Hacker News Reader

Comment by sdeframond | Hacker News Reader

Being autonomous does not change the fact that a car weighs 1000kg and occupies about 10sqm, just to move a single 70kg person. Or even no one at all, since they are autonomous.

It's a gigantic waste of space and energy.

In this regard, it is in no way comparable to trains, buses etc.

View on HN

If it’s truly a waste, producing no value, no one will pay for it. But obviously many, many people value things like

- The time savings of direct, immediate, door-to-door transportation

- Dedicated storage capacity

- Configuration flexibility, e.g. children’s car seats, foldable seats, luggage racks

- Style and comfort options

- Privacy

…and direct their dollars accordingly.

Except there’s an obvious failure of the market when the true cost of something is not borne by the producer or the consumer. Negative externalities lead to an overproduction and overconsumption of goods or services because the market price does not reflect the true social costs. Which can have detrimental effects on society and the environment. Not to mention the misallocation of resources that one day we may well bitterly regret.

And you think correcting that failure will be harder when the consumer has zero personal investment (financial or emotional) in that thing?

you mean like public transit?

Sure, pass a serious carbon tax.

People really enjoy not paying for externalities.

Cars have utility but also disutility - a lot of the latter is not priced in.

The cost is not bourne entirely by the driver though, that is why it riles people up I think. Taxes subsidize all the infrastructure for cars, even if the taxee doesn't drive, yet it isn't a service for everyone. It also vastly degrades the usage of the space for everyone else. The fact thst the city stinks, is loud, hard to get around and real estate is more expensive can all be linked to impact of cars.

I think people would hate on cars less if there was a fair focus on other infrastructure as well. We could have the best of both worlds.

I love the freedom to drive but I would rather we all have freedom of movement with mass transit and cleaner, quieter cities.

> Taxes subsidize all the infrastructure for cars, even if the taxee doesn't drive, yet it isn't a service for everyone.

Gasoline taxes pay for a lot of road infrastructure; except for people buying gasoline for their lawn mowers and leaf blowers (not applicable in California), the taxes are being paid by folks using the infrastructure.

If no one in the household drives, they likely use taxis and delivery services, both of which depend upon road infrastructure.

I've never heard of a government bus service which paid for the general (not segregated) road infrastructure they use; if some do, I'd love to be corrected.

And bicyclists also use general road infrastructure.

Roads are broadly used by the people. Why shouldn't the people broadly pay for it?

You missed my point I think, which was mostly the below.

> I think people would hate on cars less if there was a fair focus on other infrastructure as well. We could have the best of both worlds.

It's fine that we all pay for it, it would just be nice if that's not all we paid for. It would also be nice to slide the balance toward pedestrian focus once you get into CBDs and once you get to residential areas. You still need roads, absolutely, but we should do better at matching the roads to their spaces.

> And bicyclists also use general road infrastructure

This is more of an aside to be honest, but cyclists don't want to be on the road as much as drivers don't want them to be. Added bike lanes are a compromise, no one wants them, they get people mad, they get people killed. Separated bikelines is one of those "other infrastructure" pieces, which can be built next to mass transit lines for cost efficiency, everyone would prefer that.

Public Transit is a public good yet the same anti car people don't want to pay for the service.

Just for a comparison of efficiency: The M10 Tram in Berlin runs every 5 minutes during daytime, each car with a capacity of around 300 passengers. That’s equivalent to roughly a kilometer of cars, parked end to end with no space in between.

Cool. Does it pick me up at me house and keep others away from me? No? Then not interested in how often it runs.

Every 5 minutes seems inefficient. Does it run if only 1 person boards?

1km of cars is 1/9 the total length of the M10. Not following the argument here.

It’s usually pretty full in the M10. I don’t get the comparison with the total length of the track - you could compare with the length of a tram, which would be 50 meters.

More like 1700kg, trending heavier each year. Bigger is safer until everyone is the same size, pedestrians are literally losing that battle. Death tolls are up in city centres, some cities are considering taxing SUVs/high GMV commuters that enter the city.

> a car weighs 1000kg and occupies about 10sqm, just to move a single 70kg person.

> It's a gigantic waste of space and energy.

So were horses and buggies before car was invented. Interesting, waste of neither space nor energy was not raised as an issue back then.

I can almost guarantee it was raised by someone back then. That’s a strange claim to make. Even just dealing with the poo was a logistical nightmare for a city!

Indeed:

> Just because all roads lead to Rome doesn’t mean you can get in — at least not on wheels. During Julius Caesar’s reign, daytime access to the Eternal City was restricted, with travelers required to hitch their carriages outside the city gates.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/ancient-rome-forbade-dow...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com