Hacker News Reader

Comment by lenerdenator | Hacker News Reader

Regardless of how good FSD turns out to be in any manufacturer's vehicles, I can't help but think that there are better ways to tackle transportation than giving every single person their own car that they have to pay for.

I live in a city with an unusually high number of highway miles per capita. I have to drive 24 miles each way to and from work. AI that can complete this task for me, safely, is pretty cool, but still largely hypothetical and not available to most people. What I'd really like is public transit and an honest national conversation about urban sprawl. My metro area is more-or-less three Manhattans placed side-by-side, but with 2.5 million in population. That's insane. Another automotive technology isn't going to solve that.

View on HN

The solution to traffic is definitely not self driving cars. If truly self driving cars became available which cost no more than comparable (non self driving) cars, then the total cost of driving would go down. Here in “total cost” I’m including the obvious costs like insurance and gas/electricity as well as the total physical energy required driving. With true self driving (i.e. not Tesla FSD in which many are left stressed wondering if it will work right), the act of driving will be easier. In fact, the cost of sitting in traffic will be lower since you can space out while the car does the work. The natural consequence is that the amount of traffic on roads will _increase_ and overall traffic will increase.

The solution to traffic is the same as it’s always been: increase throughput on fewer vehicles. In other words, you should take the bus or the train or increase carpooling or really anything that gets fewer vehicles out of the transportation network. Most importantly the solution is to be less individualistic and more focused on the problem as a collective. Self driving cars are the opposite of that solution.

The problem is that car-dependence is a problem with a lot of hysteresis to it:

If everyone already has cars, it takes a lot to get people out of cars --- if someone already has a car, taking the bus to go somewhere slower than driving is completely out of the question. Conversely, if everyone doesn't have cars, it takes a lot to get people to drive cars due to the upfront cost of car ownership.

I think more transit-oriented city development is definitely the way to go. But nibbling away at the problem is going to take a long time. I think robotaxis are definitely going to play a part in this: by being compatible with existing car-dependent infrastructure and providing a similar speed and flexibility as privately owned cars, existing car owners are more likely to give up personal car ownership. Once people stop owning cars, they would be more amenable to development that gets rid of parking spots, improves walkability, increases density, implements mass transit, and so on.

Why do you say robotaxis specifically here, compared to taxis, or rideshare apps, public transit, etc.? It seems like the benefits you list for robotaxis apply to the others too.

You are right that the benefits for robotaxis applies to the others too. Personally, I'm rooting for robotaxis because it's simply cheaper without needing the human driver. Theoretically, this also makes it more equitable. Just like maids and servants, I think that human-driven rideshare is only viable by exploiting a lower paid underclass. If the rideshare drivers were paid more, then it becomes too expensive for most people to use for daily transportation.

As for buses, they have many of the same drawbacks as personal cars (gets stuck in traffic) while having more disadvantages like slower speed, making them an unattractive option for people who already own cars. Buses are incredibly good for already dense cities where people aren't already car-dependent, however, and some of these drawbacks can also be overcome with dedicated lanes and other tricks.

In my opinion, the king of urban transportation is undoubtedly the grade separated subway or elevated train, which, if implemented properly, can have a speed advantage over cars in some cases since they are immune to traffic and weather conditions despite needing to have many stops. Of course, this is also expensive to build and requires high density to be viable.

> You are right that the benefits for robotaxis applies to the others too. Personally, I'm rooting for robotaxis because it's simply cheaper without needing the human driver.

Hence they would increase traffic and slow down commutes. Maybe we’re fine with that, but we should at least be honest with ourselves.

> What I'd really like is public transit

My opinion: if you look at what the average American pays to have their own vehicle (fuel, maintenance, depreciation, insurance, financing), I think you can make the argument people are literally willing to pay hundreds of dollars a month instead of sitting next to people on public transit.

Would this be the case if public transit was better? Not sure which is obviously your point. I guess I'm trying to argue "the demand for not-public-transit is there, so maybe that's why public transit isn't improved upon"

If you look at the history of American city design, you'll find that it's not free market demand that has brought us to this point, but pretty heavy lobbying and more from the automotive industry (which also has seeded this idea that public transit is inherently inferior). Elon Musk is also guilty of this by seeding the hyperloop idea in order to try and stop efforts around high speed rail. Public transit really works when it's done well, and benefits everybody. If we actually design and invest in it well, it will be used.

Sorry but this is bollocks.

I know it's popular with left wing Youtubers to say the car lobby did it.

But it didn't: people wanted cars and governments built roads.

Why does everything have to be a goddamn conspiracy?

True, though as wages continue to remain flat in the face of rising costs, I think you'll see a heightened interest in not being held to owning or leasing a car.

The US had a vigorous middle class when the Interstate Highway System was implemented. A family of four could own a home in the suburbs on one income, and it was fine to spend 15 minutes driving from said suburban home to the office. None of that is true any longer.

Those same Americans travel to Switzerland and are amazed at the level of good public transit.

Americans who have never left this country (the vast majority) have no idea how competently ran government services can look like.

We also have a party in the US that actively adds more regulatory pressure IFF the government is the main stakeholder in a project. For example, environmental protections are significantly stricter (arguably, to a fault) if the project is being led by the government.

Also, for example, the government is not really allowed to negotiate Medicaid medication prices. Something private insurance does not need to deal with.

I don't think any manufacturer or buyer would tell you that's one of the problems they are trying to solve. People buy cars for status, comfort, fun, and convenience. A distant notion of a carless world that most people can't imagine is never going to get any traction in the United States if it's positioned as an alternative to cars.

I believe FSD is step one in abolition of personal vehicle is urban areas.

I also believe FSD cars that actually can go on any dirt road are still at least ten years away, maybe decades.

Then we still need to have a park of shared FSD vehicles big enough to become a reliable mean of transportation. This is also going to take a couple of decades. I won’t see this for sure.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com