Just to be clear, I do think the obvious solution to terrible things like this is vastly expanded public transit so that people don’t have to rely on cars to get everywhere, not overhyped technology and driving aids that are still only marginally better than a human driver. I just thought the article was interesting.
“Let’s invent metal boxes with wheels that follow lines on the ground automatically to get you places.”
“Oh, you mean like trains.”
“Ew, no. They’re nothing like trains, these are ‘self driving cars’. They’re fool proof!”
tesla hits someone in a dense fog because it doesn’t have lidar
Queue surprised pikachu.
Doesn’t even need to be dense fog. The other day I saw a video of a Tesla (on newest firmware, mind you) drove off the road into a tree, in broad daylight, with no visual impairments to the sensors. It’s not ready for any kind of driving, let alone fully automated, not to mention that it’s only really trained on American roads
Wait. Those things rely on visual sensors only?? That moronic! I mean, more so that I originally though. Please tell me that they have them, but this particular one was malfunctioning.
Edit: holy crap. How are these vehicles allowed to operate on public roads??
Musk has sai d multiple times that humans can drive with vision alone, so cars shouldn’t need LIDAR.
He ignores that humans also regularly experience optical illusions that contribute to poor driving and collisions, and that LIDAR is far less susceptible to such abberations.
Very early on, Tesla used
lidarradar in addition to optical sensors. However, they only use optical sensors today and have for a while. Like many of the poor decisions at that company, the change to optical-only was made at Musk’s demand.Edit: misremembered, it was radar not lidar as pointed out below
IIRC, they uses to have radar, not lidar.
Correct they’ve never used lidar. However I will say that no manufacturer has actually solved the self-driving issue yet so nobody can definitively say what is and isn’t required.
Trains are great for moving people but only from one designated area to another. With most commuters, they might be all headed to the same city but completely different parts of the city that aren’t easy to access. Their homes might all be in the same city but a 45 minute bus ride to the 40 minute train ride to the 20 minute bus ride, which isn’t helpful for what might have been a 45 minute commute by car to begin with.
Imagine if all the space between the primary radial arms of trains was filled in with street cars and pedestrian/micromobility centric spaces. Like the problem you are saying cars solve just doesn’t exist in the first place and people can still get around very easily. Even more rural folks can simply drive to the edge of this style of urban design if they need access to something. The reason bus rides are 45 minutes is because of the number of cars they have to put up with. The density of people that can be moved with shockingly good area coverage if cars are not a factor is incredible.
It’s still bad.
My old commute was a 25-30 minute drive. For a while though, I had to do it by public transport.
I’d be walking for less than 10 minutes because both my house and my work were close to the train station. The rest of it was on 4 different trains, but all within one metropolitan area. The changes were no more than 5 minutes each, pretty good really. However, the number of stops and the number of changes killed any progress. The end result was that it took 1h45m to 2h.
Changing a 8hr + 2x30m day into an 8hr + 2x2h day is a significant change in lifestyle. Losing 3hr day means you don’t enjoy your evenings, you don’t socialise, and life is only work. It’s miserable.
On a different job I worked at I could get there with just 1 train. That was about 35 minute drive or 55 minutes by train once you included the walk (again about 10-15 minutes total). Even with that you’re asking yourself “Why am I not driving?”.
This sounds great but isn’t really feasible in cities that are already built unfortunately.
Look at the history of transportation in whatever city you’re imagining. Cars took over, but I guarantee that city had the transportation infrastructure you think isn’t feasible. The automobile industry has you brainwashed into thinking cars are the only option, but one just has to look at the history of transportation in any given city to know that that isn’t true.
What does this even mean? Are you claiming all cities had railroad and public transportation hubs prior to cars being invented? I’m brainwashed because I don’t believe you can just seize private property and demolish tons of homes and businesses to build more efficient infrastructure in every moderate to large city in the country? Prior to cars existing, most cities were tiny and people didn’t commute 50 miles for work every day.
Can you point to the cities elsewhere where this transformation has occurred or where this already existed outside of maybe a handful of examples on the entire planet?
Educate yourself. You don’t have to be angry about it. And yes, all major cities had railroad and public transportation hubs before cars took over.
Sure they did, buddy. “Educate yourself” they say just like all those antivaxxers and COVID deniers do when they speak their nonsense. “All cities had public transportation” before automobiles existed.
Hilarious
Unless you replace every road with train tracks, trains can’t replace cars.
LiDAR is affected greatly by dense fog btw.
The technologies to end a lot of problems exist. We aren’t using them because the oligarchs think it’s better this way.
This is definitely a great example of individuals being obstinate and entitled. Just mention you support speed cameras on all roads and find out how many of your friends think speeding is a good given human rights.
It’s my understanding that speed cameras don’t actually make roads safer, they just generate revenue for the city.
There is an obvious answer here that both the author and the people in this thread are ignoring.
Driving as a transportation method is a high risk/cost high flexibility/comfort solution.
Pretty much everyone who has accepted driving as their transportation method understands that it’s not the safest way, so a lot of drivers are always willing to take a little bit more risk to save money or something like that.
A better question is, why are we so okay with accepting such high risks for transportation. The human mind is terrible at risk assessment so I think it’s just a culture thing that car accidents are a part of life.
We need more people part of the FuckCars, Walk, Bike, & Public Transit online cultures
Need more outreach to get things happening even more. Also my comment on this post would solve a lot of things by not having to redo outreaching to people
Even better, the equivalent irl cultures. Most cities have groups advocating for better bike and pedestrian infrastructure and better public transit.
Both is good for sure. They both affect each other
What a load of fear mongering. Instead of having people take accountability for their actions we should require “safety features” that have a direct correlation to increased distracted driving. Maybe if somebody is killed we should make regulations around driving drunk? Oh yea pretty sure that exists. Problem is we have a bunch of steering wheel holders, hardly anybody is a driver anymore. Would lane assist and auto braking have prevented this? Possibly. But would lane assist not keep him barrel assing down the road doing up through the next intersection where somebody may decide to cross the road? This is not a fix. We have ALWAYS had the “technology” to avoid traffic deaths, problem is most people are selfish self centered pricks with but a ball of lint between their ears.
The technology isn’t great, but rather than implement it, you want us to expect humans to be great.
I wouldn’t call paying attention while you hurdle down a strip of pavement at 60mph in a 2 ton metal cage being “great”, id call it the minimum. And I’m not saying don’t implement it, I’m just saying it’s absurd to act like forcing it in every car is gonna fix the problem. It’s just gonna make vehicles less affordable and add failure points.
It’s clearly not the minimum. The minimum is what we have today. It would be great if they act as you say.
Well that’s why I said we have a bunch of steering wheel holders not drivers. The minimum u can do to drive is pay attention to what your ripping in your 2 ton death machine 🤣 most of the people on the road today should NOT be driving as they are doing less than the minimum.
The technologies mentioned in the article:
lane-keep assist, automatic emergency braking (AEB), and blind-spot detection
AI-powered traffic systems
On-demand breathalyzers, smartphone saliva tests, and eye-tracking sensors
Only one of my cars has just one of those things (2015 Toyota Highlander and it’s the blind spot monitor). That aside, all of my vehicles - cars and motorcycles - are paid off. I’m not going into debt just to have nannies yelling at me.
My vehicles are a means to an end. I would absolutely love more public transit, but there is just a single train station about 12 miles from my house, while my work is only 6 miles in the same direction. “You could bike” you might say, which is a fantastic idea. However, 90% of my commute is on a 55mph rural highway with minimal shoulders and zero bike lanes. It’s literally a perfect candidate for a bus route and bike lanes, yet there are neither, and I am not risking my life on a bicycle next to 55MPH traffic during commuting hours.
Now tell me how I’m the problem.
And they missed some really low hanging, inexpensive solutions that would also work:
- roundabouts
- mass transit
- physical barriers for bike lanes
- zoning changes
Those are all old “technologies” that are proven to be effective and don’t require giving car manufacturers an excuse to make cars even more expensive or retrofitting existing cars.
with every section it just became worse
Mountains of shame looking for someone to blame, yet taking away our autonomy is the game.
