Hacker News Reader

Comment by quickthrower2 | Hacker News Reader

A concept I look forward to is not just a driverless car, but driverless "various size vehicles" from a 1-person car to a 100-person bus. In this future we could get the advantages of public transport and car-free living into rural and suburban areas, while in the city these systems could adjust and use AI to find optimal routes that are a lot less slower than current buses (or even trains that require 2 or 3 connections). All the while using electric and reducing energy per passenger and knocking over fewer cyclists :-).

View on HN

Why does having no driver suddenly enable this?

You can do all this now, you just need a driver. Why is that the part that needs to be eliminated before you can do all these things? All it is, is route planning based on demand. Uber, etc should be able to do all this now. Isn't that what Uber Pool was supposed to deliver? Nobody uses that shit for anything but a commute. Nobody wants to sit in a car with other random-ass people stopping 30 times to pick them up. That's half the reason people who drive don't take transit now.

What is it about having no driver that suddenly makes cars green, free up space on the road, etc?

Why would someone who owns a car now, want to wait around for a driverless taxi to pick them up? They can go into their driveway and be driven to their destination right away in their own personal driverless car. And if the car is gonna park itself, that means it's driving around, taking up more space on the road just looking for a parking spot.

I mean think about it. If you can work for an hour while your car drives you to the office, and you don't have to stress or worry about the traffic, why would you even bother with anything else?

For me it's more to possibility to have the ideal car for each situation. Going to the dentist, order a one person car, pick up the kid, order a two person car or order a truck if I need to pick up something large. Utilizing smaller vehicles when ever possible will use less energi.

Some one like me who lives in a small village could also opt to share a car with someone else if me and my partner wants go to the city for night out. A few of my coworkers live close to me, I wouldn't mind sharing a car with them if we happen to leave the office at the same time.

There's small changes that will eventually yield pretty big results. Some German road scientists have a study that show that it's only a few percent difference in the number of cars on the road that leads to traffic jams for instance. Eliminate 5 - 10% or cars and traffic jams goes away, for the most part.

There are cities on earth where taxis are ubiquitous and relatively affordable (even to locals making local wages). So nothing really changes there when the driver is eliminated (except maybe better traffic flows). But driverless might make ubiquitous taxis affordable in developed countries, it is a valid way of living. When I lived in Beijing, I used to commute to and from work by taxi, and used it for lots of other trips around town as well, and ya, not stressing about traffic was a bonus (but I changed my schedule so I would miss Beijing’s hellish rush hour).

Imagine being a human driver who has to constantly change routes based on what the computer tells you, switch vehicles based on demand, and not make any mistakes. That sounds exhausting. You're also occupying a seat which could be used by a passenger.

A centrally-directed autonomous fleet of vehicles would be genuinely revolutionary for public transit, replacing everything from taxis to buses with a beautifully efficient system. I can't imagine not being excited by that.

> Why does having no driver suddenly enable this?

No-driver will make it more economical eventually because:

1. There is no hourly wage to pay a driver.

2. The car can be utilized 24/7 (or most likely 16/7 based on demand, but much better than 8/5 of a typical shift driver).

> What is it about having no driver that suddenly makes cars green, free up space on the road, etc?

A confluence of things: electric cars, the cheaper rides, the critical mass of users so that algorithms can find ways for people to share.

Remember if I am using a bus now, and this is offering me a 30 minute journey but (oof!) sharing with other people instead of 1 hour on a bus, this is a good switch.

> Why would someone who owns a car now, want to wait around for a driverless taxi to pick them up?

The reason is posted to you several times each year: "Car service" "Registration Fee" "Compulsory Check" "Your Toll Invoice" "Third Party Insurance" "Comprehensive Insurance" "Speeding Ticket" "Parking Ticket" and so on. And that assumes you don't crash (on in my case, hit/run done on your parked car) and have to deal with that hell.

Selling your car, getting $X,000 and being free of all that is a relief.

> If you can work for an hour while your car drives you to the office, and you don't have to stress or worry about the traffic, why would you even bother with anything else?

Depends. Replace car with helicopter and the same applies. Not everyone wants to pay for a helicopter. Not everyone will want to pay for their own car when you can get it on demand. Say it costs $25 a day to own your own car and be taken, $10 a day for your own uber-like and $5 a day if you share. A lot of people will go for the savings. Even more so if cities add single-person taxes on cars to ease congestion.

These efficiencies could be getting born out by the existing ride share apps but the promised efficiencies haven’t come to fruition at all yet. All subscription services like this have had high promises of cheaper and more economical service but they struggle to stay on par with legacy things they replace. Streaming services are rapidly approaching cable. Uber and Lyft are often more expensive than a yellow cab.

There will be a very, very long time before a $80,000 self driving car and all the technology and services to make it self driving and service it automatically can undersell a driver making $35/hr after expenses in a $10,000 car that she owns, or a driver for a fleet making $25/hr.

A fleet driver making $25/h already costs more than $80K per year, at lower utilization and less flexibility.

I think you’re missing my point - I don’t think it’s going to be cheap, or even economical compared to a cheap self owned vehicle, any time soon. I’m predicting it won’t be cheaper than Uber or Lyft until 3rd or 4th generations, especially when they try to earn a profit.

> (or most likely 16/7 based on demand, but much better than 8/5 of a typical shift driver).

Or more practically 4/5 plus a small amount outside that.

My cities public transit system is currently limited by the number of drivers they can find. The pay is quite good, they just can't sign people up. This has lead to extreme inconsistencies where if a driver calls in sick a bus or train just won't show up for 30 minutes instead of the usual 10. Driverless busses allow for the system to greatly expand the number of routes and increase consistency.

> The pay is quite good, they just can't sign people up.

Quite good does not sound good enough.

it's well into 6 figures in a MCOL area. If they paid any more they'd have to raise fares which would cause less people to use it.

Or raise taxes, pay more for drivers, and lower fares.

That would be nice, but the current funding level is already under political attack. There is absolutely no chance of increased funding when people are already incredibly pissed about the tax burden.

I just want a driverless RV that will drive me between all the National Parks in the US while I work remotely from the back via a Starlink dish mounted to the roof.

Just to moderate the dream slightly, if you're moving around at a solid pace and/or driving enough that you get actual work done, the fuel costs add up. I've had trips in RV/bus-scale vehicles have portions that work out at $100-250/day in gas. So, ideally you want an electric vehicle.

And to be honest, the actual driving is often a predictable and easy part of the equation. Finding camping/accommodation options near national parks, and then dealing with the hordes is a hassle that remains. If you can work on the road, in theory you're less rushed.

Travel with a partner and then at least one of you can work while the other drives.

Yes, definitely want the RV to be electric. Plus would cover the roof in solar to get a bit of extra charge.

I don't think the rooftop solar makes a dent in the vehicle's power needs, but maybe that changes with time. I've driven a lot of the US, a lot of national parks, and the driving is the trivial bit. Everything else is a pain, IMO!

The solar is less for the driving and more for the daily usage, so that if I'm parked somewhere in the middle of nowhere I don't need to be plugged in.

If it drives while you work, it can drive slow and save some power. Even if the range is just .. 20 - 40km. You have a new place every day :D

The solution to homelessness too! No need to find a parking spot. Just drive all night. Could it drive very slowly and charge the batteries using solar? Hmmm

This is the solution to NIMBYness. A homelessness solution would let you stay in one place :-)

We saw an electric motorboat this summer, made out of an old archipelago fisher boat. Cabin top and bimini full of solar.

Owner estimated that on a sunny day you can motor at 3kt without depleting batteries.

Solar “sailing” is increasingly practical; there are companies selling luxurious solar ocean cruisers [1] already. As a sailor, the idea has a definite appeal for long ocean crossings. Sunshine is very reliable in the open ocean whereas wind can die for days at a time. The idea of cruising around the world without having to worry about the wind - other than to avoid storms - is very attractive.

[1] https://youtu.be/FnYL3C9pWO4?si=gjBXcRac6SOOkdDT

Probably not during the night

What a dream that would be for myself as well. Electric too so I can charge it up at night and then essentially get free travel during the day even if it only 100-300 miles a day.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com