There's also a big opportunity to redesign cities. We won't need as much parking is vehicles are continuously moving around, rather than being parked for ~90% of the time like private vehicles are now.
Plus on a more important note, they might save rural pubs.
Not just cities! I lived in an ultra-rural Yorkshire village for 10 weeks waiting for my house to be constructed, and was very struck by how all of the lovely, quaint old buildings were hidden behind dozens of cars parked on either side of the road.
Like you I'm pro driverless, though mostly for the very boring reason that even the best drivers have bad days and most of us are not the best drivers. But I'm a bit more sceptical about how ready the technology is. I don't think I've seen anyone operating at what I would call true class 5 yet because they're all geographically bounded - even if those boundaries are expanding. It feels like those limits hide/avoid lots of the thorniest problems that mean the last 20% of development that takes us to 'get in anywhere, any time, any conditions (that a human could drive in) and go anywhere' will take another 20 years for mass availability. Though that probably fits within your definition of 'medium term' and I'll shut up now.
Agree with your point about the last 20% being the most difficult, but I'm not as "worried" about Level 5, per-se. Even if we never get true Level 5, what Waymo/Tesla can do now is already significant - like, there's still the potential to remove cars from the road/ reduce the cost of movement using the technology, even if it only confined to relatively built-up/carefully managed areas.
There is a much better way of gaining the beneft of mobility: to depend less on machines, software and energy, less on travelling long distances, and, when we do move around, to do so on foot or cycle. The exercise is good for us. Of course, that also means gradually planning the evolution of settlements so that the distances to our destinations are shorter. But its also means not handing over the public spaces between our buildings to lethal projectiles controlled by Californian geeks, instead keeping them as our own human habitat. JM
Except 1 - carrying heavy things is really hard on foot or cycle. Especially if one is also moving with children, and 2 - "planning the evolution of settlements so that the distances to our destinations are shorter" is fine only as long as I only want to go to the same places all the time and never want, e.g. a day out or to go to a different shop.
In practice there is always going to be some need for some form of personal transport
1: Very few of us carry heavy things often. Most cars in the rush hour, when the congestion and air pollution created are at their worst, contain just one person, going to or from work.
2: And, while there is a long tail of other places, occasionally visited,most journeys – work again – connect the same origins and destinations.
3: Many live without 'some form of personal transport' (a pseudonym for a car?); and many others find that a cycle fills that need very well. If car users had to pay the external cost that they inflict on other people and on the global atmosphere, this 'need' would quickly evaporate. JM
Agree with this James. I’d also point out that our lives would be poorer without the social connections we make in meeting each other as we walk and share transport, and go to shops etc
Thoroughly enjoyable and wonderfully optimistic. Do we trust Big Tech on this? Hmm. Right now, I don't trust them to do anything that isn't a force for good or something that mostly benefits the super-rich.
I'd rather have driverless cars than not, and I'm optimistic they'll have big upsides. But I think you've massively understated the problems with driverless cars in cities, and even suburbs.
Without heavy road pricing—which I know you did suggest—cheaper taxis will mean more cars on the road, more congestion, lower revenues for public transport, and a less pleasant urban environment.
Unfortunately I think the best-case scenario for driverless cars in cities is that taxis remain the preserve of the well off. Because either we correctly price the externalities of cars, and charge passengers accordingly, or we don't, and everyone bears the cost.
On a positive note: I'm fairly hopeful that public hostility towards driverless cars will give governments cover to introduce road pricing for them without the usual political backlash.
I have always countered the "but AI doing trolley problem on you!" argument by suggesting that everyone seems happy with the current situation where a human driver does it. A human who is potentially poorly trained, not paying attention and may have a very different idea to you as to the correct outcome. Yes, I'm sure there are edge case situations where the AI performs worse than a competent, fully aware human driver but the vast majority of accidents are caused by inattention and simple driver errors that an AI system can likely completey eliminate. Similar to the use of airbags (where there are some edge case situations in which the airbag makes things work) the vast majority of the time they make it considerably better. I don't think AI driving systems will have to improve much before it could be argued that humans driving is immoral - much as I think that would be a sad day as I (mostly) enjoy driving and (obviously) consider myself above average at it (as do most people)!
If we're talking about effectively changing cars from individual property to privately-owned infrastructure, that's an interesting thought experiment. What have we learnt from history and human nature? Can we avoid the sewage discharge scandal for rivers of cars, please?
There's also a big opportunity to redesign cities. We won't need as much parking is vehicles are continuously moving around, rather than being parked for ~90% of the time like private vehicles are now.
Plus on a more important note, they might save rural pubs.
Not just cities! I lived in an ultra-rural Yorkshire village for 10 weeks waiting for my house to be constructed, and was very struck by how all of the lovely, quaint old buildings were hidden behind dozens of cars parked on either side of the road.
Like you I'm pro driverless, though mostly for the very boring reason that even the best drivers have bad days and most of us are not the best drivers. But I'm a bit more sceptical about how ready the technology is. I don't think I've seen anyone operating at what I would call true class 5 yet because they're all geographically bounded - even if those boundaries are expanding. It feels like those limits hide/avoid lots of the thorniest problems that mean the last 20% of development that takes us to 'get in anywhere, any time, any conditions (that a human could drive in) and go anywhere' will take another 20 years for mass availability. Though that probably fits within your definition of 'medium term' and I'll shut up now.
Agree with your point about the last 20% being the most difficult, but I'm not as "worried" about Level 5, per-se. Even if we never get true Level 5, what Waymo/Tesla can do now is already significant - like, there's still the potential to remove cars from the road/ reduce the cost of movement using the technology, even if it only confined to relatively built-up/carefully managed areas.
There is a much better way of gaining the beneft of mobility: to depend less on machines, software and energy, less on travelling long distances, and, when we do move around, to do so on foot or cycle. The exercise is good for us. Of course, that also means gradually planning the evolution of settlements so that the distances to our destinations are shorter. But its also means not handing over the public spaces between our buildings to lethal projectiles controlled by Californian geeks, instead keeping them as our own human habitat. JM
Except 1 - carrying heavy things is really hard on foot or cycle. Especially if one is also moving with children, and 2 - "planning the evolution of settlements so that the distances to our destinations are shorter" is fine only as long as I only want to go to the same places all the time and never want, e.g. a day out or to go to a different shop.
In practice there is always going to be some need for some form of personal transport
1: Very few of us carry heavy things often. Most cars in the rush hour, when the congestion and air pollution created are at their worst, contain just one person, going to or from work.
2: And, while there is a long tail of other places, occasionally visited,most journeys – work again – connect the same origins and destinations.
3: Many live without 'some form of personal transport' (a pseudonym for a car?); and many others find that a cycle fills that need very well. If car users had to pay the external cost that they inflict on other people and on the global atmosphere, this 'need' would quickly evaporate. JM
Agree with this James. I’d also point out that our lives would be poorer without the social connections we make in meeting each other as we walk and share transport, and go to shops etc
Thoroughly enjoyable and wonderfully optimistic. Do we trust Big Tech on this? Hmm. Right now, I don't trust them to do anything that isn't a force for good or something that mostly benefits the super-rich.
I'd rather have driverless cars than not, and I'm optimistic they'll have big upsides. But I think you've massively understated the problems with driverless cars in cities, and even suburbs.
Without heavy road pricing—which I know you did suggest—cheaper taxis will mean more cars on the road, more congestion, lower revenues for public transport, and a less pleasant urban environment.
Unfortunately I think the best-case scenario for driverless cars in cities is that taxis remain the preserve of the well off. Because either we correctly price the externalities of cars, and charge passengers accordingly, or we don't, and everyone bears the cost.
On a positive note: I'm fairly hopeful that public hostility towards driverless cars will give governments cover to introduce road pricing for them without the usual political backlash.
I have always countered the "but AI doing trolley problem on you!" argument by suggesting that everyone seems happy with the current situation where a human driver does it. A human who is potentially poorly trained, not paying attention and may have a very different idea to you as to the correct outcome. Yes, I'm sure there are edge case situations where the AI performs worse than a competent, fully aware human driver but the vast majority of accidents are caused by inattention and simple driver errors that an AI system can likely completey eliminate. Similar to the use of airbags (where there are some edge case situations in which the airbag makes things work) the vast majority of the time they make it considerably better. I don't think AI driving systems will have to improve much before it could be argued that humans driving is immoral - much as I think that would be a sad day as I (mostly) enjoy driving and (obviously) consider myself above average at it (as do most people)!
If we're talking about effectively changing cars from individual property to privately-owned infrastructure, that's an interesting thought experiment. What have we learnt from history and human nature? Can we avoid the sewage discharge scandal for rivers of cars, please?
Ooh yeah, put all the taxi drivers out of work, and hand a monopoly in transportation to the tech companies. Can't see any problems with that.
I've used a couple od driverless taxis in Las Vegas and Phoenix but did you see the video of the man "kidnappedc by his taxi
https://youtu.be/RMbI-2NITx0?si=wFDHeWl80tj_M0CW
The clip of the car avoiding a girl falling off her scooter were reflexes I'd never have
https://youtu.be/h7PGrAlPELc?si=GvudMCD99Cxe9Qa2