The Off Topic Topic

[DGuller]

You can buy such cars today.

You can?  My impression was that we're getting there, and there are prototypes out there, but are there models being sold that actually drive completely autonomously (and not just correct your fuck-ups)?

[Zanza]

The cars you can buy now are artificially hobbled. They'll only drive autonomous up to 35 mph/50kph or so and usually only for 10-20 seconds until they complain that you should touch the steering wheel again. But that's a legal restriction as liability is not clear if the car really drives itself. It's not a technical issue anymore.

[DGuller]

The cars you can buy now are artificially hobbled. They'll only drive autonomous up to 35 mph/50kph or so and usually only for 10-20 seconds until they complain that you should touch the steering wheel again. But that's a legal restriction as liability is not clear if the car really drives itself. It's not a technical issue anymore.

Interesting.  Sounds like all that's left to invent is the automatic steering wheel toucher, and we're good to go.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

The cars you can buy now are artificially hobbled. They'll only drive autonomous up to 35 mph/50kph or so and usually only for 10-20 seconds until they complain that you should touch the steering wheel again. But that's a legal restriction as liability is not clear if the car really drives itself. It's not a technical issue anymore.

Its a technical issue because it can't handle all corner cases.  Even airplane autopilots can't, though aircraft have enough margin for error that the pilots can take over when the autopilot goes out to lunch.  Highway traffic doesn't have those margins, especially when you need to deal with people who are driving by hand.

[alfred russel]

I have always been adamantly opposed to self driving cars. I can drive myself around.

But the thought just occurred to me: no more drunk driving. If this self driving nonsense starts to take off, I might have to invest in a bar in a car centric city.

[Josquius]

Cars are so 20th century. Trains are where the future lies. Lets have society back please

[alfred russel]

Cars are so 20th century. Trains are where the future lies. Lets have society back please

Trains may work great in densely populated areas like Europe and Japan, but they really don't work in more sparsely populated areas such as most of the US. Assuming we are talking about intercity travel.

[Ideologue]

Trains would actually work pretty well for Big City to Big City (or Semi-Big City) travel and we really ought to have more of that (likewise, I'm unsure that all the tractor trailers rolling across the country on our interstates are more efficient, once all externalities are taken into account, than trains).

But within a suburban/semi-rural sprawl like you find in most of the East Coast?  You'd need an inordinate amount of track and an inordinate number of stops to get people to and fro effectively.  There's a reason only poors take the bus.  Firstly, because it is associated with poors.  But also because it's a pain in the ass.

[Razgovory]

Now I'm in a bad mood.  I should note that didn't get this way until after I posted that stuff to Derspeiss.  My stupid fucking brother is leaving his wretched dogs over here because he can't be assed to pay a kennel or something.  So I have to have all three cats in my room tonight.

[Ideologue]

Do their breaths smell like cat food?

[Josquius]

Fixing the sprawl and better Public transport.... It's Americas choice; chickens or eggs.

[Ideologue]

Fixing the sprawl and better Public transport.... It's Americas choice; chickens or eggs.

One day we'll all live underground in giant hives of human inactivity and computerized stimulation, while nature reclaims the surface world.  Hopefully, we'll also die back to about a billion or two.

[alfred russel]

Trains would actually work pretty well for Big City to Big City (or Semi-Big City) travel and we really ought to have more of that (likewise, I'm unsure that all the tractor trailers rolling across the country on our interstates are more efficient, once all externalities are taken into account, than trains).

But within a suburban/semi-rural sprawl like you find in most of the East Coast?  You'd need an inordinate amount of track and an inordinate number of stops to get people to and fro effectively.  There's a reason only poors take the bus.  Firstly, because it is associated with poors.  But also because it's a pain in the ass.

Well no (for passenger travel, there may be something to freight). Take Atlanta to Charlotte. Without looking at flight schedules, a flight probably takes an hour or so. A train, even a fast one, would probably take way more. And train tickets aren't cheap. The frequently cost as much or more than similar flights.

The biggest problem is that you then need a car in either Atlanta or Charlotte. So the options you have to get between the cities:
a) go for speed, and fly between them, and then rent a car at the destination (fast but expensive)
b) drive the trip, bringing your own car (cheap but slow)
c) take the train and rent a car at the destination. After you drive to the train station, wait for the train, rent a new car at the destination, etc, this may be the slowest option, and could even be the most expensive.

[frunk]

Trains would actually work pretty well for Big City to Big City (or Semi-Big City) travel and we really ought to have more of that (likewise, I'm unsure that all the tractor trailers rolling across the country on our interstates are more efficient, once all externalities are taken into account, than trains).

But within a suburban/semi-rural sprawl like you find in most of the East Coast?  You'd need an inordinate amount of track and an inordinate number of stops to get people to and fro effectively.  There's a reason only poors take the bus.  Firstly, because it is associated with poors.  But also because it's a pain in the ass.

Well no (for passenger travel, there may be something to freight). Take Atlanta to Charlotte. Without looking at flight schedules, a flight probably takes an hour or so. A train, even a fast one, would probably take way more. And train tickets aren't cheap. The frequently cost as much or more than similar flights.

The biggest problem is that you then need a car in either Atlanta or Charlotte. So the options you have to get between the cities:
a) go for speed, and fly between them, and then rent a car at the destination (fast but expensive)
b) drive the trip, bringing your own car (cheap but slow)
c) take the train and rent a car at the destination. After you drive to the train station, wait for the train, rent a new car at the destination, etc, this may be the slowest option, and could even be the most expensive.

That's primarily because our rail system uses decades old trains with decades even older track.  A decent high speed rail network would make all the difference.

[Josquius]

Rails primary importance IMO is in local transport, not so much cross country stuff.
If a town has decent rail links then it opens up employment opportunities to everyone there and means they don't have to have a car to have a life.
Future development IMO will/should follow early 20th century lines of railway stations at the centre and houses being built around them.

As to hsr being useless in the US because of the need to have a car at the destination- this is a problem that needs to be fixed. However, Japan too is a very car centric country. Yet high speed rail works very well here.