1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6489
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby ucim » Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:49 pm UTC

GlassHouses wrote:iOS devices can still sync locally, no Internet required.
A tiny candle in the darkness. The Roomba, a robotic vacuum with a camera that looks up at people from the floor, has important functions (e.g. edge cleaning) that can only be controlled through an app, so you have to buy a smartphone to fully use it. But you can't control it using the IR port like a normal remote control, you have to connect them both to the internet. I wonder where all those images go.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
Archgeek
Posts: 186
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 6:00 am UTC
Location: Central US
Contact:

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby Archgeek » Wed May 02, 2018 3:43 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
Archgeek wrote:what precisely is local sync?
Perhaps I should have said "direct sync". It means synchronizing with a local machine, locally, without going through the cloud. The Palm does that; you connect the Palm physically (or optically, or bluetoothly) with a computer and copy the information across that connection. Nobody on the internet ever needs to know (except for any leakage from the optics or the blue teeth).


Ah, syncing some set of folders with a glowing pocket rectangle. Got it. I'll bet you can still pull it off by using some file managing toy with directory sync functions, but I'm sure that's liable to be less featureful than the old device-inbuilt method. Plus you still have to download a dang ol' desktop application.
"That big tube down the side was officially called a "systems tunnel", which is aerospace contractor speak for "big tube down the side."

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6489
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby ucim » Wed May 02, 2018 3:49 pm UTC

Archgeek wrote:with directory sync functions
With direct directory sync functions. The device hardware has to be capable of direct communications with the beige box. Plus, you have to be a nerd to pull it off, which means that the general public won't, which means there will be no demand for it.

How would you do it with a Roomba? All you have is wifi, and no access to the Roomba firmware.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

YTPrenewed
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:09 am UTC

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby YTPrenewed » Wed May 02, 2018 4:59 pm UTC

speising wrote:except that people take a perverse joy out of trying to prove that computers are worse than humans at a task, and delight in exploring their failure modes - which are often very different than human ones. There were tests showing that miniscule markings in the environment, which a human wouldn't even notice, threw the computer systems completely off track - figuratively and literally.

Also: stupidity. What's to stop people from flying drones near airplanes, or crowding around an accident victim with phone cameras? Answer: nothing, and they do that.

And would you rather these stupid ordinary humans drive? There are many who either drive drunk, drive distracted, maintain an unsafe following distance, or fail to adjust their speed for the road conditions. It's almost as if a brain inherited from apes wasn't cut out to fully comprehend the implications of 100 km/hr.

I'd rather we dispensed with the half-measures, and taxed carbon until people had no choice but to take public transit. That'd save lives AND the environment. But if there isn't the political will for that, self-driving cars can provide a way to cater to people's indulgent desire to not have to share a vehicle with others, in a way that allows the engineer to make these decisions in advance instead of leaving them to the whims of an average schmo.

Krealr
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 8:22 pm UTC

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby Krealr » Wed May 02, 2018 10:32 pm UTC

YTPrenewed wrote:I'd rather we dispensed with the half-measures, and taxed carbon until people had no choice but to take public transit. That'd save lives AND the environment. But if there isn't the political will for that, self-driving cars can provide a way to cater to people's indulgent desire to not have to share a vehicle with others, in a way that allows the engineer to make these decisions in advance instead of leaving them to the whims of an average schmo.


In a lot of the US there also isn't the infrastructure for it yet. My parents would have to walk 15 miles (with no sidewalks or meaningful shoulder) to get to a bus that runs every half hour. (1.5 hours on Sunday.)

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3576
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby Soupspoon » Wed May 02, 2018 11:00 pm UTC

On one of my business trips to the US, in a rural-esque area somewhat outside of Phili, I spent one idle morning wandering from the hotel I was at down some of the forest roads towards the nearby 'town'. No sidewalks at all (worried me more than anything else about the enterprise, rightly or wrongly) until I came across my first actual strip-mall-like place where it was still a whole lot more parking-place (that you'd hop between spots in front of successive establishments visited) than pedestrian paving.

On another occasion, the hotel was actually on the opposite side of the road from some sort of retail-park (more like what you'd now find in the UK, comparing footprint to footprint of the 'block' it was on), but there wasn't any obvious pedestrian crossing available to me. Don't know if I broke any jay-walking laws, but the road was quiet enough to hypervigilently cross over (consciously over-riding my natural "look right, left and right again" for the opposite, 'cos of the flipped directions of traffic lanes, and then even more caution) to be probably the only person there without having used some form of vehicle.

(Then I had to work out the whole complicated sales tax atop the list price on the thing I eventually bought.)

Wasn' t dark though, and well before Uber, so I was probably not in danger from oblivious (maybe autonomous) vehicles that I hadn't seen.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3434
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby rmsgrey » Thu May 03, 2018 1:08 am UTC

You don't have to go to the US to find retail centers based on the assumption that people get there by vehicle - the Metrocentre in Gateshead has the A1 running alongside, other major roads along the other sides, and no real pedestrian access - getting from the main shopping center to the other nearby shops requires a certain reckless confidence in order to get across the road separating them - and even there, from a pedestrian's perspective, the shops are in small islands surrounded by traffic.

To be fair, you don't need a car to get to the main building - there's bus and train access (but not Metro for some reason) - but if you want to get to Asda or Ikea, you're best getting there by car...

YTPrenewed
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:09 am UTC

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby YTPrenewed » Thu May 03, 2018 1:08 am UTC

Krealr wrote:
YTPrenewed wrote:I'd rather we dispensed with the half-measures, and taxed carbon until people had no choice but to take public transit. That'd save lives AND the environment. But if there isn't the political will for that, self-driving cars can provide a way to cater to people's indulgent desire to not have to share a vehicle with others, in a way that allows the engineer to make these decisions in advance instead of leaving them to the whims of an average schmo.


In a lot of the US there also isn't the infrastructure for it yet. My parents would have to walk 15 miles (with no sidewalks or meaningful shoulder) to get to a bus that runs every half hour. (1.5 hours on Sunday.)

I neglected to mention that I believe carbon tax revenue should go toward subsidizing things that would cut down on carbon pollution, including public transit and/or relocation to areas that have it.

User avatar
pogrmman
Posts: 531
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 10:53 pm UTC
Location: Probably outside

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby pogrmman » Thu May 03, 2018 1:30 am UTC

Krealr wrote:
YTPrenewed wrote:I'd rather we dispensed with the half-measures, and taxed carbon until people had no choice but to take public transit. That'd save lives AND the environment. But if there isn't the political will for that, self-driving cars can provide a way to cater to people's indulgent desire to not have to share a vehicle with others, in a way that allows the engineer to make these decisions in advance instead of leaving them to the whims of an average schmo.


In a lot of the US there also isn't the infrastructure for it yet. My parents would have to walk 15 miles (with no sidewalks or meaningful shoulder) to get to a bus that runs every half hour. (1.5 hours on Sunday.)


The US is really spread out — it makes public transit and infrastructure hard. Sure, there are other things that have contributed to the general sprawliness of the country, but the sheer size makes it difficult. Coming from the US, it boggled my mind how close together the little towns were when driving through Germany. Although the state I’m going to school in (Iowa) is more densely populated than my home state (Texas), it still seems like towns here are spread apart quite a bit further than they were in Germany. And neither my home state nor where I’m going to school compres to other parts of the country — just last spring, on my way to a backpacking trip, we passed a big sign that said “No services next 106 miles”. That is, no gas, no water, no bathrooms, absolutely fucking nothing for 100 miles. Sure, that’s unusual, but with things that far apart, infrastructure is a nightmare.


YTPrenewed wrote:I neglected to mention that I believe carbon tax revenue should go toward subsidizing things that would cut down on carbon pollution, including public transit and/or relocation to areas that have it.

Sure, reducing pollution is great, but trying to relocate people isn’t the right solution — there’s actually stuff out there, in those big stretches of “nothing” in the West. There’s people with ranches, there’s oil development, there’s farming, there’s parks. You’re going to move people from their livelihoods and homes — people will hate that and push back against it.

To give an example, Rocksprings, TX is in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by ranch land, doesn’t have public transit, and only has a cave as an attraction. But to people ranching in outlying areas “nearby” (like Carta Valley — maybe 40 miles away), it’s the only place with services anywhere close. If they want a hospital, a grocery store, they need to drive there. But their livelihoods are not based there — they’re based on their ranches, which aren’t anywhere near the city. Relocating a goat rancher from Carta Valley to Rocksprings isn’t going to reduce pollution — they’re still gonna have to drive out to their ranch to manage everything. They might as well live there.

YTPrenewed
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:09 am UTC

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby YTPrenewed » Thu May 03, 2018 1:48 am UTC

Curious, then, that libertarians to centrists are more likely to dismiss such concerns with "none of your business" (pollution and car crashes are everyone's business) than with "some people have good reasons to drive." (They can be compensated.)

Just look at the highways you can see from the subway stations in Toronto. They get pretty busy... those drivers can't all be doing this out of necessity.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6489
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby ucim » Thu May 03, 2018 3:34 am UTC

YTPrenewed wrote:those drivers can't all be doing this out of necessity.
Why not? Seriously - don't confuse incredulity with reason. It might be the case that some people choose to drive to (say) visit a friend, which is not something that's absolutely necessary. But I don't see how you can justify the statement that they "can't all be doing this out of necessity" simply based on the fact that lots of people are in fact doing this.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

YTPrenewed
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:09 am UTC

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby YTPrenewed » Thu May 03, 2018 7:24 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
YTPrenewed wrote:those drivers can't all be doing this out of necessity.
Why not? Seriously - don't confuse incredulity with reason. It might be the case that some people choose to drive to (say) visit a friend, which is not something that's absolutely necessary. But I don't see how you can justify the statement that they "can't all be doing this out of necessity" simply based on the fact that lots of people are in fact doing this.

Jose

That's why I said "from the subway stations." They're driving parallel to the same routes public transit has already serviced.

But if you're right, a carbon tax would still force the issue and cut short all the usual libertarian-style "none of your business" sidestepping.

User avatar
Keyman
Posts: 299
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:56 pm UTC

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby Keyman » Thu May 03, 2018 9:30 pm UTC

YTPrenewed wrote:Curious, then, that libertarians to centrists are more likely to dismiss such concerns with "none of your business" (pollution and car crashes are everyone's business) than with "some people have good reasons to drive." (They can be compensated.)
Who gets to decide when the "compensation" is sufficient to overcome the "good reason to drive"? The same person who will subsidize my relocation?
A childhood spent walking while reading books has prepared me unexpectedly well for today's world.

User avatar
pogrmman
Posts: 531
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 10:53 pm UTC
Location: Probably outside

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby pogrmman » Thu May 03, 2018 9:38 pm UTC

YTPrenewed wrote:
ucim wrote:
YTPrenewed wrote:those drivers can't all be doing this out of necessity.
Why not? Seriously - don't confuse incredulity with reason. It might be the case that some people choose to drive to (say) visit a friend, which is not something that's absolutely necessary. But I don't see how you can justify the statement that they "can't all be doing this out of necessity" simply based on the fact that lots of people are in fact doing this.

Jose

That's why I said "from the subway stations." They're driving parallel to the same routes public transit has already serviced.

But if you're right, a carbon tax would still force the issue and cut short all the usual libertarian-style "none of your business" sidestepping.


Even if they’re paralleling public transit route, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are going to a destination reasonably nearby said public transit. Especially if you’re somewhere without an extremely well developed public transit system.

I’m fine with a carbon tax for personal transportation, but there should probably be some difference based on location. It’s simply not practical for people in some areas to use lower carbon transit methods — and people just can’t move to somewhere where it is on a whim. Incentivizing them to use some other means of transit when none is available seems pointless. It’s not like adding a high carbon tax in those areas will have much of any effect on personal transportation.

Now, a carbon tax on things other than personal means of transportation is something I can get behind more easily. Sure, it will literally make everything more expensive (even necessary items like food, water, electricity), so it needs to be implemented very, very carefully. But because it does that, it seems to me like a way to encourage a rapid shift to more sustainability.

And again, getting people to move is hard. It would take very, very substantial “compensation” to encourage — people need to find a new place to live, a new job. There may be a higher cost of living, they might need to learn new skills.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6489
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby ucim » Fri May 04, 2018 4:15 pm UTC

YTPrenewed wrote:That's why I said "from the subway stations." They're driving parallel to the same routes public transit has already serviced.
But you didn't say that. You said: "Just look at the highways you can see from the subway stations in Toronto. They get pretty busy... those drivers can't all be doing this out of necessity.", which includes that phrase, but not in the sense of that they are driving to/from the subway stations, just that they happen to be driving parallel to the route, passing the subway stations. That's an entirely different animal.

For many years I drove from one location (far from a station) to another location (far from a station) over a route that paralleled a train line. To use public transit, I'd need twice as many car trips, twice as much car storage, and it would take (about) twice as long. Each way. Or, I'd take four taxi trips per day in order to be able to use the train, which means I'd have to wait for a taxi, wait for a train, and wait for a taxi. Both ways. I might as well stay home.

If that's the goal, say so. It's not really necessary for me to visit people, or go to the fair, or live far from work. It's much more efficient if I simply live in a one room flat above my job and had no friends or hobbies. But we're getting off the track here.

YTPrenewed wrote:But if you're right, a carbon tax would still force the issue and cut short all the usual libertarian-style "none of your business" sidestepping.
Huh? What's this about "the usual libertarian-style 'none of your business'"?

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

sonar1313
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 5:29 am UTC

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby sonar1313 » Fri May 04, 2018 8:42 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:You don't have to go to the US to find retail centers based on the assumption that people get there by vehicle - the Metrocentre in Gateshead has the A1 running alongside, other major roads along the other sides, and no real pedestrian access - getting from the main shopping center to the other nearby shops requires a certain reckless confidence in order to get across the road separating them - and even there, from a pedestrian's perspective, the shops are in small islands surrounded by traffic.

To be fair, you don't need a car to get to the main building - there's bus and train access (but not Metro for some reason) - but if you want to get to Asda or Ikea, you're best getting there by car...


Let's face it: you could put a subway station inside the Ikea and nobody would use it because Ikea things are really heavy and nobody is ever going to lug that thing around on public transit of any kind. This is one reason that trying to force everyone into public transit and/or really tiny cars is a horrible idea.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3434
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby rmsgrey » Fri May 04, 2018 9:10 pm UTC

sonar1313 wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:You don't have to go to the US to find retail centers based on the assumption that people get there by vehicle - the Metrocentre in Gateshead has the A1 running alongside, other major roads along the other sides, and no real pedestrian access - getting from the main shopping center to the other nearby shops requires a certain reckless confidence in order to get across the road separating them - and even there, from a pedestrian's perspective, the shops are in small islands surrounded by traffic.

To be fair, you don't need a car to get to the main building - there's bus and train access (but not Metro for some reason) - but if you want to get to Asda or Ikea, you're best getting there by car...


Let's face it: you could put a subway station inside the Ikea and nobody would use it because Ikea things are really heavy and nobody is ever going to lug that thing around on public transit of any kind. This is one reason that trying to force everyone into public transit and/or really tiny cars is a horrible idea.


Depends what you're getting from Ikea - the furniture, sure, but cutlery is notoriously portable, crockery's not bad, table lamps, cushions, etc are all practical to transport by hand...

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2962
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby orthogon » Sat May 05, 2018 7:49 am UTC

rmsgrey wrote:
sonar1313 wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:You don't have to go to the US to find retail centers based on the assumption that people get there by vehicle - the Metrocentre in Gateshead has the A1 running alongside, other major roads along the other sides, and no real pedestrian access - getting from the main shopping center to the other nearby shops requires a certain reckless confidence in order to get across the road separating them - and even there, from a pedestrian's perspective, the shops are in small islands surrounded by traffic.

To be fair, you don't need a car to get to the main building - there's bus and train access (but not Metro for some reason) - but if you want to get to Asda or Ikea, you're best getting there by car...


Let's face it: you could put a subway station inside the Ikea and nobody would use it because Ikea things are really heavy and nobody is ever going to lug that thing around on public transit of any kind. This is one reason that trying to force everyone into public transit and/or really tiny cars is a horrible idea.


Depends what you're getting from Ikea - the furniture, sure, but cutlery is notoriously portable, crockery's not bad, table lamps, cushions, etc are all practical to transport by hand...

I managed to get a tall bathroom cupboard home from IKEA in Croydon once, via tram, train, bus and on foot (for the first and last 200m or so). It started off seeming quite do-able, but by the end, I was having to put it down every 10 metres to rest my hands.

I tried renting a van a couple of times, but you're paying for it the whole time you're snaking your way around the shop, plus all the contingency time you have to allow. My current preference is to go there on the tram, then order an Uber XL to get the stuff home. That way I can take my time and if I don't buy anything big I can jump on the tram home, too. So, yes, public transport there isn't pointless by a long way.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
GlassHouses
Posts: 129
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2016 12:41 pm UTC

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby GlassHouses » Sat May 05, 2018 6:27 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:I managed to get a tall bathroom cupboard home from IKEA in Croydon once, via tram, train, bus and on foot (for the first and last 200m or so). It started off seeming quite do-able, but by the end, I was having to put it down every 10 metres to rest my hands.

I tried renting a van a couple of times, but you're paying for it the whole time you're snaking your way around the shop, plus all the contingency time you have to allow. My current preference is to go there on the tram, then order an Uber XL to get the stuff home. That way I can take my time and if I don't buy anything big I can jump on the tram home, too. So, yes, public transport there isn't pointless by a long way.

Apparently some IKEA stores have partner arrangements with van rental companies, so you can rent a van at the store. I don't know what their rates are, but at least that way you wouldn't have the van any longer than necessary, and it may work out cheaper than paying to get your stuff delivered.

Mikeski
Posts: 1034
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby Mikeski » Sun May 06, 2018 12:48 am UTC

GlassHouses wrote:
orthogon wrote:I managed to get a tall bathroom cupboard home from IKEA in Croydon once, via tram, train, bus and on foot (for the first and last 200m or so). It started off seeming quite do-able, but by the end, I was having to put it down every 10 metres to rest my hands.

I tried renting a van a couple of times, but you're paying for it the whole time you're snaking your way around the shop, plus all the contingency time you have to allow. My current preference is to go there on the tram, then order an Uber XL to get the stuff home. That way I can take my time and if I don't buy anything big I can jump on the tram home, too. So, yes, public transport there isn't pointless by a long way.

Apparently some IKEA stores have partner arrangements with van rental companies, so you can rent a van at the store. I don't know what their rates are, but at least that way you wouldn't have the van any longer than necessary, and it may work out cheaper than paying to get your stuff delivered.


The home-improvement places usually have something like that, too. Rent the Menard's pickup truck for $30 for an hour, after you shop, to get your stuff home.

Of course, that's more for people who go there in their own car (not truck), and not for people trying to use light rail to buy a twenty-foot extension ladder.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6489
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby ucim » Sun May 06, 2018 3:22 am UTC

Mikeski wrote:Of course, that's more for people who go there in their own car (not truck), and not for people trying to use light rail to buy a twenty-foot extension ladder.
You still gotta get the truck back. So you drive the truck back to the store, and then take {your car | light rail | the bus | shoes} to get back home, tote-free.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2962
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby orthogon » Sun May 06, 2018 8:10 am UTC

ucim wrote:
Mikeski wrote:Of course, that's more for people who go there in their own car (not truck), and not for people trying to use light rail to buy a twenty-foot extension ladder.
You still gotta get the truck back. So you drive the truck back to the store, and then take {your car | light rail | the bus | shoes} to get back home, tote-free.

Jose

Yes, I missed that bit out, but, yes I went through an intermediate stage of renting the van near the IKEA, booked for plenty of hours after I started the shop, so I wasn't paying for it to sit in the car park. But it required an additional return trip, an extra person to wait with the stuff, planning, and potentially wasted time if I overestimated the shopping time. And didn't work out all that cheap, and I had to drive the van myself. And the stress of maybe getting stuck in traffic and not returning the van in time.

I used Zipcar, which rents by the hour, but the late fees are punitive. They have a new scheme where you just keep the car as long as you like, but the fees are like three times as much. So it costs more than a taxi and you have to do the driving.

I like the idea of car clubs and I'm still a member, but in practice it rarely works out to be worthwhile. I can believe that it saves money compared to car ownership, but it makes the marginal cost a bit too painful. The adverts show beautiful people chilling out in a field with the car behind, but all I can see is the wasted money from having it sit there unused, the need for a designated driver and the constant clock-watching. For longer trips, it's cheaper to rent a car from a normal rental company. There must be a better model (pay more but get inclusive monthly hours?).
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

sonar1313
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 5:29 am UTC

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby sonar1313 » Sun May 06, 2018 3:38 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
Mikeski wrote:Of course, that's more for people who go there in their own car (not truck), and not for people trying to use light rail to buy a twenty-foot extension ladder.
You still gotta get the truck back. So you drive the truck back to the store, and then take {your car | light rail | the bus | shoes} to get back home, tote-free.

Jose


I think this explains why a lot of people have bigger cars than they "should" have. If I'm going to Lowe's, I want to go to Lowe's and come back. I don't want to have to time my trip around the bus, rent a truck, drive home, unload, drive back, wait for the bus, and walk everywhere in between the store and the bus stop. Or, if I lived in a town with light rail, that station and its 15-minute wait between trains. People buy for their maximum need (or, like, their 95th percentile of need), not their average need, because the times when they need the most car are a hassle and nobody wants to triple the hassle every time some event happens outside of the ordinary commute.

YTPrenewed
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:09 am UTC

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby YTPrenewed » Sun May 06, 2018 4:41 pm UTC

ucim wrote:Huh? What's this about "the usual libertarian-style 'none of your business'"?

I'm just so used to that catch phrase; or logical equivalents to it; being invoked that I've almost come to expect it. It's been used when I've been mistaken for wanting to protect those who want several children from themselves, when it was always expressly about wanting to protect the environment* from them. It's been used when I've been mistaken for wanting to protect either those who dated people they met on webforums from themselves, even though I had never voiced objections to such relationships at the time, nor prior to it, at all. (Though I might've since... it's been a while... though that's beside the point.)

I still think we need a carbon tax, if only to build the real costs of one's actions into fuel costs. But I also still think this could help put the pressure on to improve public transit like never before. Who knows how many other people on your "taxi then subway then tax" route, or ones close enough to it, would take public transit if a singular route were made available?

*I've since calmed down about overpopulation, it probably was blown out of proportion, but the point remains...

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6489
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby ucim » Sun May 06, 2018 6:18 pm UTC

sonar1313 wrote:I think this explains why a lot of people have bigger cars than they "should" have.
Not just cars - this pretty much applies everywhere. The first {insert unit of measurement} is the most expensive, so if you underbuy, you end up stuck, which is far more inconvenient even if it's far less often.

YTPrenewed wrote:I'm just so used to that catch phrase [...] I've almost come to expect it.
Perhaps this is a sign that you are reacting rather than responding, which is a danger in any political discussion.
YTPrenewed wrote:I still think we need a carbon tax, if only to build the real costs of one's actions into fuel costs.
It sounds good, and I'm not sure I disagree, but the problem with taxes is that the revenue often gets used for unrelated (or even opposed) purposes. Government has no incentive to do otherwise.
YTPrenewed wrote:Who knows how many other people on your "taxi then subway then tax" route, or ones close enough to it, would take public transit if a singular route were made available?
It's important to know the answer before proposing a solution. And how "door to door" is this singular route going to be? How is it in sleet, high winds, and bitter cold? What kind of public transit would you create for, say, the middle of Wyoming? Bicycling everywhere is nice, healthy, and noble, but it's very different in California than it is is in Minnesota, it's hard to carry passengers, and you arrive sweaty and smelly.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3434
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby rmsgrey » Mon May 07, 2018 12:00 am UTC

orthogon wrote:I like the idea of car clubs and I'm still a member, but in practice it rarely works out to be worthwhile. I can believe that it saves money compared to car ownership, but it makes the marginal cost a bit too painful. The adverts show beautiful people chilling out in a field with the car behind, but all I can see is the wasted money from having it sit there unused, the need for a designated driver and the constant clock-watching. For longer trips, it's cheaper to rent a car from a normal rental company. There must be a better model (pay more but get inclusive monthly hours?).


I have friends who are members of a car club (Co-Wheels if it matters), who use a car, on average maybe once a month, usually have no problem getting a car when they want one, though, because of where the cars are located, it can take a little while to pick-up/drop off a car (since their latest move, it's ~10 minutes on foot; at one point it was ~20 minutes by bus including waiting time). On the other hand, it means they usually get the right size car for their need, and, as standard for car clubs, they don't have to pay upkeep on the car directly.

Their pricing is a one-time up-front membership fee, a smaller fixed charge per additional driver, then a fixed monthly minimum, and hourly/overnight/daily rental charges plus a mileage fee for non-electric cars, with the monthly charge being taken off your hire charges - roughly an hour's hire - so there's an element of the monthly hours thing there.
Last edited by rmsgrey on Thu May 10, 2018 10:12 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

YTPrenewed
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:09 am UTC

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby YTPrenewed » Thu May 10, 2018 8:44 pm UTC

ucim wrote:Perhaps this is a sign that you are reacting rather than responding, which is a danger in any political discussion.

I very much doubt it. The line between emotion and reason can be a little blurred, but when there is that strong a pattern, it's easy to get used to it.

ucim wrote:It sounds good, and I'm not sure I disagree, but the problem with taxes is that the revenue often gets used for unrelated (or even opposed) purposes.

Hence why I suggested the limitations on how its revenue can be used.

ucim wrote:It's important to know the answer before proposing a solution. And how "door to door" is this singular route going to be? How is it in sleet, high winds, and bitter cold? What kind of public transit would you create for, say, the middle of Wyoming? Bicycling everywhere is nice, healthy, and noble, but it's very different in California than it is is in Minnesota, it's hard to carry passengers, and you arrive sweaty and smelly.

Scandinavia gets a fair bit of such weather, yet it's renowned for good transit. Perhaps that's because of the higher population density, but again, incentives to move to the city, in conjunction with seeking separate alternatives for people with a good reason to remain in small towns, (ie. cargo train routes for farmland; and the USA used to be more rail-based before roads were funded, so a carbon tax could also be thought of as reimbursement for that) could go a long way.

SuicideJunkie
Posts: 322
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 2:40 pm UTC

Re: 1958: "Self-Driving Issues"

Postby SuicideJunkie » Fri May 11, 2018 1:31 pm UTC

YTPrenewed wrote:
ucim wrote:Perhaps this is a sign that you are reacting rather than responding, which is a danger in any political discussion.

I very much doubt it. The line between emotion and reason can be a little blurred, but when there is that strong a pattern, it's easy to get used to it.
I didn't read that as implying an emotional response, but rather a reflex response. Which I think you're agreeing with.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: hetas and 28 guests