SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Fnord666_
New Research Confirms That Ride-Hailing Companies Are Causing a Ton of Traffic Congestion
A study published today in Science Advances comparing pre- and post-rideshare boom traffic in San Fransisco found that the presence of Uber, Lyft, and similar companies has been an overall detriment for people who like getting where they're going quickly.
That businesses which pay people to have their vehicles on the road would, well, increase the number of cars blocking up the transit grid might appear to be a forgone, perhaps even obvious conclusion. But the body of writings on Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) as they're sometimes called is, surprisingly, mixed. Some studies found that Ubers and Lyfts were choking the streets of New York, Boston, and Chicago; a few claimed, conversely, that rideshares were alleviating traffic. Thus the team behind today's paper—composed of two University of Kentucky staffers and members of San Francisco's County Transportation Authority—had their work cut out for them.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 13 2019, @01:49AM (8 children)
Such as transporting people around without wasting their time? That's a problem automated cars can solve.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday May 13 2019, @04:54AM (7 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 13 2019, @05:34AM (6 children)
I recall hearing that somewhere around half of NYC residents already don't own cars. It's not a new thing.
Maybe in someone else's car?
As to the parking issue, one could always just charge cars for driving about, in addition to parking.
And no matter what you self-driving car is currently doing, it could always be earning money for you on top of that, such as through a ride hailing service.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday May 13 2019, @07:39AM (5 children)
Amazing, my wife and I have a car, but only one between us. Fancy that - 2 residents and only 1 car. Only half the residents own a car. Who would have imagined it? Where I live that is entirely normal. The problem is where every person needs their own car. Provide good public transport and you can significantly reduce that need.
I'm going on my vacation - lend me your car please? No chance. I would have to pay to insure his car for me to drive - that will save me no money there then. I cannot go on holiday when I choose - only when we both agree. Here in France, the school holidays are coordinated into 3 zones, so that at any one time only a third of the population is on holiday reducing traffic congestion and price gouging that occurs when everyone wants the same scarce resources at the same time. However, people living close to each other have their holidays at similar times. So hard luck on using the car, your friend will also be needing it for his holiday. Same problem for public holidays, major sporting events, etc.
So I will have to pay the insurance associated with driving other people about - third party will be quite high in a litigious place like the US. Plus who knows what condition it will be when it comes back. Will everything still be there? My CDs? My sports kit in the boot/trunk?.
I'm not saying that it can't happen, but I'm not yet convinced. Those who control the cars will want to make money. Currently, car hire firms turn their vehicles over fairly regularly to second hand sales (3 months is common in Europe). They will probably want to do the same with their electric self-driving cars - 'have to look good to beat the competition' sort of thing. Where will the second hand market be? If self-drives cars are intended to reduce car ownership then who will be buying the second hand ones?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 13 2019, @12:20PM (4 children)
I grant that's a problem, but you're getting money back in turn. And in an urban area, people are willing to pay a lot to get from point A to point B.
I doubt self-driving cars will ever do that on their own. But there are add-on government policies that can do that, such as forcing manufacturers to buy back cars (similar to how bottles, electronics, and such are often recycled).
I didn't say it'd be for free.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday May 13 2019, @02:11PM (3 children)
I can understand the interest in electric cars, but self-driving cars perplex me. As always, I find that 'follow the money' tends to help.
I have found nothing that says we, as individuals, will be better off with self driving cars. I don't think that they will work out cheaper for us, although I can see that somebody is going to become very rich on the back of this idea.
I believe that the real reason that Uber/Lyft et al exist today is to establish themselves in the transportation business so that, when self-driving cars finally arrive, they can fire their drivers and simply keep more of the costs charged for each journey for themselves. The cost of running the vehicles will be borne, as it is today, by the users. But the profits will be kept by a minority. If you think that hiring a self-driving car will be cheap, then I invite you to show me where anyone has demonstrated the math behind that belief. Getting rid of the driver should be cheaper - but somehow there will be an excuse why that isn't the case and the cost to the passenger will remain the same.
What happens in an accident between a self-drive car and a 'normal' car? In court, will it be the case of 'The software has been tested, it must have been driver error on the part of the person in the other vehicle'? Will you be able to see the code for yourself, and even if you can how will you find a bug that might only show itself on relatively infrequent occasions. After all we know that software and engineering are infallible (er, I'll bet Boeing are rethinking that one at the moment). Surely, nobody will take short cuts in the design of self drive cars to make a few extra dollars per vehicle will they, especially if proving that they have done so will be almost impossible to achieve for the likes of you or I? So will the onus be on the person to prove that the self drive car did something stupid? The Boeing incident was investigated because of 2 separate incidents involving significant loss of life. Do you think that a bug in self-drive software that 'only' accounts for 1 death a day will not even be noticed among the millions of driving hours each day in the US?
If there will be fewer accidents and therefore fewer insurance pay-outs, do you think you will see that as a reduction in your own premiums? Why aren't the insurance companies rallying against self-drive if it will significantly reduce their money stream? Or is it because they know very well that it either will not affect them, or they have another stream of getting your money already planned and just waiting for the cars to arrive?
All the existing claims are intended to sell the idea to us - the public. It's a marketing exercise. While self drive cars have a role to play I don't think that we will see all the touted benefits. It will be another way for a relative few people to make money at the expense of, yep, you've guessed it, us the public. I can walk out of my door and into a car anytime I want. I do not have to wait for a car to arrive. I can drive my children to the local hospital with their latest sprains, twisted knees and other cuts and bruises for treatment. I can go to the local supermarket and buy more than I can physically carry by hand and be home before the self-drive car will have probably shown up to aid me. I do not have to worry about the habits of the previous occupants who have left the vehicle smelling of tobacco, or vomit, or whatever they have just had to eat from the drive-in on their way home.
Self drive cars might be our salvation - but I'll need a lot more convincing as things stand at the moment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 13 2019, @03:00PM (1 child)
the nice thing about self driving cars is that they are full of sensors like cameras that will have recorded what was going on at the time of the crash. Hence there will be no guessing in court, the court will be able to check.
the insurance companies have a certain amount of profit, the rest goes to payouts.
This will just reduce the number of payouts needed.
Hence the insurance companies could get by with lower premiums (to accompany the lower payouts), and yet still have the same profit.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday May 13 2019, @05:00PM
An if an indicator light starts flashing 1 second later than it should you have lost a significant amount of thinking and reaction time. The sensors do not record such things, they expect the software to be correct. Boeing can assure you that this is not always the case.
And I stated that I have seen no evidence that this is likely to happen. We will have to wait and see, but I contend that there will be no change in the cost of premiums, at least not in favour of the man in the street.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 14 2019, @12:36PM
Get more sleep. Yesterday, I had to be on the road for a day and drove half of it. The ability to nap in the back seat while the car did the driving would have been nice and advantageous to me as an individual.
Historically, that has happened with causes of death from automobiles detected for much lower rates of death than one a day.
Also keep in mind that one can own a self-driving car.