Ask Jevons
September 25, 2024 11:45 AM Subscribe
Although Americans say they remain wary of autonomous driving, boosters insist there is nothing to fear. In fact, they foresee roads full of self-driving cars that are both safer and cleaner than the status quo, a tantalizing prospect in a country where transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions and residents are several times more likely to die in a crash than those living in other rich nations. Enticing though they are, such arguments conceal a logical flaw. As a classic 19th-century theory known as a Jevons paradox explains, even if autonomous vehicles eventually work perfectly — an enormous “if” — they are likely to increase total emissions and crash deaths, simply because people will use them so much. from What a 160-year-old theory about coal predicts about our self-driving future [The Verge; ungated]
Automobiles are ingrained in the American psyche. They mean freedom. You'll never get rid of them. Our Amtrak trains are horrible. Our city's busses aren't much better. They're wonderful in Europe
..here, not to much
posted by Czjewel at 12:10 PM on September 25 [3 favorites]
..here, not to much
posted by Czjewel at 12:10 PM on September 25 [3 favorites]
I think the problem applying Jevon's paradox here is that there are only so many hours a day that people want to be in a vehicle, driver or no, so demand is capped.
posted by credulous at 12:25 PM on September 25 [5 favorites]
posted by credulous at 12:25 PM on September 25 [5 favorites]
It seems to me that we should consider whether or not
A) Does the Jevons paradox apply only when demand for the resource is unmet due to current economic constraints on it's deployment? See: greater efficiency in lighting leading to more lights deployed. People would have deployed more lights before the efficiency gains if they could have afforded them.
or
B) Is there no upper limit on consumption of any resource and any way of making it cheaper creates the demand?
Self driving cars might help tease this out- right now there is not a lot of demand for them, but if they are cheaper and more reliable (ie, ubiquitous) then people might decide they want them to use them more.
posted by keep_evolving at 12:28 PM on September 25 [2 favorites]
A) Does the Jevons paradox apply only when demand for the resource is unmet due to current economic constraints on it's deployment? See: greater efficiency in lighting leading to more lights deployed. People would have deployed more lights before the efficiency gains if they could have afforded them.
or
B) Is there no upper limit on consumption of any resource and any way of making it cheaper creates the demand?
Self driving cars might help tease this out- right now there is not a lot of demand for them, but if they are cheaper and more reliable (ie, ubiquitous) then people might decide they want them to use them more.
posted by keep_evolving at 12:28 PM on September 25 [2 favorites]
I've said this before in other threads about self-driving cars and I will repeat it again because it continues to astound me. Every single video, explainer, thinkpiece, visualization, whatever-have-you of our 100% autonomous vehicle future shows perfectly smooth traffic, but where are the pedestrians?
Maybe it's because I'm a city girl, but say I want to walk to the supermarket across the street to get some milk. There is infrastructure in place to allow me to walk and cross the street to get to the store and back safely. Yes, it relies on drivers actually obeying signals, and to pay attention in case any drivers don't, but it's generally safe and it's something urban planners account for. (Sometimes...) However, if the "street" is a four lane road of constantly moving autonomous vehicles optimized for throughput, how the fuck do I cross?
When I raise this issue, self-driving car wonks will often suggest installing pedestrian overpasses, and I'm sorry but those are an accessibility nightmare. ADA guidelines require one foot of run for every inch of rise, so a 12 foot high pedestrian overpass (which would still be too short to allow some vehicles to pass under it) would require a whopping 144 feet of ramp. Adding elevators and/or escalators would present a maintenance nightmare on top of that—and either way you're adding additional distance and friction between someone and their destination.
Self-driving vehicles aren't a solution, they're a miserable hack over existing bad infrastructure. Here's an idea: maybe instead of self-driving cars, you make self-driving busses that can carry a bunch of people instead of just a handful. Then, perhaps, you put a bunch of those busses together, link them up somehow. Maybe put them on a track so that they can travel relatively unimpeded. Perhaps, just perhaps, maybe we could then put that track in a tunnel under the ground. That would certainly be more effective than a bunch of autonomous individual vehicles on existing roads.
posted by SansPoint at 12:30 PM on September 25 [57 favorites]
Maybe it's because I'm a city girl, but say I want to walk to the supermarket across the street to get some milk. There is infrastructure in place to allow me to walk and cross the street to get to the store and back safely. Yes, it relies on drivers actually obeying signals, and to pay attention in case any drivers don't, but it's generally safe and it's something urban planners account for. (Sometimes...) However, if the "street" is a four lane road of constantly moving autonomous vehicles optimized for throughput, how the fuck do I cross?
When I raise this issue, self-driving car wonks will often suggest installing pedestrian overpasses, and I'm sorry but those are an accessibility nightmare. ADA guidelines require one foot of run for every inch of rise, so a 12 foot high pedestrian overpass (which would still be too short to allow some vehicles to pass under it) would require a whopping 144 feet of ramp. Adding elevators and/or escalators would present a maintenance nightmare on top of that—and either way you're adding additional distance and friction between someone and their destination.
Self-driving vehicles aren't a solution, they're a miserable hack over existing bad infrastructure. Here's an idea: maybe instead of self-driving cars, you make self-driving busses that can carry a bunch of people instead of just a handful. Then, perhaps, you put a bunch of those busses together, link them up somehow. Maybe put them on a track so that they can travel relatively unimpeded. Perhaps, just perhaps, maybe we could then put that track in a tunnel under the ground. That would certainly be more effective than a bunch of autonomous individual vehicles on existing roads.
posted by SansPoint at 12:30 PM on September 25 [57 favorites]
I think the problem applying Jevon's paradox here is that there are only so many hours a day that people want to be in a vehicle, driver or no, so demand is capped.
People who say induced demand is wrong get this same thing wrong too. The vast majority of time, people don't drive just to drive. They are trying to accomplish basic tasks that driving enables. If self-driving cars are amazing, are people just going to hang out in cars riding around, which would create demand, enabling Jevon's paradox? A few maybe? Are cars going to become rolling cube farms, increasing demand? I don't really think so....
posted by The_Vegetables at 12:32 PM on September 25 [1 favorite]
People who say induced demand is wrong get this same thing wrong too. The vast majority of time, people don't drive just to drive. They are trying to accomplish basic tasks that driving enables. If self-driving cars are amazing, are people just going to hang out in cars riding around, which would create demand, enabling Jevon's paradox? A few maybe? Are cars going to become rolling cube farms, increasing demand? I don't really think so....
posted by The_Vegetables at 12:32 PM on September 25 [1 favorite]
Sanspoint, you get it.
The idea that The Way Forward is self-driving cars, and also the idea that replacing every big gas-guzzling vehicle 1-to-1 with a big electricity-guzzling vehicle - they're both wack.
The way forward, besides better urban design and public transit, is fewer cars, and the few we end up with should be mostly small EVs. Which most of the western brands refuse to make, and we just slapped a 100% tariff on the Chinese EVs that are closer to the goal. Winning.
posted by Artful Codger at 12:35 PM on September 25 [11 favorites]
The idea that The Way Forward is self-driving cars, and also the idea that replacing every big gas-guzzling vehicle 1-to-1 with a big electricity-guzzling vehicle - they're both wack.
The way forward, besides better urban design and public transit, is fewer cars, and the few we end up with should be mostly small EVs. Which most of the western brands refuse to make, and we just slapped a 100% tariff on the Chinese EVs that are closer to the goal. Winning.
posted by Artful Codger at 12:35 PM on September 25 [11 favorites]
Since each self-driven mile creates some pollution and carries some risk of a crash death, the rise in total driving will counteract the theoretical climate or safety improvements over a single, otherwise identical human-driven journey.
Trivially, that depends on exactly how much “some” is. Intuitively I would think (in a best case for autonomous vehicle performance) that a net safety improvement is notably more likely than a net environmental impact reduction.
posted by atoxyl at 12:36 PM on September 25 [1 favorite]
Trivially, that depends on exactly how much “some” is. Intuitively I would think (in a best case for autonomous vehicle performance) that a net safety improvement is notably more likely than a net environmental impact reduction.
posted by atoxyl at 12:36 PM on September 25 [1 favorite]
I think the problem applying Jevon's paradox here is that there are only so many hours a day that people want to be in a vehicle, driver or no, so demand is capped.
But with self driving cars, I could finally live out my libertarian fantasy of owning a 5,000sqft home on ten acres in the exurbs while still commuting to my tech job in the big city! It's like being wealthy enough to have a chauffeur! And with recent developments in LLM AI's, I can spend my ride pontificating to my car about how important it is to colonize Mars within the next decade and how reusable rockets are finally going to get us there.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 12:38 PM on September 25 [18 favorites]
But with self driving cars, I could finally live out my libertarian fantasy of owning a 5,000sqft home on ten acres in the exurbs while still commuting to my tech job in the big city! It's like being wealthy enough to have a chauffeur! And with recent developments in LLM AI's, I can spend my ride pontificating to my car about how important it is to colonize Mars within the next decade and how reusable rockets are finally going to get us there.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 12:38 PM on September 25 [18 favorites]
Self driving cars will have big honking screens to watch stuff on
They will be metal-encased lounges from Wall-E
posted by torokunai at 12:39 PM on September 25 [3 favorites]
They will be metal-encased lounges from Wall-E
posted by torokunai at 12:39 PM on September 25 [3 favorites]
if we take car away from the majority of the population, it may then become easier to get them to use mass transit...
For values of we equal to absolutely no American politician who hopes to hold office in the next 20 years if ever.
The only practical or politically feasible way to get Americans to dump cars is No Way. Not unless you can will trillions of dollars into existence to rapidly, safely and effectively build the infrastructure needed to support connecting people to the locations they need to get to, almost all of which were selected on the assumption that cars are the foundation that makes such connectivity-of-people-and-services possible.
The driverless cars (which, personally, i dislike) will be seen to easily become part of that existing foundation, while simultaneously helping to achieve their creator/founder/funders’ goals of eliminating any of the friction that can arise from the burden of training, paying, or otherwise depending on a human variable in the equation. The people who fund, design, build and profit from self-driving cars aren’t doing that because they have any capability to understand what people need or would be best for individuals or society; their skillsets and mindsets are limited to achieving a certain and very different set of objectives .
posted by armoir from antproof case at 12:39 PM on September 25 [6 favorites]
For values of we equal to absolutely no American politician who hopes to hold office in the next 20 years if ever.
The only practical or politically feasible way to get Americans to dump cars is No Way. Not unless you can will trillions of dollars into existence to rapidly, safely and effectively build the infrastructure needed to support connecting people to the locations they need to get to, almost all of which were selected on the assumption that cars are the foundation that makes such connectivity-of-people-and-services possible.
The driverless cars (which, personally, i dislike) will be seen to easily become part of that existing foundation, while simultaneously helping to achieve their creator/founder/funders’ goals of eliminating any of the friction that can arise from the burden of training, paying, or otherwise depending on a human variable in the equation. The people who fund, design, build and profit from self-driving cars aren’t doing that because they have any capability to understand what people need or would be best for individuals or society; their skillsets and mindsets are limited to achieving a certain and very different set of objectives .
posted by armoir from antproof case at 12:39 PM on September 25 [6 favorites]
For a given route I don’t think a swarm of individual vehicles is ever going to be as energy efficient as mass transit, so the case that autonomous vehicles are bad from an environmental perspective seems easy to make. I don’t think it will ever be as safe, either, but people are pretty fucking bad at driving cars so making the same argument for safety still feels like more of a stretch.
posted by atoxyl at 12:42 PM on September 25 [7 favorites]
posted by atoxyl at 12:42 PM on September 25 [7 favorites]
Jevon's Paradox also assumes the 'miles go up' per person in a linear direction, but that's also not true.
US Passenger Miles of driving
Driving peaked in 2018, and has been trending downwards since. All those programs " Consider the projects undertaken by highway agencies to alleviate roadway congestion. " are fixing a problem that has already taken care of itself. They aren't to 'fix congestion', they are just stealth jobs programs.
posted by The_Vegetables at 12:45 PM on September 25 [1 favorite]
US Passenger Miles of driving
Driving peaked in 2018, and has been trending downwards since. All those programs " Consider the projects undertaken by highway agencies to alleviate roadway congestion. " are fixing a problem that has already taken care of itself. They aren't to 'fix congestion', they are just stealth jobs programs.
posted by The_Vegetables at 12:45 PM on September 25 [1 favorite]
atoxyl: The current generation of autonomous vehicles is pretty shit when it comes to safety, at least if you're a pedestrian. Honestly, driving is one of those situations with so many edge and corner cases that I can't see any sort of algorithm (or "AI") being able to do a better job than humans. The best we can probably hope for is "as bad as humans but in different ways." I mean, seriously, I want to see a Waymo or whatever self-driving car try to navigate rush hour traffic in Midtown Manhattan in the middle of a classic nor'easter, I just don't want to be on the streets while it's doing so.
posted by SansPoint at 12:48 PM on September 25 [8 favorites]
posted by SansPoint at 12:48 PM on September 25 [8 favorites]
Driving peaked in 2018, and has been trending downwards since. All those programs " Consider the projects undertaken by highway agencies to alleviate roadway congestion. " are fixing a problem that has already taken care of itself. They aren't to 'fix congestion', they are just stealth jobs programs.
Isn't it tremendously unfair to cite aggregate figures and then conclude that all current highway projects to alleviate congestion are unnecessary, sinister programs to keep people employed?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 12:49 PM on September 25 [6 favorites]
Isn't it tremendously unfair to cite aggregate figures and then conclude that all current highway projects to alleviate congestion are unnecessary, sinister programs to keep people employed?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 12:49 PM on September 25 [6 favorites]
Driving peaked in 2018, and has been trending downwards since.
That's not what the data shows. Driving peaked in 2019. You may remember something specific happened in 2020 that reduced driving significantly. Since then it has been at a slightly lower level than the peak, but not a downward trend. I don't think it is too hard to guess that what has happened is fewer people are driving to work (it remains to be seen how much that will rebound as more people head back into the office).
I have no doubt that people will drive more if they don't actually have to do the driving. More people will move further into the suburbs, more optional trips, and so on. Of course, traffic getting a lot worse will balance that somewhat.
posted by ssg at 1:00 PM on September 25 [8 favorites]
That's not what the data shows. Driving peaked in 2019. You may remember something specific happened in 2020 that reduced driving significantly. Since then it has been at a slightly lower level than the peak, but not a downward trend. I don't think it is too hard to guess that what has happened is fewer people are driving to work (it remains to be seen how much that will rebound as more people head back into the office).
I have no doubt that people will drive more if they don't actually have to do the driving. More people will move further into the suburbs, more optional trips, and so on. Of course, traffic getting a lot worse will balance that somewhat.
posted by ssg at 1:00 PM on September 25 [8 favorites]
The Jevons Paradox always gets wheeled out any time some PR outfit gets a round of funding to prop up a horribly inefficient status quo. But the thing to know about it is that after the dust settles, most of most efficiency improvements do wind up sticking around. What really matters is the extent to which cost is the major factor limiting demand.
Take LED lighting as an example. LED lighting is about ten times as energy efficient as incandescent, so if the Jevons Paradox was all it's cracked up to be, we'd expect to see every room in every house run lighting about ten times as bright as what used to be there before LED lighting became available. We don't, because as it turns out, we don't want our indoor spaces ten times as brightly lit. We'd rather spend what we save on running our new, cheaper lights on other things.
On the other hand, induced demand has almost always made building more freeways a waste of publlc funds and not worth the resulting urban blight.
Some degree of rebound is only to be expected, but whether it's likely to be enough to cancel an efficiency gain entirely has to be assessed case by case.
I wouldn't expect autonomous cars to induce significantly more demand for cars than we already see; I think the market is pretty close to saturation already. I also don't expect to see autonomous cars on the roads in significant numbers except in very well mapped cities whose traffic is mostly fairly orderly. Generalized driving skill and the ability to react safely to the unanticipated is much harder to program than most of the robot taxi fanbois ever really allow for.
posted by flabdablet at 1:04 PM on September 25 [17 favorites]
Take LED lighting as an example. LED lighting is about ten times as energy efficient as incandescent, so if the Jevons Paradox was all it's cracked up to be, we'd expect to see every room in every house run lighting about ten times as bright as what used to be there before LED lighting became available. We don't, because as it turns out, we don't want our indoor spaces ten times as brightly lit. We'd rather spend what we save on running our new, cheaper lights on other things.
On the other hand, induced demand has almost always made building more freeways a waste of publlc funds and not worth the resulting urban blight.
Some degree of rebound is only to be expected, but whether it's likely to be enough to cancel an efficiency gain entirely has to be assessed case by case.
I wouldn't expect autonomous cars to induce significantly more demand for cars than we already see; I think the market is pretty close to saturation already. I also don't expect to see autonomous cars on the roads in significant numbers except in very well mapped cities whose traffic is mostly fairly orderly. Generalized driving skill and the ability to react safely to the unanticipated is much harder to program than most of the robot taxi fanbois ever really allow for.
posted by flabdablet at 1:04 PM on September 25 [17 favorites]
Driving peaked in 2018, and has been trending downwards since.
I think "the past six years" is a really terrible basis for asserting this, given that for 2-3 of those, in most places, people were changing their behavior in response to a global pandemic. (nb: The global pandemic still exists, but people are reverting to previous behavior.) WFH rates got significantly higher in 2020 and 2021, and are going rapidly back down as companies are issuing RTO mandates.
posted by adrienneleigh at 1:08 PM on September 25 [6 favorites]
I think "the past six years" is a really terrible basis for asserting this, given that for 2-3 of those, in most places, people were changing their behavior in response to a global pandemic. (nb: The global pandemic still exists, but people are reverting to previous behavior.) WFH rates got significantly higher in 2020 and 2021, and are going rapidly back down as companies are issuing RTO mandates.
posted by adrienneleigh at 1:08 PM on September 25 [6 favorites]
My minor repair on autonomous cars and induced demand:
The right to use the public roads inheres in a *person*, not in a *vehicle*. When empty, a vehicle pays the Shoupian parking price for every block it's on.
(I have honest to betsy heard people claim that autonomous cars would fix Seattle's downtown because instead of fighting over parking people would just send their cars back home.)
posted by clew at 1:08 PM on September 25 [8 favorites]
The right to use the public roads inheres in a *person*, not in a *vehicle*. When empty, a vehicle pays the Shoupian parking price for every block it's on.
(I have honest to betsy heard people claim that autonomous cars would fix Seattle's downtown because instead of fighting over parking people would just send their cars back home.)
posted by clew at 1:08 PM on September 25 [8 favorites]
(I have honest to betsy heard people claim that autonomous cars would fix Seattle's downtown because instead of fighting over parking people would just send their cars back home.)
That's pretty shortsighted when those vehicles could instead be earning money to offset the cost of ownership by operating as autonomous taxis within the downtown core.
(I have heard people earnestly make this argument)
posted by RonButNotStupid at 1:11 PM on September 25 [5 favorites]
That's pretty shortsighted when those vehicles could instead be earning money to offset the cost of ownership by operating as autonomous taxis within the downtown core.
(I have heard people earnestly make this argument)
posted by RonButNotStupid at 1:11 PM on September 25 [5 favorites]
This is presented as some obscure theoretical insight, but it's essentially Econ 101:
1) It's good when prices go down, because then we get more of what we want, and we're better off.
2) That applies only to the total social price. The market price of cars is below the social cost, because cars create two types of externalities: environmental and congestion. Therefore, cars should be taxed, mostly through tolls. Of course, it's easier said than done.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 1:16 PM on September 25 [4 favorites]
1) It's good when prices go down, because then we get more of what we want, and we're better off.
2) That applies only to the total social price. The market price of cars is below the social cost, because cars create two types of externalities: environmental and congestion. Therefore, cars should be taxed, mostly through tolls. Of course, it's easier said than done.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 1:16 PM on September 25 [4 favorites]
The only practical or politically feasible way to get Americans to dump cars is No Way. Not unless you can will trillions of dollars into existence to rapidly, safely and effectively build the infrastructure needed to support connecting people to the locations they need to get to, almost all of which were selected on the assumption that cars are the foundation that makes such connectivity-of-people-and-services possible.
Since the pandemic I drive only a fraction of what I used to because I now work from home. I used to be in the car three hours a day in stop-and-go traffic commuting back and forth to work. Now once a week I drive to the grocery store and do errands, and sometimes on the weekend I'll drive somewhere to visit family or do something fun. I hate to admit it, but I order more stuff online from a certain retailer than I probably should, but everything I purchase gets delivered to me, so I rarely have to drive to any retail stores.
Solutions don't need to involve trillions of dollars and fundamental changes to everything. They also don't need to require a complete abandonment of automobiles.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 1:25 PM on September 25 [4 favorites]
Since the pandemic I drive only a fraction of what I used to because I now work from home. I used to be in the car three hours a day in stop-and-go traffic commuting back and forth to work. Now once a week I drive to the grocery store and do errands, and sometimes on the weekend I'll drive somewhere to visit family or do something fun. I hate to admit it, but I order more stuff online from a certain retailer than I probably should, but everything I purchase gets delivered to me, so I rarely have to drive to any retail stores.
Solutions don't need to involve trillions of dollars and fundamental changes to everything. They also don't need to require a complete abandonment of automobiles.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 1:25 PM on September 25 [4 favorites]
Driving peaked in 2018, and has been trending downwards since.
Allow me to introduce another number, Marchetti's constant, which posits that people will spend approximately an hour each day commuting, and if you relieve traffic congestion they'll move further away from work.
Working from home helps a lot with that, as do some other sociological trends towards city dwelling, but we don't know what happens when that hour becomes differently or more usable. And I live in the Bay Area, where housing is so absurd that we have shanty towns and people living out of RVs in office parks, and with automobile costs so heavily subsidized, in an automated world where you could sleep in your car is there any reason to not either not worry about being rousted by police for parking overnight, or to get much of your sleep phase in while commuting?
We must transition away from such a heavy reliance private automobiles. Yeah, it's gonna be tough on the US, but it has to happen. And yeah, it's gonna be painful, but I think as RonButNotStupid points out, we don't really know what it's going to look like. It may look like more work from home.
posted by straw at 1:28 PM on September 25 [5 favorites]
Allow me to introduce another number, Marchetti's constant, which posits that people will spend approximately an hour each day commuting, and if you relieve traffic congestion they'll move further away from work.
Working from home helps a lot with that, as do some other sociological trends towards city dwelling, but we don't know what happens when that hour becomes differently or more usable. And I live in the Bay Area, where housing is so absurd that we have shanty towns and people living out of RVs in office parks, and with automobile costs so heavily subsidized, in an automated world where you could sleep in your car is there any reason to not either not worry about being rousted by police for parking overnight, or to get much of your sleep phase in while commuting?
We must transition away from such a heavy reliance private automobiles. Yeah, it's gonna be tough on the US, but it has to happen. And yeah, it's gonna be painful, but I think as RonButNotStupid points out, we don't really know what it's going to look like. It may look like more work from home.
posted by straw at 1:28 PM on September 25 [5 favorites]
> However, if the "street" is a four lane road of constantly moving autonomous vehicles optimized for throughput, how the fuck do I cross?
They just stop to let you cross if you're standing at the cross walk?
Waymo already has no trouble dealing with pedestrians in San Francisco, I'm confused by this line.
posted by constraint at 1:45 PM on September 25 [2 favorites]
They just stop to let you cross if you're standing at the cross walk?
Waymo already has no trouble dealing with pedestrians in San Francisco, I'm confused by this line.
posted by constraint at 1:45 PM on September 25 [2 favorites]
constraint: So I just walk into traffic and expect the cars will stop? That seems pretty unsafe. It also creates a bottleneck because every self-driving vehicle behind the one I stepped in front of will also have to stop, creating a wave of stopped cars, utterly defeating the whole promise of no more traffic jams because self-driving cars will magically solve that (by ignoring pedestrians, bikes, etc.) Perhaps if there were traffic signals, but every visualization of the self-driving car future says there will be no need for traffic signals.
posted by SansPoint at 2:19 PM on September 25 [3 favorites]
posted by SansPoint at 2:19 PM on September 25 [3 favorites]
And yeah, it's gonna be painful, but I think as RonButNotStupid points out, we don't really know what it's going to look like. It may look like more work from home.
The vast majority of the people who (now, and for the forseeable) run the infrastructure upon which the work-from-home crowd depend (among which i count myself) don’t have the luxury of working from home, because much of the work that needs to be done can’t be done behind a screen in a chair or with a Zoom call or Teams meeting. If there’s a thought that a wholesale reengineering of transport for those people — to and from work and myriad other obligations — can be be done without great cost financially or politically, i.. i just don’t know what to say other than that have been living in a different world.
I suspect strongly that the percentage of people who are now able to drive very little or not very far, and whose geolocation or level of disposable income enables them to afford to have their needs still met, is a small percentage.
And the key thing is: those (we) who can work-from-home and have the luxury to choose not to drive for basic survival needs, would probably be the most vocal (and politically forceful) in objecting to any mandates that would limit the ease with which we can get anywhere we want or need whenever we needed to. Some small portion of us would be willing *and able* to adapt, sacrifice. A huge segment of American populace overall is not willing to sacrifice or adapt, not without real immediate evidence of a benefit (to them, and only them, as individuals) that doesn’t involve a wait or inconvenience or any sense of something being taken away. Hell, what portion of the US populace couldn’t bear to wear a paper mask when being told by experts it could save the lives of them or their loved ones? That wasn’t even asking for people to bear any real inconvenience. But, for many, you take away their car, you’d better have a damn good alternative at the ready to offer to compensate them for the perceived personal slight, because talk about how the change could benefit others, isn’t going to register.
The only way that we’ll be able to work-from-home our way into a different or better transportation paradigm is if we accept, individually and as a society, that many many many people not as well off as we are, are going to carry for us the burden of the personal sacrifices they’ll be forced to make.
posted by armoir from antproof case at 2:19 PM on September 25 [8 favorites]
The vast majority of the people who (now, and for the forseeable) run the infrastructure upon which the work-from-home crowd depend (among which i count myself) don’t have the luxury of working from home, because much of the work that needs to be done can’t be done behind a screen in a chair or with a Zoom call or Teams meeting. If there’s a thought that a wholesale reengineering of transport for those people — to and from work and myriad other obligations — can be be done without great cost financially or politically, i.. i just don’t know what to say other than that have been living in a different world.
I suspect strongly that the percentage of people who are now able to drive very little or not very far, and whose geolocation or level of disposable income enables them to afford to have their needs still met, is a small percentage.
And the key thing is: those (we) who can work-from-home and have the luxury to choose not to drive for basic survival needs, would probably be the most vocal (and politically forceful) in objecting to any mandates that would limit the ease with which we can get anywhere we want or need whenever we needed to. Some small portion of us would be willing *and able* to adapt, sacrifice. A huge segment of American populace overall is not willing to sacrifice or adapt, not without real immediate evidence of a benefit (to them, and only them, as individuals) that doesn’t involve a wait or inconvenience or any sense of something being taken away. Hell, what portion of the US populace couldn’t bear to wear a paper mask when being told by experts it could save the lives of them or their loved ones? That wasn’t even asking for people to bear any real inconvenience. But, for many, you take away their car, you’d better have a damn good alternative at the ready to offer to compensate them for the perceived personal slight, because talk about how the change could benefit others, isn’t going to register.
The only way that we’ll be able to work-from-home our way into a different or better transportation paradigm is if we accept, individually and as a society, that many many many people not as well off as we are, are going to carry for us the burden of the personal sacrifices they’ll be forced to make.
posted by armoir from antproof case at 2:19 PM on September 25 [8 favorites]
A big part of my writing work involves testing new cars. Over the past decade I've been in all manner of autonomous vehicles, semi-autonomous vehicles, on test tracks, test cities, and public roads, in all types of weather.
I've yet to encounter one that wasn't completely defeated by sensor occlusion, primarily snow, salt, and grime, although occasionally even heavy rain will do it.
This is a huge, huge issue for the industry, even those OEMs that pair their systems with hyper-accurrate mapping. I've had engineers tell me that there will always be a situation where the safest thing for a self-driving car to do is to pull over and call a human in a tow truck for help.
TL;DR: we are nowhere near self-driving cars for 100 percent of use cases, with the majority of successful use cases restricted to arid, fair weather climates currently. I doubt I will see this technology successfully deployed in my lifetime. And no car buyers are really asking for it.
posted by jordantwodelta at 2:33 PM on September 25 [18 favorites]
I've yet to encounter one that wasn't completely defeated by sensor occlusion, primarily snow, salt, and grime, although occasionally even heavy rain will do it.
This is a huge, huge issue for the industry, even those OEMs that pair their systems with hyper-accurrate mapping. I've had engineers tell me that there will always be a situation where the safest thing for a self-driving car to do is to pull over and call a human in a tow truck for help.
TL;DR: we are nowhere near self-driving cars for 100 percent of use cases, with the majority of successful use cases restricted to arid, fair weather climates currently. I doubt I will see this technology successfully deployed in my lifetime. And no car buyers are really asking for it.
posted by jordantwodelta at 2:33 PM on September 25 [18 favorites]
I've said this before in other threads about self-driving cars and I will repeat it again because it continues to astound me. Every single video, explainer, thinkpiece, visualization, whatever-have-you of our 100% autonomous vehicle future shows perfectly smooth traffic, but where are the pedestrians?
...
Sanspoint, you get it.
My favorite discussion on MetaFilter is where a bunch of people who so, so obviously have no insight into the current state of whatever is being discussed just assume that since they have no insight, that means whatever they've missed out on must just not exist. See also: The very existence of a musical artist named Taylor Swift, which someone here just discovered last week. Didn't stop that person from saying that is Ms Swift made some good choices, maybe she'd get popular.
Anyway, there dozens (perhaps hundreds) of just Waymo autonomous vehicles in multiple cities inside both California and Arizona driving people around right this second. Presumably, San Francisco (just to choose one of the cities) has had a pedestrian on its streets over the last couple years. And if San Francisco doesn't count, well then how about Scottsdale? Or Culver City? Or Los Angeles? Or etc.
posted by Back At It Again At Krispy Kreme at 2:36 PM on September 25 [4 favorites]
...
Sanspoint, you get it.
My favorite discussion on MetaFilter is where a bunch of people who so, so obviously have no insight into the current state of whatever is being discussed just assume that since they have no insight, that means whatever they've missed out on must just not exist. See also: The very existence of a musical artist named Taylor Swift, which someone here just discovered last week. Didn't stop that person from saying that is Ms Swift made some good choices, maybe she'd get popular.
Anyway, there dozens (perhaps hundreds) of just Waymo autonomous vehicles in multiple cities inside both California and Arizona driving people around right this second. Presumably, San Francisco (just to choose one of the cities) has had a pedestrian on its streets over the last couple years. And if San Francisco doesn't count, well then how about Scottsdale? Or Culver City? Or Los Angeles? Or etc.
posted by Back At It Again At Krispy Kreme at 2:36 PM on September 25 [4 favorites]
Presumably, San Francisco (just to choose one of the cities) has had a pedestrian on its streets over the last couple years.
Yeah, and sometimes the "autonomous vehicles" run them down.
posted by pattern juggler at 2:50 PM on September 25 [12 favorites]
Yeah, and sometimes the "autonomous vehicles" run them down.
posted by pattern juggler at 2:50 PM on September 25 [12 favorites]
I think the point is that those are the self-driving vehicles of the present, not the future.
In the present, we have traffic lights and the self driving vehicles stop at them just like regular cars do.
It's not the utopian future where every vehicle is linked to every other vehicle in a hive mind and that cat-to-car neural network solves traffic congestion through perfect central planning.
posted by subdee at 3:03 PM on September 25 [3 favorites]
In the present, we have traffic lights and the self driving vehicles stop at them just like regular cars do.
It's not the utopian future where every vehicle is linked to every other vehicle in a hive mind and that cat-to-car neural network solves traffic congestion through perfect central planning.
posted by subdee at 3:03 PM on September 25 [3 favorites]
Yeah, and sometimes the "autonomous vehicles" run them down.
Not to be seen as a proponent of self-driving cars (very much the opposite) but if one’s objection to them is based on the possibility that they can harm or kill pedestrians, then one has a lot of work cut out for them in their quest to ensure the same doesn’t continue to happen a thousand-fold in the human-driven car universe.
I mean if you want to save lives, get crackin’ on speed/acceleration governors, sleep / intoxicating detection, and biannual drivers tests for anyone over 70.
There are plenty of reasons to be cautious about driverless car adoption, and that one’s on the list, but it’s way higher on another list, the list of motivations to radically revamp the “care” we as a society take towards regulating the piloting of cars by humans. Thusfar i’ve seen no evidence that we are collectively up to the task, and our CongressCritters even less so.
(I have lived in San Francisco and can say that people there are careless when walking near or on the paths of two-ton known killing machines. I suppose it’s the same in other cities. There’s no freaking way we can ever expect profit-driven automated automotive systems designers to account for all the accidental or careless ways humans choose or happen to act within the right-of-way of two-ton known killers of humans.)
posted by armoir from antproof case at 3:09 PM on September 25 [3 favorites]
Not to be seen as a proponent of self-driving cars (very much the opposite) but if one’s objection to them is based on the possibility that they can harm or kill pedestrians, then one has a lot of work cut out for them in their quest to ensure the same doesn’t continue to happen a thousand-fold in the human-driven car universe.
I mean if you want to save lives, get crackin’ on speed/acceleration governors, sleep / intoxicating detection, and biannual drivers tests for anyone over 70.
There are plenty of reasons to be cautious about driverless car adoption, and that one’s on the list, but it’s way higher on another list, the list of motivations to radically revamp the “care” we as a society take towards regulating the piloting of cars by humans. Thusfar i’ve seen no evidence that we are collectively up to the task, and our CongressCritters even less so.
(I have lived in San Francisco and can say that people there are careless when walking near or on the paths of two-ton known killing machines. I suppose it’s the same in other cities. There’s no freaking way we can ever expect profit-driven automated automotive systems designers to account for all the accidental or careless ways humans choose or happen to act within the right-of-way of two-ton known killers of humans.)
posted by armoir from antproof case at 3:09 PM on September 25 [3 favorites]
the utopian future where every vehicle is linked to every other vehicle in a hive mind and that cat-to-car neural network solves traffic congestion through perfect central planning
To guarantee pedestrian safety, the car hive mind will continuously broadcast virtual traffic signals over the mandatory neuralinks. These will all be permanently set to DON'T WALK.
posted by flabdablet at 3:13 PM on September 25 [10 favorites]
To guarantee pedestrian safety, the car hive mind will continuously broadcast virtual traffic signals over the mandatory neuralinks. These will all be permanently set to DON'T WALK.
posted by flabdablet at 3:13 PM on September 25 [10 favorites]
Just give me an app where, when I need to cross as a pedestrian, all the autonomous cars stop and give me a Red Sea moment. Like right now I live in a suburb 1 mile from a grocery store and due to the configuration of roads and train tracks, I have never once biked or walked to it and wouldn’t if you paid me. I don’t know how to get around existing bad designs.
posted by caviar2d2 at 3:22 PM on September 25 [3 favorites]
posted by caviar2d2 at 3:22 PM on September 25 [3 favorites]
To guarantee pedestrian safety, the car hive mind will continuously broadcast virtual traffic signals over the mandatory neuralinks. These will all be permanently set to DON'T WALK.
Exactly. The cars will also constantly report their failure/kill rates directly to institutional holders or shares of the companies that build and operate the cars. Said shareholders will be required to immediately sell some portion shares at a legally mandated deep discount rate in proportion to the calculated value of the maimed/killed humans. In addition, the initial angel investors will be required for one week to sleep under a bridge.
posted by armoir from antproof case at 3:27 PM on September 25 [4 favorites]
Exactly. The cars will also constantly report their failure/kill rates directly to institutional holders or shares of the companies that build and operate the cars. Said shareholders will be required to immediately sell some portion shares at a legally mandated deep discount rate in proportion to the calculated value of the maimed/killed humans. In addition, the initial angel investors will be required for one week to sleep under a bridge.
posted by armoir from antproof case at 3:27 PM on September 25 [4 favorites]
subdee: Yeah, and this is a technology that's been promised over and over for nearly a century. After all that development we have what? Self-driving cars that work barely passably in, as jordantwodelta notes: "arid, fair weather climates." Despite this, these things will still roll over a pedestrian like it's nobody's business or need human intervention every thirteen miles. Not every problem can be solved by throwing more and more compute power at it, and driving is one of them
More to the point, and this is something you and the other pro-self-driving car people continue to miss is that self-driving vehicles solve the wrong problem at the wrong level. It's a hack on top of existing infrastructure, and the real solution is the one we don't want to do because there's no profit to be made from it (as if any of the self-driving car companies have made a dime of profit from it anyway since it's all propped up by VC largesse.)
You want to fix traffic, we have a solution for that. It's called trains. (And busses, and trolleys, and trams, and bikes, and pedestrian infrastructure, and multi-modal transportation in general.)
posted by SansPoint at 3:27 PM on September 25 [13 favorites]
More to the point, and this is something you and the other pro-self-driving car people continue to miss is that self-driving vehicles solve the wrong problem at the wrong level. It's a hack on top of existing infrastructure, and the real solution is the one we don't want to do because there's no profit to be made from it (as if any of the self-driving car companies have made a dime of profit from it anyway since it's all propped up by VC largesse.)
You want to fix traffic, we have a solution for that. It's called trains. (And busses, and trolleys, and trams, and bikes, and pedestrian infrastructure, and multi-modal transportation in general.)
posted by SansPoint at 3:27 PM on September 25 [13 favorites]
Anyway, there dozens (perhaps hundreds) of just Waymo autonomous vehicles
Woo. Dozens. In the arid, pristine driving conditions mentioned upthread. Nobody's said they don't (mostly) work, or that they hit pedestrians with alarming frequency.
Actually you missed my point, which I could have made better. My point is that there is this absolute river of drool from city planners, automakers and autonomous systems companies over the prospect that self-driving cars would solve all of a city's traffic problems, and safety problems too, and no government would have to spend a dime on reconfiguring our currently car-centric cities and highways. Which is ... ridiculous.
Cities need to be redesigned for people, not cars. More and better public transit. There should be fewer private vehicles heading downtown, not more. Don't wall off people, wall off vehicle traffic - on buried roads, etc.
Also - the best implementations of driverless environments involve an environment that's smarter than the vehicles. Best example - automated container ports, where all the roadways have electronic paths embedded, and every vehicle is controlled from a central system which knows where every vehicle is at all times. And there's a minimum of random autonomous elements - pedestrians, human drivers, obstacles - to contend with. Try that with your cities.
The notion that the best approach to autonomous vehicles is just to make them independently work as well as a human, in a road/traffic system designed only for humans, is nuts.
posted by Artful Codger at 3:36 PM on September 25 [9 favorites]
Woo. Dozens. In the arid, pristine driving conditions mentioned upthread. Nobody's said they don't (mostly) work, or that they hit pedestrians with alarming frequency.
Actually you missed my point, which I could have made better. My point is that there is this absolute river of drool from city planners, automakers and autonomous systems companies over the prospect that self-driving cars would solve all of a city's traffic problems, and safety problems too, and no government would have to spend a dime on reconfiguring our currently car-centric cities and highways. Which is ... ridiculous.
Cities need to be redesigned for people, not cars. More and better public transit. There should be fewer private vehicles heading downtown, not more. Don't wall off people, wall off vehicle traffic - on buried roads, etc.
Also - the best implementations of driverless environments involve an environment that's smarter than the vehicles. Best example - automated container ports, where all the roadways have electronic paths embedded, and every vehicle is controlled from a central system which knows where every vehicle is at all times. And there's a minimum of random autonomous elements - pedestrians, human drivers, obstacles - to contend with. Try that with your cities.
The notion that the best approach to autonomous vehicles is just to make them independently work as well as a human, in a road/traffic system designed only for humans, is nuts.
posted by Artful Codger at 3:36 PM on September 25 [9 favorites]
There’s a lot of “this thing that is happening and will inevitably happen more sucks, because it is not as good as this better thing that won’t happen” in this thread
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 3:42 PM on September 25 [6 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 3:42 PM on September 25 [6 favorites]
It's MetaFilter. It's what we do.
posted by Artful Codger at 3:45 PM on September 25 [6 favorites]
posted by Artful Codger at 3:45 PM on September 25 [6 favorites]
More concretely, the question isn’t “are driverless cars better than a widespread and massive investment in US transportation infrastructure” it’s “are driverless cars better than human driven cars”. I’m gonna go with yes on that one until I see a driverless car zoom past my kids school at 50 miles an hour while looking at their phone.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 3:45 PM on September 25 [3 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 3:45 PM on September 25 [3 favorites]
MisanthropicPainforest: When a human driver runs over a pedestrian they sometimes face repercussions for it. When a self-driving car does it it’s just the cost of doing business.
posted by SansPoint at 3:51 PM on September 25 [8 favorites]
posted by SansPoint at 3:51 PM on September 25 [8 favorites]
Not to be seen as a proponent of self-driving cars (very much the opposite) but if one’s objection to them is based on the possibility that they can harm or kill pedestrians, then one has a lot of work cut out for them in their quest to ensure the same doesn’t continue to happen a thousand-fold in the human-driven car universe.
Indeed, but self-driving cars are moving in the opposite direction from a safe, sustainable transit system.
posted by pattern juggler at 3:55 PM on September 25 [2 favorites]
Indeed, but self-driving cars are moving in the opposite direction from a safe, sustainable transit system.
posted by pattern juggler at 3:55 PM on September 25 [2 favorites]
Just give me an app where, when I need to cross as a pedestrian, all the autonomous cars stop and give me a Red Sea moment. Like right now I live in a suburb 1 mile from a grocery store and due to the configuration of roads and train tracks, I have never once biked or walked to it and wouldn’t if you paid me. I don’t know how to get around existing bad designs.
Well, my vision of a driverless vehicle world is one where autonomous vehicles stop for pedestrians at designated crossings 100% of the time, which is far more often than human drivers do. But the idea of mixing autonomous vehicles and human pedestrians is just one part of the greater problem - mixing autonomous vehicles and human-driven vehicles is just as fraught as mixing them with human pedestrians. The problem is logic. Autonomous vehicles, in theory, can be designed to operate in a completely logical and predictable way, which is the complete opposite of how humans behave. The only world I can see large-scale autonomous vehicles working in is one that is entirely separated from humans (apart from the ones inside the vehicles, obviously). An environment where every single vehicle acts in an entirely logical and predictable way and is in constant communication with every other vehicle around them, as well as the environment itself, sounds like the safest way for such vehicles to operate. In my view, it's the only way for them to operate effectively.
As others have mentioned, autonomous vehicles are not a solution to anything if they are required to operate in an environment designed for and shared with illogical, emotional and often incompetent humans. The only feasible future I can see for such vehicles requires a whole new infrastructure designed for and used only by those vehicles. Given the incompatibility of the current infrastructure with the current vehicles and their incompetent operators, how could we possibly get from where we are now to that future? I guess it might be possible, over several decades, to rebuild parts of the infrastructure within large cities where the demand may make the change feasible, but what about rural and remote areas? There's never going to be a tax base to fund autonomous road networks outside the largest cities.
Of course, the middle ground is autonomous vehicles increasingly operating amongst human-driven vehicles and trying to navigate the inherent unpredictability of that environment as best they can. At some point, the relatively small number of human-guided vehicles would be such a hazard that the only choice would be to ban humans from operating vehicles in increasingly large areas. A less-than-perfect world of entirely autonomous vehicles operating in environments designed for humans would be better than what we have now, I'm sure.
We keep talking about autonomous vehicles running over pedestrians and slamming into highway barriers they didn't recognise as if humans don't already do this stuff every fucking day. Similarly, we keep snickering at Teslas catching fire as if fossil-fuel powered vehicles haven't been doing that since 1885.
posted by dg at 3:56 PM on September 25 [1 favorite]
Well, my vision of a driverless vehicle world is one where autonomous vehicles stop for pedestrians at designated crossings 100% of the time, which is far more often than human drivers do. But the idea of mixing autonomous vehicles and human pedestrians is just one part of the greater problem - mixing autonomous vehicles and human-driven vehicles is just as fraught as mixing them with human pedestrians. The problem is logic. Autonomous vehicles, in theory, can be designed to operate in a completely logical and predictable way, which is the complete opposite of how humans behave. The only world I can see large-scale autonomous vehicles working in is one that is entirely separated from humans (apart from the ones inside the vehicles, obviously). An environment where every single vehicle acts in an entirely logical and predictable way and is in constant communication with every other vehicle around them, as well as the environment itself, sounds like the safest way for such vehicles to operate. In my view, it's the only way for them to operate effectively.
As others have mentioned, autonomous vehicles are not a solution to anything if they are required to operate in an environment designed for and shared with illogical, emotional and often incompetent humans. The only feasible future I can see for such vehicles requires a whole new infrastructure designed for and used only by those vehicles. Given the incompatibility of the current infrastructure with the current vehicles and their incompetent operators, how could we possibly get from where we are now to that future? I guess it might be possible, over several decades, to rebuild parts of the infrastructure within large cities where the demand may make the change feasible, but what about rural and remote areas? There's never going to be a tax base to fund autonomous road networks outside the largest cities.
Of course, the middle ground is autonomous vehicles increasingly operating amongst human-driven vehicles and trying to navigate the inherent unpredictability of that environment as best they can. At some point, the relatively small number of human-guided vehicles would be such a hazard that the only choice would be to ban humans from operating vehicles in increasingly large areas. A less-than-perfect world of entirely autonomous vehicles operating in environments designed for humans would be better than what we have now, I'm sure.
We keep talking about autonomous vehicles running over pedestrians and slamming into highway barriers they didn't recognise as if humans don't already do this stuff every fucking day. Similarly, we keep snickering at Teslas catching fire as if fossil-fuel powered vehicles haven't been doing that since 1885.
posted by dg at 3:56 PM on September 25 [1 favorite]
“are driverless cars better than human driven cars”
Sure, I'll try that. Of course driverless cars are better than some chronically horrible human drivers every day. And maybe better than most of us on the days we're really off our driving game.
But does it scale?
I've heard a lot of bullsh1t about how driverless cars are so good that speeds will increase, distance between vehicles can be reduced. So in a Jevon's-paradox-like fashion, you're not going autonomous for safety, it's for productivity gains. And there might be fewer highway accidents... but they'll be spectacular.
If safety truly is the goal, a driverless car will be like Uncle Albert on a Sunday afternoon. Never speeds, leaves big gaps, never runs a yellow, accelerates and brakes gently, slow deliberate lane changes... and the human drivers sharing the road with them will fume with impatience, cos they're late for work. Safer, sure. More efficient?
posted by Artful Codger at 3:59 PM on September 25 [6 favorites]
Sure, I'll try that. Of course driverless cars are better than some chronically horrible human drivers every day. And maybe better than most of us on the days we're really off our driving game.
But does it scale?
I've heard a lot of bullsh1t about how driverless cars are so good that speeds will increase, distance between vehicles can be reduced. So in a Jevon's-paradox-like fashion, you're not going autonomous for safety, it's for productivity gains. And there might be fewer highway accidents... but they'll be spectacular.
If safety truly is the goal, a driverless car will be like Uncle Albert on a Sunday afternoon. Never speeds, leaves big gaps, never runs a yellow, accelerates and brakes gently, slow deliberate lane changes... and the human drivers sharing the road with them will fume with impatience, cos they're late for work. Safer, sure. More efficient?
posted by Artful Codger at 3:59 PM on September 25 [6 favorites]
When desktop computers started gaining popularity in the 1980s, everyone thought that use of paper would dramatically decrease as people in businesses, schools, and government would do things electronically. But due to home/office printing, paper use dramatically INCREASED.
posted by neuron at 4:07 PM on September 25 [6 favorites]
posted by neuron at 4:07 PM on September 25 [6 favorites]
The statistics thus far seem to indicate that it can be safer. It can only get better due to more training data and improved tech, or worse due to failed regulation (e.g. if Elon's sensor-anemic crapware is allowed to be deployed).
posted by credulous at 4:17 PM on September 25 [2 favorites]
posted by credulous at 4:17 PM on September 25 [2 favorites]
You don't need to walk into traffic for them to stop. They do and will yield to a pedestrian standing at a crosswalk.
As others have noted, they are already substantially safer than humans in matched conditions. The Cruise case was due to gross negligence on the part of their leadership but even accounting for it, any review of the statistics is overwhelming.
Waymo has gone from 10k rides a week to 100k a week in the last year and seem on track to keep going.
posted by constraint at 4:28 PM on September 25 [3 favorites]
As others have noted, they are already substantially safer than humans in matched conditions. The Cruise case was due to gross negligence on the part of their leadership but even accounting for it, any review of the statistics is overwhelming.
Waymo has gone from 10k rides a week to 100k a week in the last year and seem on track to keep going.
posted by constraint at 4:28 PM on September 25 [3 favorites]
Of course, the middle ground is autonomous vehicles increasingly operating amongst human-driven vehicles and trying to navigate the inherent unpredictability of that environment as best they can. At some point, the relatively small number of human-guided vehicles would be such a hazard that the only choice would be to ban humans from operating vehicles in increasingly large areas. A less-than-perfect world of entirely autonomous vehicles operating in environments designed for humans would be better than what we have now, I'm sure.
But it's so half-assed. It's like saying all robotic personal assistants must look and move like C-3PO cos everything's already designed for humans... can't change the house, sorry.
Also, a world in which the favoured mode of transport is a privately owned autonomous vehicle is going to be a pretty fractured society indeed. cos they'll be expensive. The usual response is to suggest that instead of private autos, there will just be fleets of for-hire autonomous vehicles all circulating around picking up people on demand. Do we really want an all-taxi/Uber system? Hope nobody puked in your next ride...
No, your "entirely autonomous vehicles operating in environments designed for humans" is us surrendering to the car.
At some point, the relatively small number of human-guided vehicles would be such a hazard...
... we know this how? Driving is a privilege; the few who would still choose to drive in a mostly-automated world would be held to a higher standard; bad human drivers would be banned. So the only real reason for banning all humans is because you're finally transitioning to a system optimized only for autonomous vehicles. No more traffic signs and lights, central control, etc.
And if you're going that far... a sensible implementation of people-centered urban design and enhanced mass transit is probably more cost-effective, more sustainable, and more forward-looking.
posted by Artful Codger at 4:36 PM on September 25 [3 favorites]
But it's so half-assed. It's like saying all robotic personal assistants must look and move like C-3PO cos everything's already designed for humans... can't change the house, sorry.
Also, a world in which the favoured mode of transport is a privately owned autonomous vehicle is going to be a pretty fractured society indeed. cos they'll be expensive. The usual response is to suggest that instead of private autos, there will just be fleets of for-hire autonomous vehicles all circulating around picking up people on demand. Do we really want an all-taxi/Uber system? Hope nobody puked in your next ride...
No, your "entirely autonomous vehicles operating in environments designed for humans" is us surrendering to the car.
At some point, the relatively small number of human-guided vehicles would be such a hazard...
... we know this how? Driving is a privilege; the few who would still choose to drive in a mostly-automated world would be held to a higher standard; bad human drivers would be banned. So the only real reason for banning all humans is because you're finally transitioning to a system optimized only for autonomous vehicles. No more traffic signs and lights, central control, etc.
And if you're going that far... a sensible implementation of people-centered urban design and enhanced mass transit is probably more cost-effective, more sustainable, and more forward-looking.
posted by Artful Codger at 4:36 PM on September 25 [3 favorites]
'More concretely, the question isn’t “are driverless cars better than a widespread and massive investment in US transportation infrastructure” it’s “are driverless cars better than human driven cars”. I’m gonna go with yes on that one until I see a driverless car zoom past my kids school at 50 miles an hour while looking at their phone.'
I once saw one ram into an inflatable test vehicle at full speed at the Michelin proving grounds, completely destroying the test rig, during what was supposed to be an impressive tech display under completely controlled conditions.
Does that count?
posted by jordantwodelta at 5:02 PM on September 25 [8 favorites]
I once saw one ram into an inflatable test vehicle at full speed at the Michelin proving grounds, completely destroying the test rig, during what was supposed to be an impressive tech display under completely controlled conditions.
Does that count?
posted by jordantwodelta at 5:02 PM on September 25 [8 favorites]
I don't have any exceptional insight in how or whether Jevon's Paradox is going to apply when self-driving cars get deployed. But I do feel the need to say, this is not theoretical any more. I do urban hikes in San Francisco fairly frequently, and there are many, many self-driving cars in that city, and whatever effect they are going to have is happening, now.
(And for what it's worth, San Francisco and the SF Bay area more generally do make a serious effort at mass transit and trains - the new all-electric CalTrain launched this week, with free rides and cheering people at the farmers markets and swag, and they are fast and clean and wonderful. I rode the new subway line from Chinatown to King Street for the first time this year. Sometimes things are complicated.)
posted by graphweaver at 5:26 PM on September 25 [4 favorites]
(And for what it's worth, San Francisco and the SF Bay area more generally do make a serious effort at mass transit and trains - the new all-electric CalTrain launched this week, with free rides and cheering people at the farmers markets and swag, and they are fast and clean and wonderful. I rode the new subway line from Chinatown to King Street for the first time this year. Sometimes things are complicated.)
posted by graphweaver at 5:26 PM on September 25 [4 favorites]
Well, my vision of a driverless vehicle world is one where autonomous vehicles stop for pedestrians at designated crossings 100% of the time, which is far more often than human drivers do.
You don't need to walk into traffic for them to stop. They do and will yield to a pedestrian standing at a crosswalk.
...and if you're not at a designated pedestrian crossing? Right now, I can look for gaps in traffic, human drivers regularly modulate their speed either unintentionally or to allow their formation if they see someone waiting at the side of the road (or slow down if they can see you starting to pass) or I can catch a driver's eye, give them a wave or a nod, and expect them to slow enough to let me cross.
There are so many times when it is not possible to get where you're going without crossing away from formal junctions or crossings, or where it would require an onerous detour.
posted by Dysk at 6:01 PM on September 25 [4 favorites]
You don't need to walk into traffic for them to stop. They do and will yield to a pedestrian standing at a crosswalk.
...and if you're not at a designated pedestrian crossing? Right now, I can look for gaps in traffic, human drivers regularly modulate their speed either unintentionally or to allow their formation if they see someone waiting at the side of the road (or slow down if they can see you starting to pass) or I can catch a driver's eye, give them a wave or a nod, and expect them to slow enough to let me cross.
There are so many times when it is not possible to get where you're going without crossing away from formal junctions or crossings, or where it would require an onerous detour.
posted by Dysk at 6:01 PM on September 25 [4 favorites]
Take LED lighting as an example. LED lighting is about ten times as energy efficient as incandescent, so if the Jevons Paradox was all it's cracked up to be, we'd expect to see every room in every house run lighting about ten times as bright as what used to be there before LED lighting became available.
Doesn't Jevon's paradox operate on the level of resources, but products? So an increase in lighting efficiency doesn't demonstrate a failure of Jevon's paradox if our lighting use doesn't increase, if the efficiency savings are instead plowed into other uses for electricity. You would have to demonstrate that our total energy consumption didn't rise to contradict it as I understand it, as LED bulbs represent a (smallish, relative to our energy consumption profile) energy efficiency improvement?
posted by Dysk at 6:07 PM on September 25 [2 favorites]
Doesn't Jevon's paradox operate on the level of resources, but products? So an increase in lighting efficiency doesn't demonstrate a failure of Jevon's paradox if our lighting use doesn't increase, if the efficiency savings are instead plowed into other uses for electricity. You would have to demonstrate that our total energy consumption didn't rise to contradict it as I understand it, as LED bulbs represent a (smallish, relative to our energy consumption profile) energy efficiency improvement?
posted by Dysk at 6:07 PM on September 25 [2 favorites]
Keyboard programmable per-key lights, those LEDs around the backs of monitors, mood lighting in water bottles and vape pens and tabletop speakers…
posted by clew at 6:49 PM on September 25 [3 favorites]
posted by clew at 6:49 PM on September 25 [3 favorites]
It'd be nice if one of these regional conflicts reduced oil availability significantly, like maybe Russia halts exports, or maybe the Houthis hit enough Saudi infrastructure, or Venezuela halts exports somewhow, or whatever.
It'd be even nicer if the shale extraction collapsed in the US, meaning their tech was finally tapped out for the available shale reserved.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:09 PM on September 25 [3 favorites]
It'd be even nicer if the shale extraction collapsed in the US, meaning their tech was finally tapped out for the available shale reserved.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:09 PM on September 25 [3 favorites]
Another reason why "a world of self-driving cars" is a very bad thing to want: self-driving cars are already being used by cops and governments for surveilling citizens, and that problem will only increase.
posted by adrienneleigh at 7:16 PM on September 25 [7 favorites]
posted by adrienneleigh at 7:16 PM on September 25 [7 favorites]
One way to asses selfdriving car potential is to look at how rich people use chaffuers and private jets etc.
Jeavon's paradox doesnt always occur, and it's scale isnt always greater than the efficiency gain, but it is an important reminder that systems have feedback and can re-equilibrate unless they are regulated and controlled.
the conspicuous consumption economy would rather kill the planet than lose a modicum of status. The scorpion does sting the frog after all.
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 7:25 PM on September 25 [5 favorites]
Jeavon's paradox doesnt always occur, and it's scale isnt always greater than the efficiency gain, but it is an important reminder that systems have feedback and can re-equilibrate unless they are regulated and controlled.
the conspicuous consumption economy would rather kill the planet than lose a modicum of status. The scorpion does sting the frog after all.
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 7:25 PM on September 25 [5 favorites]
A less-than-perfect world of entirely autonomous vehicles operating in environments designed for humans would be better than what we have now, I'm sure.
But it's so half-assed. It's like saying all robotic personal assistants must look and move like C-3PO cos everything's already designed for humans... can't change the house, sorry.
Of course it's half-arsed. Any transition of this magnitude is going to be that way for quite some time, just as I'm sure the transition from entirely horse-drawn to motorised vehicles was chaotic and entirely unsatisfactory for both. The fact is that you can't change the infrastructure overnight even if you could magically change the nature of vehicles using it all at once.
At some point, the relatively small number of human-guided vehicles would be such a hazard...
... we know this how? Driving is a privilege; the few who would still choose to drive in a mostly-automated world would be held to a higher standard; bad human drivers would be banned. So the only real reason for banning all humans is because you're finally transitioning to a system optimized only for autonomous vehicles. No more traffic signs and lights, central control, etc.
The idea that bad drivers (most of whom are voters, don't forget) would ever be banned is laughable. If that were the case, they would be banned now and that's absolutely and demonstrably not the case. Actually requiring all drivers on the road to be skilled and capable of operating their death machines safely would probably solve all our congestion problems, though. But, yes, a transport network optimised for autonomous vehicles would not be at all suitable for human drivers.
An actual useable public transport system would be the best of all worlds, I agree. That doesn't seem achievable in my lifetime, unfortunately, even if all the world's politicians were to suddenly grow a spine and make it happen. I'm watching with interest how much increase we see in public transport in our state now that both major parties have, as part of their pre-election shenanigans, double-dared each other into continuing the current 50c flat rate for any urban/suburban trip trial program to the point we are now guaranteed that will continue for at least the next four years. If there were enough demand for and use of public transport, I wonder if the appetite of governments would swing towards making it actually useable for most people?
posted by dg at 10:10 PM on September 25 [1 favorite]
But it's so half-assed. It's like saying all robotic personal assistants must look and move like C-3PO cos everything's already designed for humans... can't change the house, sorry.
Of course it's half-arsed. Any transition of this magnitude is going to be that way for quite some time, just as I'm sure the transition from entirely horse-drawn to motorised vehicles was chaotic and entirely unsatisfactory for both. The fact is that you can't change the infrastructure overnight even if you could magically change the nature of vehicles using it all at once.
At some point, the relatively small number of human-guided vehicles would be such a hazard...
... we know this how? Driving is a privilege; the few who would still choose to drive in a mostly-automated world would be held to a higher standard; bad human drivers would be banned. So the only real reason for banning all humans is because you're finally transitioning to a system optimized only for autonomous vehicles. No more traffic signs and lights, central control, etc.
The idea that bad drivers (most of whom are voters, don't forget) would ever be banned is laughable. If that were the case, they would be banned now and that's absolutely and demonstrably not the case. Actually requiring all drivers on the road to be skilled and capable of operating their death machines safely would probably solve all our congestion problems, though. But, yes, a transport network optimised for autonomous vehicles would not be at all suitable for human drivers.
An actual useable public transport system would be the best of all worlds, I agree. That doesn't seem achievable in my lifetime, unfortunately, even if all the world's politicians were to suddenly grow a spine and make it happen. I'm watching with interest how much increase we see in public transport in our state now that both major parties have, as part of their pre-election shenanigans, double-dared each other into continuing the current 50c flat rate for any urban/suburban trip trial program to the point we are now guaranteed that will continue for at least the next four years. If there were enough demand for and use of public transport, I wonder if the appetite of governments would swing towards making it actually useable for most people?
posted by dg at 10:10 PM on September 25 [1 favorite]
> ...and if you're not at a designated pedestrian crossing
I encourage you to watch some of the safety videos. If you insist on breaking traffic laws to cross the street, driverless cars are able to stop with much less warning than a human.
If you really want the ability to cross any street at any time (which doesn't seem like a reasonable desire to me), they already successfully handle hand signals.
As stated elsewhere: there are 100k driverless trips a week happening just from waymo. They doing quite well in SF, LA, and Phoenix, and are soon expanding to Austin this year.
The likelihood that this can be done safely at scale is rapidly approaching 1, based on the current data. The questions now are more about profitability, social consequences, environmental consequences.
posted by constraint at 11:21 PM on September 25 [1 favorite]
I encourage you to watch some of the safety videos. If you insist on breaking traffic laws to cross the street, driverless cars are able to stop with much less warning than a human.
If you really want the ability to cross any street at any time (which doesn't seem like a reasonable desire to me), they already successfully handle hand signals.
As stated elsewhere: there are 100k driverless trips a week happening just from waymo. They doing quite well in SF, LA, and Phoenix, and are soon expanding to Austin this year.
The likelihood that this can be done safely at scale is rapidly approaching 1, based on the current data. The questions now are more about profitability, social consequences, environmental consequences.
posted by constraint at 11:21 PM on September 25 [1 favorite]
https://youtu.be/hubWIuuz-e4
A video of some near misses that a human probably wouldn't have managed.
https://waymo.com/safety/
A bunch of stats.
https://waymo.com/blog/2023/09/waymos-autonomous-vehicles-are-significantly-safer-than-human-driven-ones/
The study they did with a reinsurer. Insurance companies are worth paying attention to because they have money on the line. They got climate change right much earlier than a lot of people.
My understanding of my identity and, I hope, the identity of the people I spend time talking to, is one that prioritizes systematic and rigorous study over vibes, and prioritizes expertise.
I think there are lots of very valid questions, but, "can driverless cars handle communication and coordination with humans at scale" is vigorously answered.
I do think there's an interesting thing to consider: Waymo has taken an extremely patient approach, but other companies who are aggressively cutting corners are causing a lot of damage.
The thing I fear is people like the leaders of Tesla, Uber, and Cruise choosing to kill a bunch of people just because they wanted market share. Even though the market leader can do this safely doesn't mean everyone will get on the same page, and the aggregate behavior will be safe.
posted by constraint at 11:31 PM on September 25 [3 favorites]
A video of some near misses that a human probably wouldn't have managed.
https://waymo.com/safety/
A bunch of stats.
https://waymo.com/blog/2023/09/waymos-autonomous-vehicles-are-significantly-safer-than-human-driven-ones/
The study they did with a reinsurer. Insurance companies are worth paying attention to because they have money on the line. They got climate change right much earlier than a lot of people.
My understanding of my identity and, I hope, the identity of the people I spend time talking to, is one that prioritizes systematic and rigorous study over vibes, and prioritizes expertise.
I think there are lots of very valid questions, but, "can driverless cars handle communication and coordination with humans at scale" is vigorously answered.
I do think there's an interesting thing to consider: Waymo has taken an extremely patient approach, but other companies who are aggressively cutting corners are causing a lot of damage.
The thing I fear is people like the leaders of Tesla, Uber, and Cruise choosing to kill a bunch of people just because they wanted market share. Even though the market leader can do this safely doesn't mean everyone will get on the same page, and the aggregate behavior will be safe.
posted by constraint at 11:31 PM on September 25 [3 favorites]
If you insist on breaking traffic laws to cross the street
Dysk lives in the UK and isn’t breaking any traffic laws. Jaywalking is a thing US legislators invented in response to US lobbying.
posted by rory at 11:43 PM on September 25 [11 favorites]
Dysk lives in the UK and isn’t breaking any traffic laws. Jaywalking is a thing US legislators invented in response to US lobbying.
posted by rory at 11:43 PM on September 25 [11 favorites]
Brits visiting the US can end up in trouble over it.
posted by rory at 11:51 PM on September 25 [2 favorites]
posted by rory at 11:51 PM on September 25 [2 favorites]
If you really want the ability to cross any street at any time (which doesn't seem like a reasonable desire to me)
I genuinely all appreciate the info on Waymo, but this desire is 100% reasonable. (Also UK.)
posted by Hermione Dies at 12:20 AM on September 26 [7 favorites]
I genuinely all appreciate the info on Waymo, but this desire is 100% reasonable. (Also UK.)
posted by Hermione Dies at 12:20 AM on September 26 [7 favorites]
https://www.gearbrain.com/waymo-driverless-car-hand-signals-2629692132.html
2019 video of hand signal following.
Keep in mind that I didn't say "ability to cross anywhere" wasn't reasonable, I said "ability to cross any street at any time".
I suppose here's my confusion: I've never encountered a situation where the traffic volume was so high I couldn't either find a readily accessible crosswalk or wait 30 seconds for an opening in traffic.
You have situations with continuous streams of cars going 40mph (65kmh) for many minutes at a time, with no cross walks or signals?
That sounds more unsafe to me than driverless cars.
posted by constraint at 12:30 AM on September 26 [1 favorite]
2019 video of hand signal following.
Keep in mind that I didn't say "ability to cross anywhere" wasn't reasonable, I said "ability to cross any street at any time".
I suppose here's my confusion: I've never encountered a situation where the traffic volume was so high I couldn't either find a readily accessible crosswalk or wait 30 seconds for an opening in traffic.
You have situations with continuous streams of cars going 40mph (65kmh) for many minutes at a time, with no cross walks or signals?
That sounds more unsafe to me than driverless cars.
posted by constraint at 12:30 AM on September 26 [1 favorite]
For reference, a car can stop from 30mph (50kmh) in 45 feet. With 250ft of warning a driverless car should have no trouble slowing down enough to let you pass. Swerving works at even shorter distances. From 30mph and down I think pedestrians should be able to just walk into traffic in front of these cars.
posted by constraint at 12:42 AM on September 26 [1 favorite]
posted by constraint at 12:42 AM on September 26 [1 favorite]
From 30mph and down I think pedestrians should be able to just walk into traffic in front of these cars.
But I won't do it. I can't catch their eye, I can't get an acknowledgement, they won't see me and start slowing before I step out because they can work out I'm looking to cross. And that's ignoring the fact that there might not be a gap to step out into, if we're to realise one of the key selling points of autonomous cars.
(And jaywalking may be a crime in cities where you have<> designated pedestrian crossings. People still need to get across the road in little towns, including the ones major roads run through. Do they always have designated crossings on every street and road?)
posted by Dysk at 1:05 AM on September 26 [5 favorites]
But I won't do it. I can't catch their eye, I can't get an acknowledgement, they won't see me and start slowing before I step out because they can work out I'm looking to cross. And that's ignoring the fact that there might not be a gap to step out into, if we're to realise one of the key selling points of autonomous cars.
(And jaywalking may be a crime in cities where you have<> designated pedestrian crossings. People still need to get across the road in little towns, including the ones major roads run through. Do they always have designated crossings on every street and road?)
posted by Dysk at 1:05 AM on September 26 [5 favorites]
One way to asses selfdriving car potential is to look at how rich people use chaffuers and private jets etc.
I don't think this is necessarily useful, because people in different socioeconomic classes might well use self-driving cars differently to how the ultra-rich use them (and that's stunning they wouldn't use it any differently to their chauffeurs). It doesn't seem unlikely to suggest that people who currently drive might be inclined to do more road transport if they don't have to drive themselves, and if it becomes faster as there are fewer jams thanks to self-driving efficiency.
I think the real potential issue with Jevon's paradox is what it might do to chauffeurs traffic. If the marginal cost of transporting something by road in a self driving electric truck falls dramatically, how much more stuff might we start wanting to ship by road?
I just don't think we can actually evaluate how big an effect it will be by looking at things that are maybe a little bit analogous that already exist.
posted by Dysk at 1:12 AM on September 26 [1 favorite]
I don't think this is necessarily useful, because people in different socioeconomic classes might well use self-driving cars differently to how the ultra-rich use them (and that's stunning they wouldn't use it any differently to their chauffeurs). It doesn't seem unlikely to suggest that people who currently drive might be inclined to do more road transport if they don't have to drive themselves, and if it becomes faster as there are fewer jams thanks to self-driving efficiency.
I think the real potential issue with Jevon's paradox is what it might do to chauffeurs traffic. If the marginal cost of transporting something by road in a self driving electric truck falls dramatically, how much more stuff might we start wanting to ship by road?
I just don't think we can actually evaluate how big an effect it will be by looking at things that are maybe a little bit analogous that already exist.
posted by Dysk at 1:12 AM on September 26 [1 favorite]
I think the real potential issue with Jevon's paradox is what it might do to chauffeurs traffic.
Commercial traffic! Thanks autocorrect!
posted by Dysk at 1:33 AM on September 26 [1 favorite]
Commercial traffic! Thanks autocorrect!
posted by Dysk at 1:33 AM on September 26 [1 favorite]
Point: Please stop calling them "self driving" cars. There is no "self" involved, and even the language implies a level of competence I do not think we'll ever see from this technology. Some people say autonomous, I prefer robot cars. I think that catches the flavor of the thing best.
Comment:
As a cyclist, these things can fuck right off.
As a driver, these things can fuck right off.
As someone concerned about surveillance capitalism and technological authoritarianism, I would defend anyone who destroys these things.
One could possibly see a role for robot buses or something like that, but the things is, we have a very high functioning technological solution right now, and it's called paying someone to drive the bus. I know that there's people who don't like driving, and there's people who cannot, but there are solutions for those people already.
I remain strongly convinced that most of the appeal of this technology is simply the fact that lots of people would lose their jobs and all of that money would go to people higher in the economic hierarchy.
posted by Smedly, Butlerian jihadi at 3:56 AM on September 26 [8 favorites]
Comment:
As a cyclist, these things can fuck right off.
As a driver, these things can fuck right off.
As someone concerned about surveillance capitalism and technological authoritarianism, I would defend anyone who destroys these things.
One could possibly see a role for robot buses or something like that, but the things is, we have a very high functioning technological solution right now, and it's called paying someone to drive the bus. I know that there's people who don't like driving, and there's people who cannot, but there are solutions for those people already.
I remain strongly convinced that most of the appeal of this technology is simply the fact that lots of people would lose their jobs and all of that money would go to people higher in the economic hierarchy.
posted by Smedly, Butlerian jihadi at 3:56 AM on September 26 [8 favorites]
I'm not pro self-driving car, for the record :p Just explaining why 'waymo stops for pedestrians already' is missing the point of the 'perfect efficiency is a dream that doesn't account for pedestrians' critique.
posted by subdee at 4:38 AM on September 26 [1 favorite]
posted by subdee at 4:38 AM on September 26 [1 favorite]
Take LED lighting as an example. LED lighting is about ten times as energy efficient as incandescent, so if the Jevons Paradox was all it's cracked up to be, we'd expect to see every room in every house run lighting about ten times as bright as what used to be there before LED lighting became available. We don't, because as it turns out, we don't want our indoor spaces ten times as brightly lit. We'd rather spend what we save on running our new, cheaper lights on other things.
I think you're misunderstanding Jevon's point. It's not that we make the light in our living room 10 times brighter, it's that we start lighting up things we wouldn't have before. Jevon's main idea is that when something gets cheaper, you can use it for all kinds of *new* applications - instead of lighting your apartment, now you can light your whole backyard, your pool, and the entire surface of a 400 foot tall sphere in Las Vegas!
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/22/opinion/vegas-sphere-energy-efficiency.html
If we ever get robot cars I wouldn't take my car grocery shopping 10 times as often, but I would definitely be tempted to take significantly more weekend trips to the mountains 6 hours away, or my friends who live 8 hours away, because going to sleep friday night in my car and waking up at my destination fundamentally shifts the cost-benefit equation.
posted by mrgoldenbrown at 6:16 AM on September 26 [8 favorites]
I think you're misunderstanding Jevon's point. It's not that we make the light in our living room 10 times brighter, it's that we start lighting up things we wouldn't have before. Jevon's main idea is that when something gets cheaper, you can use it for all kinds of *new* applications - instead of lighting your apartment, now you can light your whole backyard, your pool, and the entire surface of a 400 foot tall sphere in Las Vegas!
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/22/opinion/vegas-sphere-energy-efficiency.html
If we ever get robot cars I wouldn't take my car grocery shopping 10 times as often, but I would definitely be tempted to take significantly more weekend trips to the mountains 6 hours away, or my friends who live 8 hours away, because going to sleep friday night in my car and waking up at my destination fundamentally shifts the cost-benefit equation.
posted by mrgoldenbrown at 6:16 AM on September 26 [8 favorites]
A big part of my writing work involves testing new cars. Over the past decade I've been in all manner of autonomous vehicles, semi-autonomous vehicles, on test tracks, test cities, and public roads, in all types of weather.
I've yet to encounter one that wasn't completely defeated by sensor occlusion, primarily snow, salt, and grime, although occasionally even heavy rain will do it.
It's probably worth mentioning that this problem isn't new, or even unique to autonomous vehicles. Humans also can't drive safely in driving rain/snow, or when salt encrusts the windshield so much that it blocks visibility, or when they're driving west as the sun sets and the glare blinds them. The difference is, humans don't explicitly acknowledge the unsafe conditions. At best, they slow down a bit and say a little prayer that they won't run down a pedestrian they don't see. At worst, they keep on truckin' like nothing's wrong, because this is America and driving your car is a god-given right enshrined in the constitution.
To my knowledge, no one has yet written the "all the sensors all blocked but we've got good map data and we've done this a million times before, so fuck it, LEEEEEEROY JEEEEENKINS" subroutine in the self-driving car repo, but I'm guessing the idea has been floated in design meetings.
posted by Mayor West at 6:44 AM on September 26 [3 favorites]
I've yet to encounter one that wasn't completely defeated by sensor occlusion, primarily snow, salt, and grime, although occasionally even heavy rain will do it.
It's probably worth mentioning that this problem isn't new, or even unique to autonomous vehicles. Humans also can't drive safely in driving rain/snow, or when salt encrusts the windshield so much that it blocks visibility, or when they're driving west as the sun sets and the glare blinds them. The difference is, humans don't explicitly acknowledge the unsafe conditions. At best, they slow down a bit and say a little prayer that they won't run down a pedestrian they don't see. At worst, they keep on truckin' like nothing's wrong, because this is America and driving your car is a god-given right enshrined in the constitution.
To my knowledge, no one has yet written the "all the sensors all blocked but we've got good map data and we've done this a million times before, so fuck it, LEEEEEEROY JEEEEENKINS" subroutine in the self-driving car repo, but I'm guessing the idea has been floated in design meetings.
posted by Mayor West at 6:44 AM on September 26 [3 favorites]
constraint: Do you have a source that isn't Waymo's own PR? I wouldn't trust any company's PR about anything any further than I could throw the CEO. And I don't have a lot of upper body strength.
posted by SansPoint at 7:04 AM on September 26 [4 favorites]
posted by SansPoint at 7:04 AM on September 26 [4 favorites]
If the price of something goes down, we use more of it. Whether our total consumption goes up or down depends on the elasticity of demand. If it's greater than one (that is, a 1 percent price decline results in more than a 1 percent increase in consumption), total consumption goes up, and vice versa.
For lighting, the elasticity is well below one: total energy used on lighting declined by 63 percent from 2010 to 2020. (See table 4.3 here.)
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 7:40 AM on September 26 [2 favorites]
For lighting, the elasticity is well below one: total energy used on lighting declined by 63 percent from 2010 to 2020. (See table 4.3 here.)
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 7:40 AM on September 26 [2 favorites]
For lighting, the elasticity is well below one: total energy used on lighting declined by 63 percent from 2010 to 2020. (See table 4.3 here.)
It's below one in the US, but that's a fairly arbitrarily bounded analysis.
posted by Dysk at 8:00 AM on September 26 [3 favorites]
It's below one in the US, but that's a fairly arbitrarily bounded analysis.
posted by Dysk at 8:00 AM on September 26 [3 favorites]
patentable idea? Assuming robot vehicles can recognise a pedestrian about to cross a roadway, and the pedestrian has given a wave or a point or some other sort of machine-recognisable signal, there's a forward-facing light on the vehicle that lights green, indicating that it will slow/stop for the pedestrian, or a red to indicate that it cannot stop safely. (or won't cos it's been programmed by d1cks)
posted by Artful Codger at 8:10 AM on September 26 [1 favorite]
posted by Artful Codger at 8:10 AM on September 26 [1 favorite]
But I won't do it. I can't catch their eye, I can't get an acknowledgement, they won't see me and start slowing before I step out because they can work out I'm looking to cross. And that's ignoring the fact that there might not be a gap to step out into, if we're to realise one of the key selling points of autonomous cars.
I've ridden in Waymos a couple of times, and I think there's a big difference between theorizing them and actually seeing them in person. For one thing, when you are in them or observing them in action, it becomes obvious how incredibly safe they are compared to human drivers (caveat: in good weather conditions, presumably on routes they've been highly trained to drive). When you're in the car, you can see a panel that shows the objects around the car as it is moving. The car has a bunch of obvious sensors outside of it. One of the external sensors shows a person when it is stopped and waiting for a person to cross the street. It WOULD start slowing; I've been in one that has done just that.
The reality of these things really impressed me, as a general skeptic of this technology. I don't think they can or should replace significant investment in public transit, I doubt they'll work in all conditions any time soon (or possibly ever), but having ridden in them, I'm convinced that under the right conditions they are far safer than human drivers, and that is a pretty big plus in my mind.
posted by ch1x0r at 8:22 AM on September 26 [2 favorites]
I've ridden in Waymos a couple of times, and I think there's a big difference between theorizing them and actually seeing them in person. For one thing, when you are in them or observing them in action, it becomes obvious how incredibly safe they are compared to human drivers (caveat: in good weather conditions, presumably on routes they've been highly trained to drive). When you're in the car, you can see a panel that shows the objects around the car as it is moving. The car has a bunch of obvious sensors outside of it. One of the external sensors shows a person when it is stopped and waiting for a person to cross the street. It WOULD start slowing; I've been in one that has done just that.
The reality of these things really impressed me, as a general skeptic of this technology. I don't think they can or should replace significant investment in public transit, I doubt they'll work in all conditions any time soon (or possibly ever), but having ridden in them, I'm convinced that under the right conditions they are far safer than human drivers, and that is a pretty big plus in my mind.
posted by ch1x0r at 8:22 AM on September 26 [2 favorites]
That works if any pedestrian you spot at a junction is looking to cross, but any pedestrian boot at a junction can be assumed not to. That is to say, in cities. If cars slowed for everyone on a pavement who might be wanting to cross in a smaller town (where most road crossings don't happen at a junction or designated crossing) with more pedestrian traffic in general (such as outside the US) they get a choice of being constantly stopped on some roads, or assuming that nobody from the mass of pedestrians is ever looking to cross.
I don't doubt that it works in San Francisco and Phoenix. Where I live doesn't look much like them.
posted by Dysk at 8:26 AM on September 26 [3 favorites]
I don't doubt that it works in San Francisco and Phoenix. Where I live doesn't look much like them.
posted by Dysk at 8:26 AM on September 26 [3 favorites]
Do small towns have more pedestrian traffic than san francisco?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:31 AM on September 26 [3 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:31 AM on September 26 [3 favorites]
I respect that you don't think it will work in your smaller town. Maybe you'll be right, although I think you're underestimating the capabilities, having first-hand experienced it. Even if it has limited application to cities, I think it is quite likely that we will see more of this there, and it will not turn out to be the safety disaster that everyone fears. But, I also think there's no way it replaces good, continued investment in public transit; for better or worse, our cities will continue to need both cars and busses/trains/trams.
posted by ch1x0r at 12:32 PM on September 26 [3 favorites]
posted by ch1x0r at 12:32 PM on September 26 [3 favorites]
If cars slowed for everyone on a pavement who might be wanting to cross
This is the law where I learned to drive.
patentable idea? Assuming robot vehicles can recognise a pedestrian about to cross a roadway, and the pedestrian has given a wave
Mine is the scarewaymo, a lifelike mannequin that stands on the side of the road and waves at autonomous vehicles as they pass
As a cyclist, these things can fuck right off.
As a driver, these things can fuck right off.
1. and so can cars driven by humans who don't care
2. and so can cars driven by humans busy texting
posted by chavenet at 1:35 PM on September 26 [2 favorites]
This is the law where I learned to drive.
patentable idea? Assuming robot vehicles can recognise a pedestrian about to cross a roadway, and the pedestrian has given a wave
Mine is the scarewaymo, a lifelike mannequin that stands on the side of the road and waves at autonomous vehicles as they pass
As a cyclist, these things can fuck right off.
As a driver, these things can fuck right off.
1. and so can cars driven by humans who don't care
2. and so can cars driven by humans busy texting
posted by chavenet at 1:35 PM on September 26 [2 favorites]
As a cyclist who lives in the Bay area, I'm all for self driving cars. Human drivers suck, and I feel way safer around self driving cars than human driven cars.
For the Jevons paradox thing, I don't think it's an issue. Here's why!
Car ownership has a very high one time fixed cost, high annual costs, and low per trip cost. That means that once you're bought into car ownership, you have very little incentive to optimize your transit needs. On the other hand, if all the costs were fully amortized per mile, and your trip didn't have to start at your garage, you would expect to see very different behavior. Like taking a bus or train to cover most of the distance, and calling a cab (perhaps self driving) to cover the last bit. Moving to a fully taxi based system better aligns the economic, energy, and environmental incentives for transit.
posted by kaibutsu at 1:40 PM on September 26 [4 favorites]
For the Jevons paradox thing, I don't think it's an issue. Here's why!
Car ownership has a very high one time fixed cost, high annual costs, and low per trip cost. That means that once you're bought into car ownership, you have very little incentive to optimize your transit needs. On the other hand, if all the costs were fully amortized per mile, and your trip didn't have to start at your garage, you would expect to see very different behavior. Like taking a bus or train to cover most of the distance, and calling a cab (perhaps self driving) to cover the last bit. Moving to a fully taxi based system better aligns the economic, energy, and environmental incentives for transit.
posted by kaibutsu at 1:40 PM on September 26 [4 favorites]
kaibutsu: I mean, if you're doing public transit right, the last bit should be coverable on foot.
posted by SansPoint at 1:48 PM on September 26 [1 favorite]
posted by SansPoint at 1:48 PM on September 26 [1 favorite]
Do small towns have more pedestrian traffic than san francisco?
So I live in a town of about 80-120k depending on how you measure, which is entirely walkable, and doesn't have much parking, particularly in the centre. It's also a big shopping town for the region. So I don't know San Francisco, but we get a lot of foot traffic here, on a road layout constrained by buildings largely from the Medieval to Edwardian era, where a lot of crossing happens away from designated junctions or crossing points, jaywalking is not a thing here. Oh, and most bus stops aren't shelters just crowds of people waiting by the road when it's busy.
posted by Dysk at 1:58 PM on September 26 [2 favorites]
So I live in a town of about 80-120k depending on how you measure, which is entirely walkable, and doesn't have much parking, particularly in the centre. It's also a big shopping town for the region. So I don't know San Francisco, but we get a lot of foot traffic here, on a road layout constrained by buildings largely from the Medieval to Edwardian era, where a lot of crossing happens away from designated junctions or crossing points, jaywalking is not a thing here. Oh, and most bus stops aren't shelters just crowds of people waiting by the road when it's busy.
posted by Dysk at 1:58 PM on September 26 [2 favorites]
kaibutsu: I mean, if you're doing public transit right, the last bit should be coverable on foot.
If the public transit actually does that, great. But I live in the United States, where that's true basically nowhere. Or, if it is, you're left trying to sync up a once-an-hour (or even twice-a-day) bus to go a mile at the end of your train ride. And furthermore, not everyone can actually walk the mile.
Really, this is how I use my bike on most days: I take it on transit, and cover the last bit with the bike. Not everyone wants to bike, and I would personally prefer that they take an automated taxi for the last bit rather than driving all the way from the suburbs. But if they bike or walk, that's great.
Anyway, I have no idea why the poor quality of public transit in the US undercuts any argument for self-driving cars.
posted by kaibutsu at 2:03 PM on September 26 [2 favorites]
If the public transit actually does that, great. But I live in the United States, where that's true basically nowhere. Or, if it is, you're left trying to sync up a once-an-hour (or even twice-a-day) bus to go a mile at the end of your train ride. And furthermore, not everyone can actually walk the mile.
Really, this is how I use my bike on most days: I take it on transit, and cover the last bit with the bike. Not everyone wants to bike, and I would personally prefer that they take an automated taxi for the last bit rather than driving all the way from the suburbs. But if they bike or walk, that's great.
Anyway, I have no idea why the poor quality of public transit in the US undercuts any argument for self-driving cars.
posted by kaibutsu at 2:03 PM on September 26 [2 favorites]
f you insist on breaking traffic laws to cross the street
Dysk lives in the UK and isn’t breaking any traffic laws. Jaywalking is a thing US legislators invented in response to US lobbying.
Data point - Jaywalking is a thing here in Australia too, at least in Queensland where I live. I have been fined once. It was never much of a thing though, until people in the CBD started walking across the street while looking at their phones and getting run down almost every day. As a response to that, police started enforcing the law forbidding anyone from crossing the road except at a pedestrian crossing where one exists within 50 metres. This was a rare example of enforcement actually changing people's behaviour - after a few months of regular but random enforcement, people just gave up and crossed at the crossings. Of course, it only worked in the CBD, which was the only place it was enforced.
MIxing pedestrians into a solid stream of traffic safely is actually possible, but it takes the co-operation of both. In Hanoi, Vietnam, some roads are a literal solid stream of 6-8 lanes of scooters with no crossings (or, where they exist, they are resolutely ignored by everyone). But if you walk out into the stream of traffic, everyone in that stream adjusts their speed to give you space to get across. Only just enough room, mind you and you need to be sure to maintain a very steady pace and walk in a straight line - whatever you do, don't stop. I found maintaining eye contact with as many scooter riders as possible helped. Doing that the first time was terrifying, but I just stood beside a local and did what they did.
The biggest challenge I see for autonomous vehicles working across the planet is that road rules are different, the way pedestrians and drivers behave is different and even the roads themselves are different (or you drive on the opposite side). Programming a vehicle to navigate all of those successfully seems unimaginably complicated and near-impossible. Think of Europe, where you can travel through several countries in a day. Or travelling from the UK to Europe, switching sides of the road in the process. I do think they have a place in the future, but not everywhere.
posted by dg at 2:32 PM on September 26 [2 favorites]
Dysk lives in the UK and isn’t breaking any traffic laws. Jaywalking is a thing US legislators invented in response to US lobbying.
Data point - Jaywalking is a thing here in Australia too, at least in Queensland where I live. I have been fined once. It was never much of a thing though, until people in the CBD started walking across the street while looking at their phones and getting run down almost every day. As a response to that, police started enforcing the law forbidding anyone from crossing the road except at a pedestrian crossing where one exists within 50 metres. This was a rare example of enforcement actually changing people's behaviour - after a few months of regular but random enforcement, people just gave up and crossed at the crossings. Of course, it only worked in the CBD, which was the only place it was enforced.
MIxing pedestrians into a solid stream of traffic safely is actually possible, but it takes the co-operation of both. In Hanoi, Vietnam, some roads are a literal solid stream of 6-8 lanes of scooters with no crossings (or, where they exist, they are resolutely ignored by everyone). But if you walk out into the stream of traffic, everyone in that stream adjusts their speed to give you space to get across. Only just enough room, mind you and you need to be sure to maintain a very steady pace and walk in a straight line - whatever you do, don't stop. I found maintaining eye contact with as many scooter riders as possible helped. Doing that the first time was terrifying, but I just stood beside a local and did what they did.
The biggest challenge I see for autonomous vehicles working across the planet is that road rules are different, the way pedestrians and drivers behave is different and even the roads themselves are different (or you drive on the opposite side). Programming a vehicle to navigate all of those successfully seems unimaginably complicated and near-impossible. Think of Europe, where you can travel through several countries in a day. Or travelling from the UK to Europe, switching sides of the road in the process. I do think they have a place in the future, but not everywhere.
posted by dg at 2:32 PM on September 26 [2 favorites]
A society that relies more on public transit and healthy alternates has less need of personal vehicles in the city core, period. See: much of Europe.
But I'm not a complete idiot about no cars. We regularly have to drive 200km to visit a parent (rail + transit just ain't an option here), and to make it less tedious, we like to take secondary highways. We've figured out 5 or 6 different ways to make that trip. One day, when I passed through yet another little rural hamlet, it became clear that as long as people live like that.... we will always need personal vehicles. So ok; all we can ask there is that they use efficient vehicles, efficiently.
Cities are a different matter; personal cars should not be preferred or favoured there. And those who do commute from the little hamlets should be able to drive a short distance to a train station, or park on the fringes of the city and take transit the rest of the way.
I have no idea why the poor quality of public transit in the US undercuts any argument for self-driving cars.
Because cars shouldn't rule the city, and because self-driving vehicles will probably not work acceptably well in those rural hamlets where private vehicle use is justifiable. So it makes less sense to invest so heavily in self-driving vehicles, and not in other modes.
posted by Artful Codger at 2:44 PM on September 26 [4 favorites]
But I'm not a complete idiot about no cars. We regularly have to drive 200km to visit a parent (rail + transit just ain't an option here), and to make it less tedious, we like to take secondary highways. We've figured out 5 or 6 different ways to make that trip. One day, when I passed through yet another little rural hamlet, it became clear that as long as people live like that.... we will always need personal vehicles. So ok; all we can ask there is that they use efficient vehicles, efficiently.
Cities are a different matter; personal cars should not be preferred or favoured there. And those who do commute from the little hamlets should be able to drive a short distance to a train station, or park on the fringes of the city and take transit the rest of the way.
I have no idea why the poor quality of public transit in the US undercuts any argument for self-driving cars.
Because cars shouldn't rule the city, and because self-driving vehicles will probably not work acceptably well in those rural hamlets where private vehicle use is justifiable. So it makes less sense to invest so heavily in self-driving vehicles, and not in other modes.
posted by Artful Codger at 2:44 PM on September 26 [4 favorites]
"It's probably worth mentioning that this problem isn't new, or even unique to autonomous vehicles. Humans also can't drive safely in driving rain/snow, or when salt encrusts the windshield so much that it blocks visibility, or when they're driving west as the sun sets and the glare blinds them. The difference is, humans don't explicitly acknowledge the unsafe conditions. At best, they slow down a bit and say a little prayer that they won't run down a pedestrian they don't see. At worst, they keep on truckin' like nothing's wrong, because this is America and driving your car is a god-given right enshrined in the constitution."
I'm not sure how much experience you have with these systems, but we're talking about different things here.
I'm talking about sensor occlusion, something that can happen in situations as seemingly innocuous as a wet road that's kicking up spray onto the front of the vehicle. Or snow and salt that is on the road, even though it isn't actively snowing, in levels that spray up from traffic but in no way impact the safety of a human driver.
There is currently no vehicle out there that can keep its forward-looking sensors clean all the time in conditions that have no impact on HUMAN visibility through the windshield, which is easy to keep clean.
Even with sensors mounted BEHIND windshields, they can often be obscured because of accumulation that wipers simply can't reach, or can't clear at a rate that satisfies the sensor.
TL;DR: sensors fail in situations that are in no way dangerous to human drivers. It happens to me on a constant basis in the winter climate I live in, where I drive / am driven by / exposed to these vehicles.
posted by jordantwodelta at 2:48 PM on September 26 [8 favorites]
I'm not sure how much experience you have with these systems, but we're talking about different things here.
I'm talking about sensor occlusion, something that can happen in situations as seemingly innocuous as a wet road that's kicking up spray onto the front of the vehicle. Or snow and salt that is on the road, even though it isn't actively snowing, in levels that spray up from traffic but in no way impact the safety of a human driver.
There is currently no vehicle out there that can keep its forward-looking sensors clean all the time in conditions that have no impact on HUMAN visibility through the windshield, which is easy to keep clean.
Even with sensors mounted BEHIND windshields, they can often be obscured because of accumulation that wipers simply can't reach, or can't clear at a rate that satisfies the sensor.
TL;DR: sensors fail in situations that are in no way dangerous to human drivers. It happens to me on a constant basis in the winter climate I live in, where I drive / am driven by / exposed to these vehicles.
posted by jordantwodelta at 2:48 PM on September 26 [8 favorites]
You have situations with continuous streams of cars going 40mph (65kmh) for many minutes at a time, with no cross walks or signals?
I've never been in a city; or any town/village/wide spot on the road that was serviced by a thru highway; that didn't have stroads. Often multiple lanes each direction. It's not usual at all for safe crossings to be a mile or more apart.
One of the things I'm hopeful about autonomous cars is they obey speed limits. Get enough of them driving around and they'll enforce the speed limit just by driving it.
posted by Mitheral at 4:19 PM on September 26 [3 favorites]
I've never been in a city; or any town/village/wide spot on the road that was serviced by a thru highway; that didn't have stroads. Often multiple lanes each direction. It's not usual at all for safe crossings to be a mile or more apart.
One of the things I'm hopeful about autonomous cars is they obey speed limits. Get enough of them driving around and they'll enforce the speed limit just by driving it.
posted by Mitheral at 4:19 PM on September 26 [3 favorites]
Data point - Jaywalking is a thing here in Australia too, at least in Queensland where I live.
When I saw some mentions of Australia in this context when reading about this in the past couple of days my first thought was :"What? Oh, okay, Queensland—maybe it's something Bjelke-Petersen brought in. Glad I didn't get fined when I visited Brisbane in the '90s." And now I see that it's just about everywhere and I probably could have got fined when I was last visiting Melbourne or Sydney or even the state I grew up in of Tassie. But this is very recent: 2014 in NSW, 2017 in Victoria, 1999 in Tassie apparently. Which is some bullshit for Australians who moved away 23 years ago and only go back every couple of years...
The phones thing sounds like a furphy. There are phones in the UK, too. The Green Cross Code still applies here.
At least I've now learned that I had to "walk along a road on the same side as and facing oncoming traffic unless it is impracticable to do so" whenever I visited Tas from 2009 onwards. So I was only ignorant of that the last... six trips home. Pretty sure I did it anyway, because it's the common-sense way not to get hit by a car on a country road, but I'm not convinced common sense always needs to be enforced with fines.
posted by rory at 11:47 PM on September 26 [2 favorites]
When I saw some mentions of Australia in this context when reading about this in the past couple of days my first thought was :"What? Oh, okay, Queensland—maybe it's something Bjelke-Petersen brought in. Glad I didn't get fined when I visited Brisbane in the '90s." And now I see that it's just about everywhere and I probably could have got fined when I was last visiting Melbourne or Sydney or even the state I grew up in of Tassie. But this is very recent: 2014 in NSW, 2017 in Victoria, 1999 in Tassie apparently. Which is some bullshit for Australians who moved away 23 years ago and only go back every couple of years...
The phones thing sounds like a furphy. There are phones in the UK, too. The Green Cross Code still applies here.
At least I've now learned that I had to "walk along a road on the same side as and facing oncoming traffic unless it is impracticable to do so" whenever I visited Tas from 2009 onwards. So I was only ignorant of that the last... six trips home. Pretty sure I did it anyway, because it's the common-sense way not to get hit by a car on a country road, but I'm not convinced common sense always needs to be enforced with fines.
posted by rory at 11:47 PM on September 26 [2 favorites]
They might also lead to a rapid uptick in EV adoption, on the bright side? They're a very natural fit.
I'm curious how the EVs are faring in the wake of hurricane Helene's flooding of a big chunk of country right now. Did everyone get them to higher ground? Can people achieve that in the future if adoption ramps up?
I'm not saying this as an anti-EV point (I'm very anti-combustion personally) but I am really insanely curious about the logistics of change in a culture that doesn't really seem able to do deliberate whole system engineering for it.
posted by srboisvert at 3:46 AM on September 28 [3 favorites]
I'm curious how the EVs are faring in the wake of hurricane Helene's flooding of a big chunk of country right now. Did everyone get them to higher ground? Can people achieve that in the future if adoption ramps up?
I'm not saying this as an anti-EV point (I'm very anti-combustion personally) but I am really insanely curious about the logistics of change in a culture that doesn't really seem able to do deliberate whole system engineering for it.
posted by srboisvert at 3:46 AM on September 28 [3 favorites]
Great question. An architect friend is busy designing new auto dealerships and retrofits to accommodate EVs. The building codes in Canada are still maybe years behind in understanding how to safely manage all the new batteries and charging systems. (As well, fire chiefs in Canada and the US are really concerned by all the cheap uncertified batteries and rebuilds for e-bikes, scooters, etc).
There's still a big lag in the capability/willingness of the auto service sector to fix EVs. Another friend's Tesla 3 - it took months to arrange some minor collision repair for something that would have cost maybe $3k and taken a week, for a common ICE vehicle. And the final bill for the Tesla bodywork repair was over $11k.
It's not hard to imagine that privately owned autonomous vehicles will be not only expensive to buy, but breathtakingly expensive to maintain.
posted by Artful Codger at 6:41 AM on September 28 [2 favorites]
There's still a big lag in the capability/willingness of the auto service sector to fix EVs. Another friend's Tesla 3 - it took months to arrange some minor collision repair for something that would have cost maybe $3k and taken a week, for a common ICE vehicle. And the final bill for the Tesla bodywork repair was over $11k.
It's not hard to imagine that privately owned autonomous vehicles will be not only expensive to buy, but breathtakingly expensive to maintain.
posted by Artful Codger at 6:41 AM on September 28 [2 favorites]
How do autonomous cars decide who backs up to the passing place on a country lane?
posted by biffa at 7:14 AM on September 28 [2 favorites]
posted by biffa at 7:14 AM on September 28 [2 favorites]
Well, exactly. We won't soon get to 100.00% autonomous vehicles. Even in Star Wars, they like to drive their land vehicles.
* * *
If you want a preview of what accident injury claims will look like when autonomous vehicles are more prevalent, this story is informative:
Uber terms mean couple can't sue after 'life-changing' crash
posted by Artful Codger at 7:21 AM on September 28 [2 favorites]
* * *
If you want a preview of what accident injury claims will look like when autonomous vehicles are more prevalent, this story is informative:
Uber terms mean couple can't sue after 'life-changing' crash
posted by Artful Codger at 7:21 AM on September 28 [2 favorites]
I think you're misunderstanding Jevon's point. It's not that we make the light in our living room 10 times brighter, it's that we start lighting up things we wouldn't have before.
I think it goes a bit further than this. Basically it suggests that whatever money you save from more efficient lighting gets spent on something else, and that the something else will have both embedded energy and operational energy costs, plus related emissions. So for every 100 kWh you save, the value of what you save allows you to afford to use some elsewhere. This might be more light fixtures but could be anything else too. The literature suggests this is typically not 100% of the saving, but nor is it negligible. It's worth bearing in mind this has value in terms of your improved welfare, but it does impact emissions reduction policy.
posted by biffa at 7:24 AM on September 28 [2 favorites]
I think it goes a bit further than this. Basically it suggests that whatever money you save from more efficient lighting gets spent on something else, and that the something else will have both embedded energy and operational energy costs, plus related emissions. So for every 100 kWh you save, the value of what you save allows you to afford to use some elsewhere. This might be more light fixtures but could be anything else too. The literature suggests this is typically not 100% of the saving, but nor is it negligible. It's worth bearing in mind this has value in terms of your improved welfare, but it does impact emissions reduction policy.
posted by biffa at 7:24 AM on September 28 [2 favorites]
Importantly that's an NJ court. In 2021, an MA court says Uber can’t hold users to terms they probably didn’t read, of course he was blind and physically could not read them, and lower courts still enforced arbitration.
Supreme Court of Canada rules Uber arbitration clause invalid and a ‘classic case of unconscionability’ (2020)
Amusingly, Uber thinks the Netherlands should govern their terms of service for Hong-Kong, including their arbitration clause, but they've no arbitration clause in their terms of service for the Netherlands.
posted by jeffburdges at 11:43 AM on September 28 [2 favorites]
Supreme Court of Canada rules Uber arbitration clause invalid and a ‘classic case of unconscionability’ (2020)
Amusingly, Uber thinks the Netherlands should govern their terms of service for Hong-Kong, including their arbitration clause, but they've no arbitration clause in their terms of service for the Netherlands.
posted by jeffburdges at 11:43 AM on September 28 [2 favorites]
There's still a big lag in the capability/willingness of the auto service sector to fix EVs. Another friend's Tesla 3 - it took months to arrange some minor collision repair for something that would have cost maybe $3k and taken a week, for a common ICE vehicle. And the final bill for the Tesla bodywork repair was over $11k.
Teslas are uniquely bad for repairability, due to their atypically large castings. You can't generalise from Tesla to EVs in general on this point in particular.
posted by Dysk at 3:58 PM on September 28 [2 favorites]
Teslas are uniquely bad for repairability, due to their atypically large castings. You can't generalise from Tesla to EVs in general on this point in particular.
posted by Dysk at 3:58 PM on September 28 [2 favorites]
Fair enough. I saw the damage, it seemed to be body only (dent & scrape) and not structural. but I believe my friend said that no "conventional" body shop would take the job because it was an EV, and he had to take it to the Tesla-authorized repair shop, who had a months-long backlog. Just speculating, but there might be an insurance issue too; shops needing special coverage or redesigned facilities in order to work on EVs. Tesla Model 3 bodies are apparently of steel, not castings.
Battery replacement costs are eye-watering, and for some models there are still supply-chain issues.
posted by Artful Codger at 7:54 PM on September 28 [1 favorite]
Battery replacement costs are eye-watering, and for some models there are still supply-chain issues.
posted by Artful Codger at 7:54 PM on September 28 [1 favorite]
It's not about the batteries with Tesla (wrt fresh damage specifically, anyway) it's the fact that their giant castings means you can't replace a pranged part in the front, the entire front is one giant casting.
Ever play Civilization? Know how "replaceable parts" is an industrial era technology? Tesla don't.
posted by Dysk at 10:49 PM on September 28 [4 favorites]
Ever play Civilization? Know how "replaceable parts" is an industrial era technology? Tesla don't.
posted by Dysk at 10:49 PM on September 28 [4 favorites]
How do autonomous cars decide who backs up to the passing place on a country lane?
Well, exactly. We won't soon get to 100.00% autonomous vehicles. Even in Star Wars, they like to drive their land vehicles.
Use cases like barely-used country roads are why I don't think we'll ever see 100% autonomous vehicles and, even in more populated rural and remote areas, the investment to make autonomous vehicles simply won't be feasible. At most, I think we'll see autonomous vehicles that are geo-fenced into areas where they work and the area inside the fence getting larger over time, starting from the CBD of big cities, where the return will attract car builders long before autonomous vehicles are viable in most of the rest of the world.
posted by dg at 9:38 PM on September 29
Well, exactly. We won't soon get to 100.00% autonomous vehicles. Even in Star Wars, they like to drive their land vehicles.
Use cases like barely-used country roads are why I don't think we'll ever see 100% autonomous vehicles and, even in more populated rural and remote areas, the investment to make autonomous vehicles simply won't be feasible. At most, I think we'll see autonomous vehicles that are geo-fenced into areas where they work and the area inside the fence getting larger over time, starting from the CBD of big cities, where the return will attract car builders long before autonomous vehicles are viable in most of the rest of the world.
posted by dg at 9:38 PM on September 29
Mega castings are cheaper to produce than smaller pieces. This is one of Tesla's competive advantages. That they are more expensive to repair after entirely predictable incidents isn't something they worry about (might even be seen as a feature).
It's not hard to imagine that privately owned autonomous vehicles will be not only expensive to buy, but breathtakingly expensive to maintain.
Where I live commercial vehicles require biannual inspections for safety. I see no reason why autonomous vehicles, private or public, shouldn't also have that requirement as a minimum. Maybe quarterly would be more appropriate. I mean they potentially don't even have a driver doing the cursory walk around inspection required of commercial passenger vehicles to detect gross safety problems before starting.
posted by Mitheral at 9:36 AM on September 30 [2 favorites]
It's not hard to imagine that privately owned autonomous vehicles will be not only expensive to buy, but breathtakingly expensive to maintain.
Where I live commercial vehicles require biannual inspections for safety. I see no reason why autonomous vehicles, private or public, shouldn't also have that requirement as a minimum. Maybe quarterly would be more appropriate. I mean they potentially don't even have a driver doing the cursory walk around inspection required of commercial passenger vehicles to detect gross safety problems before starting.
posted by Mitheral at 9:36 AM on September 30 [2 favorites]
That they are more expensive to repair after entirely predictable incidents isn't something they worry about (might even be seen as a feature).
Feature for shareholders, bug for the planet.
posted by Dysk at 9:59 AM on September 30 [1 favorite]
Feature for shareholders, bug for the planet.
posted by Dysk at 9:59 AM on September 30 [1 favorite]
... they potentially don't even have a driver doing the cursory walk around inspection required of commercial passenger vehicles to detect gross safety problems before starting.
Even if drivers of commercial vehicles actually do a walk-around inspection before starting, which they mostly don't, drivers of private passenger vehicles doing inspections before each drive, or quarterly or any other time is exceedingly rare. Where I live there are no mandatory inspections of private vehicles so a car can be bought new and, if it never changes hands, never have any independent inspection in it's lifetime or, even worse, be bought 10 years old, have a cursory inspection at the time of sale by one of the (private) inspectors who will turn a blind eye to defects not visible from the outside in return for a few extra dollars and then never be inspected again, at the time when important components like suspension are most likely to fail or be on the point of failure.
Why would you give a free pass to human drivers and subject an autonomous vehicle to frequent inspections? Technology already exists to have cars self-diagnose and immobilise the car for safety faults.
posted by dg at 2:48 PM on September 30
Even if drivers of commercial vehicles actually do a walk-around inspection before starting, which they mostly don't, drivers of private passenger vehicles doing inspections before each drive, or quarterly or any other time is exceedingly rare. Where I live there are no mandatory inspections of private vehicles so a car can be bought new and, if it never changes hands, never have any independent inspection in it's lifetime or, even worse, be bought 10 years old, have a cursory inspection at the time of sale by one of the (private) inspectors who will turn a blind eye to defects not visible from the outside in return for a few extra dollars and then never be inspected again, at the time when important components like suspension are most likely to fail or be on the point of failure.
Why would you give a free pass to human drivers and subject an autonomous vehicle to frequent inspections? Technology already exists to have cars self-diagnose and immobilise the car for safety faults.
posted by dg at 2:48 PM on September 30
Because the ship has sailed on getting private owners in the US to do it but this bare minimum of safety precautions could be forced on a new industry. Especially because the jurisdictions these cars are currently operating in do have inspection schemes for at least some commercial vehicles.
And lots of places do have mandatory inspections of personal vehicles whether on a regular schedule or ad hoc basis including where I live.
Technology already exists to have cars self-diagnose and immobilise the car for safety faults.
IMO without some sort of mandatory compliance scheme any immobilize "features" will be defeated by companies. Like would you trust Musk to not push the limit on safety by ignoring safety issues? His record with SpaceX (or Tesla 2, violations with AutoPilot) (Twitter for fucks sake) sure doesn't show a man who gives a shit about safety. But I'm sure the companies will make exactly that argument as to why they shouldn't face inspection.
posted by Mitheral at 6:22 PM on September 30 [4 favorites]
And lots of places do have mandatory inspections of personal vehicles whether on a regular schedule or ad hoc basis including where I live.
Technology already exists to have cars self-diagnose and immobilise the car for safety faults.
IMO without some sort of mandatory compliance scheme any immobilize "features" will be defeated by companies. Like would you trust Musk to not push the limit on safety by ignoring safety issues? His record with SpaceX (or Tesla 2, violations with AutoPilot) (Twitter for fucks sake) sure doesn't show a man who gives a shit about safety. But I'm sure the companies will make exactly that argument as to why they shouldn't face inspection.
posted by Mitheral at 6:22 PM on September 30 [4 favorites]
You make a good point about it being easy to regulate a new industry where there isn't a critical mass to push back yet. However the builders of autonomous cars are, at least initially, builders of other cars who, as you point out, have already shown a complete unwillingness to give a rat's arse about safety. I do think there's a solid case for inspections of autonomous vehicles separate to any argument for or against this with human-driven vehicles, simply because there's going to be no human capable of reacting to correct or shut down the vehicle if it goes rogue in many cases. But I think the focus should be on those fail-safe systems themselves and ensuring that, firstly, they are in place before vehicle #1 drives itself out of the factory and, secondly, that the systems continue to be in place. In theory, regulators should be able to access the vehicles remotely to assess ongoing compliance, which is a lot easier than hiding behind trees at the bottom of a hill to catch speeders.
posted by dg at 8:32 PM on September 30 [1 favorite]
posted by dg at 8:32 PM on September 30 [1 favorite]
The failsafes and automated systems are all good and fine until someone jumpers some sensor wires to bypass an immobilising failed sensor. Proposed inspections aren't just to keep manufacturers honest, it's operators too.
(Annual MoT inspections on passenger cars three years old or older here. Just have something similar for anything automated, but with a bunch of sensor and driving tests as well.)
posted by Dysk at 12:34 AM on October 1 [3 favorites]
(Annual MoT inspections on passenger cars three years old or older here. Just have something similar for anything automated, but with a bunch of sensor and driving tests as well.)
posted by Dysk at 12:34 AM on October 1 [3 favorites]
« Older her husband, a local councillor, a journalist, a... | “What ceremony would you like to perform to open... Newer »
That said, we do have this thing called trains and buses which are very good.
My perverse hope is that if we take car away from the majority of the population, it may then become easier to get them to use mass transit...
posted by constraint at 11:49 AM on September 25 [7 favorites]