The New York Times has a story about what may be a more likely future of public transportation.
A small electric bus chugged along at a slow but steady seven miles per hour when a white van, entering the street from the side, cut in front of it. The bus slowed, as if its driver had hit the brakes, and got back up to speed after the van moved out of the way.
But this bus has no brake or accelerator pedal. It has no steering wheel, either. In fact, it doesn't have a driver — it operates using sensors and software, although for now, a person is stationed on board ready to hit a red "stop" button in an emergency.
At a time when self-driving cars are beginning to make progress — most notably with a trial program that the ride service Uber began in Pittsburgh this fall — the bus represents a different approach to technologically advanced transportation.
I say a more likely future because of the following:
A driverless car, after all, is still a car, carrying at best a few people. By transporting many passengers on what could be very flexible routes, driverless buses could help reduce the number of cars clogging city streets.
Few advantages accrue from driverless cars if the streets and highways are clogged with them. The passenger(s) can curse the vehicle up ahead instead of its idiot driver. My take: The idea has some promise, especially in places where people do not have long distances to travel.
(Score: 2) by Sarasani on Tuesday November 08 2016, @03:40AM
That argument ("Can I put it in your yard?") could be used for a lot of things:
And so the list goes on.
I get your point, but we do need to look at the bigger picture when we're talking about proper city planning. Personally I don't think a lot of cities have been planned all that well. Some of the bad design decisions may be attributed to the "car is king" concept that societies have entertained for far too long [theguardian.com].