research I got (at least) two things wrong. One was boringly wrong, in that I was too credulous about timelines.

But the second mistake is I think more interesting. I assumed the real opposition was from the car culture people. People who like big cars and powerful engines. Assholes who think weaving in and of lanes proves their masculinity. I mean, I hate driving and loved the idea of not being behind the wheel. It could also be, rather obviously, the thin edge of the wedge in terms of opening up tighter safety laws, more rigorous accident analysis, and zero-tolerance for certain bad driving traits (like speeding in a school zone).

Instead, AFAICT, the break is more that the car people think "cool new add on" and the non-car people are reacting against that (plus the baseless hype, of course.)

Personally if you could make cars far safer and power them off a 100% renewable grid I'd be perfectly happy with them.

* * *
Gen Z has far fewer people getting drivers licenses, thanks to readily available ride sharing and increased costs of ownership. These things don't change overnight, but they are changing.

Using Uber or Lyft is obviously not reducing car reliance . . . and calling an Uber (or a self-driving car) of course increases the total miles a car is on the road for a given trip vs. private ownership & driving.
posted by mark k at 8:31 PM on September 13, 2023 [3 favorites]

I'm also interested in the stats about how many AVs run into each other. Ultimately if we have a goal of going completely or at least mostly AV then if they aren't running into each other, that's incredibly significant.
posted by thorny at 8:37 PM on September 13, 2023 [1 favorite]

"Using Uber or Lyft is obviously not reducing car reliance . . . "

That's not obvious at all. If you have to pay directly for every car trip, you will take fewer car trips and/or spread your trips over other modalities. In my own case, I bike most of the time, use public transport to cross bodies of water, and take a car share maybe once or twice a month.
posted by kaibutsu at 10:50 PM on September 13, 2023 [2 favorites]

Fair enough. My point was replacing trips in a car you own with trips in a car you don't own doesn't change anything for the better. IME that's what Uber does, but that's just my social circle: Mostly middle aged people who own a car but use Uber to move around with greater flexibility. (As a non-Uber user I'm far more likely to use transit, bike, or just plain not go out when I don't want to drive.)

But obviously not everyone reacts the same way to the new per-trip charge model.
posted by mark k at 11:21 PM on September 13, 2023 [1 favorite]

Also my understanding is that speed limits are defacto ignored by much of the US driving public. Self driving cars will drive the posted limit to the best of their ability and that alone will result in a reduction in throughput.

Really, are the thousand are so whimsical YouTube videos debunking this idea not enough? What will it take to kill this “intuition“ that a large percentage of human brains apparently have? Driving faster in the gaps reduces throughput. It doesn’t increase it. If that doesn’t make sense to you, find an enthusiastic teenager on YouTube to explain it to you. Make sure you click on an ad so they make a few cents for having done so.
posted by lastobelus at 9:24 AM on September 14, 2023 [4 favorites]

And realistically, if AV lowers the annual vehicle fatality and injury rate even 1%, isn't that better than not having AV?

It depends on the tradeoffs, right? If services like Waymo mean there are more cars on the road, that's a bad thing even if the casualty rate drops. If AVs lock us into the private car model instead of gradually moving toward less car-centric cities over time, that's a bad thing too. We can lower the road casualty rate by a lot more than 1% -- with or without AVs -- through interventions like better road design and alternative modes of transportation (which may not be an option in Houston, but certainly are in a place like San Francisco). The AV hype feels like a bit of a distraction from some of the unsexy but effective stuff we could be doing to make our cities more livable.
posted by Gerald Bostock at 9:42 AM on September 14, 2023 [5 favorites]

>given that autonomous rideshare vehicles will reduce the cost of a ride to $1/mi

my future Cybertruck will be more of an upfitted RV with the ability to live out of it for a week or three.

the in-town driving out in the 2030s will be more of a contingency thing. I've been driving for 40 years now, we'll see if I can do another 15 or not . . .
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 9:59 AM on September 14, 2023 [1 favorite]

(Apologies for the total detail, but Heywood Mogroot III, why a Cybertruck instead of a Rivian with the camping package including the pull-out kitchen shelf, then?)
posted by eviemath at 1:41 PM on September 14, 2023 [1 favorite]

Personally if you could make cars far safer and power them off a 100% renewable grid I'd be perfectly happy with them.

If tailpipe emissions were the only negative externality, so would I. Sadly, that is not the case. Rubber and brake dust are huge contributors to asthma among people who live near high traffic corridors. Stroads make walking and biking extremely inconvenient and unpleasant even after the danger of getting run into by a car is all but eliminated. Congestion caused by vast amounts of low occupancy traffic slows down buses and other public transportation that shares the same right of way. Dedicating space to parking makes building anything much more expensive in the best case or makes it impossible in the worst case, it takes up some of the most valuable land in the city, cutting tax revenue and forcing sprawl, and it makes the streetscape much less inviting to everyone, reducing overall economic activity.

It's fine for some cars to exist. We only need to look at Amsterdam to see that we don't have to eliminate them entirely to make massive improvements on many axes. We "just" need to discourage people from bringing them into cities, encourage people not to use them for every trip, and provide reasonable alternatives like separated bike paths and intersections that don't make people not in cars feel like they are taking a grave risk by trying to cross a road. Also, allow vehicles that amount to golf carts on those paths so people with disabilities that require them to use motorized four wheeled transport aren't left out.
posted by wierdo at 1:54 PM on September 14, 2023 [4 favorites]

>Rivian with the camping package including the pull-out kitchen shelf, then?

I hate CCS. only half the payload so can't carry a lot of water. I plan on pulling the back seating for more living space in the cab, and will wait to see what I can do with the "vault" area . . . suspect it will be devoted to 'smelly' activities like cooking, showering, etc.

The 2024 eSprinter looks to also be a good platform, but I do want something I can take on BLM land easily so the Cybertruck looks to be the better start.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 2:59 PM on September 14, 2023 [1 favorite]

CCS?
posted by eviemath at 7:08 PM on September 14, 2023 [1 favorite]

>Self driving cars will drive the posted limit to the best of their ability and that alone will result in a reduction in throughput.
This is an optimistic assumption. Tesla literally programmed (ON PURPOSE) their cars to drive through stop signs at 6 miles an hour. Only government action caused them to turn this feature off.
posted by mrgoldenbrown at 8:09 AM on September 16, 2023 [1 favorite]

CCS

In any case, Rivian will have gone full NACS by the time Cybertrucks are available in any volume.
posted by flabdablet at 8:30 AM on September 16, 2023