• grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    I have literally never seen that argument made.

    Usually, what I see in those threads are a whole bunch of people arguing that autonomous cars would be some kind of silver-bullet panacea for traffic.

    Frankly, what you wrote sounds like a strawman misinterpretation of an argument I myself make: I argue that autonomous cars are not a solution, but not “because we’ll just eliminate all cars before they’re ready.” They’re not a solution simply because they’re still cars, and therefore take up the same grossly excessive amount of space as non-autonomous cars do.

    • Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      They’re not a solution simply because they’re still cars, and therefore take up the same grossly excessive amount of space as non-autonomous cars do.

      Yeah, the only things autonomous cars might reduce are:

      1. Parking, but only if we forego our current private ownership model and everyone starts doing self-driving robo-taxis everywhere (unlikely)
      2. Road fatalities, but only if the self-driving tech proves statistically better than human drivers in a wide range of conditions (jury is still out)

      It’s the same fundamental problem that electric cars have: geometry. Cars – even if electric and self-driving – are simply grossly inefficient at moving people for the amount of land they require:

      • masterspace@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Except that the jury is not “still out” on number two, it is simply a matter of time, engineering, and training before they are statistically safer than humans.

        Waymo’s cars are already safer than humans in their limited conditions.