444
A crowd destroyed a driverless Waymo car in San Francisco
(www.theverge.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2024
444 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
59598 readers
2991 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Then why don't you argue in favour of it? I'm not opposed to automated driving, all I'm saying is that it doesn't address what you think it addresses. It mostly addresses money billionaires have burning in their pocket.
That's not an answer. Why, among all the gazillion of approaches to reduce traffic deaths, are you focussed specifically, and quite pin-pointedly so, on self-driving? What makes it so more effective, so more realistic, so more existing, than raised intersections? What makes the rest of the US so fundamentally more backwards than, of all the people, the Mormons?
I'll tell you: Because there's an illness that has befallen US progressivism, and that is to confuse "new" with "good", and "already exists" with "not worth it".
Not with that attitude certainly not, no, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Stop talking to me, convince your local city council to build a raised intersection you will have done more for humanity.
I do, frequently, but we're in a thread discussing the merits of autonomous vehicles vs normal car, not the merits of public transit.
Because that's what this fucking thread is about. You want to start a thread on the merits of roundabouts vs cross intersections and you'll see me arguing for roundabouts.
You clearly have not been to the US if you think the Mormons are the most stubborn and backwards part of it. Go to Florida, go to any Trump supporting county, drive from a city to the various suburbs and country homes and see how spread out they are. Look at how half the US votes. Utah and the Mormons are an exception and odd sect that isn't remotely representative of America at large, they also mass built housing for the homeless, something that nowhere else in America has done. And guess what? Utah still has a ton of cars.
And you know what makes self driving cars different from every solution that you mention? They have the potential to be an exact drop in replacement for existing cars and can work absolutely everywhere they do, including all edge cases.
Bruh, you can't fucking read. I've already told you I'm not American and that I do that. Jesus fucking christ your brain is incapable of not just thinking "haha I'm arguing with generic tech bro dufus, let me clown on how tech bro dufus he is ha ha ha"
And the merits are "people don't like it". As evidenced by the very title. You asked me why anyone would destroy an automated car, I gave you an answer, you didn't accept it but neither provided an alternative. Maybe ponder about it a bit more.
No, this thread is not about how cool autonomous driving it, but about a crowd destroying an autonomous car. Why did they do that?
Overall, nice try at diversion, as if any discussion on the internet had ever been limited to the original topic, wait, let me prove it: Hitler! Godwin!. Really you should try to employ less rhetorical tricks. They may work on you, they rarely if ever work on me.
Point taken, but if the Mormons can do it, why can't California? They at least were smart enough to abolish single family home zoning and didn't blink when Musk tried to torpedo California HSR (which is what his hyperloop nonsense is about), but that was the state forcing the municipalities to enact a bare minimum of zoning sanity that they themselves were unwilling to do. I think Portland leads the pack in that regard, at least among the more prominent locations.
Maybe that's exactly the issue: Things like streetcar suburb aren't new. They are what existed until they got outlawed by a failed innovation. Mormons might be conservative enough to look back and say "yep that was better", while California liberals are, just as you, saying "muuuuuuh but we need something shiny and new, old solutions can't fix anything".
And I have the potential to be an exact drop in replacement for Jesus Christ. Why do you insist the fix to the issues be a drop-in replacement? Conservative, afraid of change, much?
Apparently doesn't stop you to be car-brained like an American. As to techbro: Don't act and argue and talk like one and I'll stop calling you that.
Lmfao, so your answer at the end of all this, is "automated cars won't happen because people don't like them"??
And yet your alternative is for every American to give up their car and take public transit. lmfao.
Learn how to read.
Learn how to read.
No. My answer is "automated cars will continue to be opposed by the collective unconscious until urban planning related things that are of importance to it are addressed (such as housing, equity, but also plain liability see asphalt deserts), and at that point autonomous cars will not be needed any more". But that's a mouthful, I thought you intelligent enough to understand it without being spoon-fed given that you claim to be such an advocate for public transit and modern urban planning, being aware of all its its advantages in most exquisite and intricate detail.
Autonomous cars will not, just to open another can of worms, re-establish third places in the urban fabric. Do you know what third places are, their function, their importance, and how car-centric design destroyed them?
Lmfao, ok bud, please point me to the jurisdiction where drivers aren't killing thousands of people a year.
You seem to have forgotten the parts of the discussion where you failed to account for even a modicum of edge cases on an even 20 year timeline.
Everyone getting around by streetcar suburbs made sense 20 years ago too, but I'm glad we didn't stop all road safety engineering on the assumption we'd do it just because it the logical collective thing to do. You're living in a fantasy where you're planning only for the best possible outcome.
We can probably both agree though, that the actual thrashing of the car was an inevitable result of ever growing wealth inequality.
I never said that all cars must be abolished. Go, go back in the discussion and check. The one group I addressed specifically was commuters: It's the biggest group, most easy to address to at least 95%.
If you're talking about the US: No, the US didn't suddenly start to safety engineer, they're still hostile to pedestrians over there. On the contrary, 20 years ago SUVs which make children invisible didn't really exist yet. If you're talking about Europe: We never abolished public transit. We made mistakes weakening it, but we didn't abolish it, and engineering for pedestrian safety goes back to at least the 60s, and by the 70s at least the Netherlands had found their bearings.
Of course. I mean if you want to chauffeur everyone in an individual autonomous taxi during rush hour everyone will need one of those, leased or owned, either way it's going to be expensive so people understand on an instinctive level that those cars aren't a solution while wealth inequality persists. As said: Public transport side-steps that issue. We haven't been able to fix wealth inequality in the last two centuries you won't do it in the next two decades, or at least we shouldn't bet urbanism on that happening.
Meanwhile, roads are up for reconstruction all the time anyways, how about making sure not a single one gets rebuilt along car-brain principles.
Yes, which brings us back to the point that if any cars are on the road, they should be autonomous, because autonomous cars have the potential to be far safer than humans.
Either your point is that all cars can be abolished, or that the deaths that drivers cause don't matter. Either way you're wrong.
Bruh. Seriously. Are you intentionally being dense? The point is not that safety standards suddenly started 20 years ago, it's that pursuing increased automotive safety standards was still a worthwhile effort in parallel with building public transit, because guess what, even Europe has thousand of car deaths a year, and it's worth planning for harm reduction strategies even if we don't get the overall optimum first choice.
They're also going to be far less reliable, we've been over this, an autonomous fire truck won't ram something out of the way because it can't make the call unless we're talking true scifi. The cars that will be left will be mostly driven by professionals which makes the gains marginal. And anyway I'm not fundamentally opposed to autonomous cars, have them if you want to cover those last 0.0001% but if you want to solve 100% with them, well, it won't work. Too expensive.
I already said all that. You're re-erecting strawmen.
Europe already had public transportation and walkable cities. The US doesn't. And over here btw noone (serious) is hailing autonomous driving as a revolution or solution to anything, even though Volkswagen (in the form of Audi) were the first one to produce an actual level 3 vehicle. And waymo etc. know that they couldn't get their purported "level 4" vehicles past regulations so they don't even try, having seen uber crash+burn over here with its skirting of regulations, unlike in the US they're actually getting enforced. And exist/are sensible.
Yeah.
Yeah, see above. Europe doesn't hail autonomous driving as revolutionary because it is a super dense area with a well established train network. Europe is not the whole world. Autonomous driving will develop faster than America will become like Europe, how much money would you be willing to bet otherwise?
Density doesn't have anything to do with it the US is as if not more dense if you subtract all the void in between places. Even taking the void into account the US has twice the population density of Finland (16.4 vs. 33.6 per km^2^) yet Finland manages to have public transport in its urban areas. Places like the east cost are significantly more dense than practically anywhere in Europe. California has practically the same density as Spain.
And it's not like the US don't have an established rail network, either -- they just let it rot and operate it in a way that doesn't make rail a viable alternative to driving or flying. With the same rail policy as Europe there'd be a HSR sleeper train from New York to LA, HSR which also in Europe would have to be constructed, first, all that track from the age of industrialisation doesn't do high speeds.
How much riots, money, and deaths is the US wiling to bet on autonomous driving to avoid raising intersections when the street gets its periodic make-over, anyway? It's upkeep in general that costs money, rebuilding them in a sane way while you're at it costs little more to actually less: Most of their streets are way too wide.