|
MaxxBot posted:How do you propose convincing people to willingly choose less convenient forms of transportation? It literally takes me an hour and a half to bus to work and honestly it's a miracle there's even a route there at all, people are not going to willingly subject themselves to that if they don't have to. you don't, really, but there are various penalties jurisdictions can place on drivers - more places are adding variable toll lanes, you can also do things like congestion charges where you charge tolls for cars to enter a city, but there's no impact here on self driving cars vs. just cars but really the point of bringing up how awful suburbs are from some perspectives isn't a coded call to burn the suburbs, it's just pointing out they have particular problems due to the interaction of travel method and land use patterns, and this fundamental interaction is not going to change just because the cars are automated evilweasel posted:This is all a question of semantics, really, the thing you're getting at is that people need to be more densely located and that basically requires changing it from a suburban/rural area into a town and vacating the areas outside your new town. As a practical matter cities are where the jobs are so there's social movement into them (and the crime problems that led to flight from the cities back in the 70s/80s are long gone). But ultimately there are just a lot of people who just plain want more space to live in/avoid other people in. You couldn't pay me enough to live in a rural area or really even a suburb, but I've got family members who view living in dense cities as their own personal hell. no, he's not. nobody is proposing this. all stichensis is saying is that single family detached homeownership as a societal ideal is toxic. you're the one extrapolating from there into a call to "depopulate the suburbs". you can make suburbs denser without eliminating them. many suburbs are already doing this. please please please please please do not turn this conversation into a strawman jousting match where you defend the suburban way of life from people who you incorrectly imagine are trying to destroy it particularly this statement: quote:basically requires changing it from a suburban/rural area into a town and vacating the areas outside your new town is an extremely midcentury way of thinking, is not reflected in common urban planning theory, and is definitely not anything that anyone other than you has proposed one example is what's called conservation subdivision planning, basically sticking the houses closer together on the same plot of land - preserves more space for the environment, reduces the amount of car travel done within the subdivision, makes mass transit more feasible etc. and this is as a compromise which preserves automotive-dependent detached single family subdivisions boner confessor fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Jan 18, 2017 |
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 05:29 |
|
|
MaxxBot posted:How do you propose convincing people to willingly choose less convenient forms of transportation? It literally takes me an hour and a half to bus to work and honestly it's a miracle there's even a route there at all, people are not going to willingly subject themselves to that if they don't have to. I haven't regularly driven a car in over a decade, I'm unlikely to buy one before automated cars become a thing (whenever that is), and I'm still not likely to take the bus over virtually any other option. Buses are, generally, the worst of all worlds. They're going to take longer than any other option because they don't avoid traffic but do make repeated stops (unlike subways/trains, which avoid traffic but make repeated stops, or taxis, which don't avoid traffic but don't make other stops). They're going to be less convenient because of traffic making their schedule less predictable, and either there are few stops (making it a longer walk from where you are/want to be to the stop) or there are a lot, in which case the time taken by the trip keeps exponentially increasing. Generally, the only reason to take a bus is cost. And that's not to knock taking the bus to save money, but people are never exactly going to love the less costly but more inconvenient option. They're going to be annoyed that the wealthier people have it easier.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:no, he's not. nobody is proposing this. all stichensis is saying is that single family detached homeownership as a societal ideal is toxic. you're the one extrapolating from there into a call to "depopulate the suburbs". you can make suburbs denser without eliminating them. many suburbs are already doing this. please please please please please do not turn this conversation into a strawman jousting match where you defend the suburban way of life from people who you incorrectly imagine are trying to destroy it i don't live in a suburb and hate staying in them even briefly and it is stupid of you to think i am trying to"defend the suburban way of life" boner confessor posted:but really the point of bringing up how awful suburbs are from some perspectives isn't a coded call to burn the suburbs, it's just pointing out they have particular problems due to the interaction of travel method and land use patterns, and this fundamental interaction is not going to change just because the cars are automated yes, that is my point, we're not getting rid of them, they exist, they're going to exist, if they should exist or be restructured is pointless to the discussion because they're not going to be by anything other than changing social and economic forces much broader than autonomous vehicles evilweasel fucked around with this message at 19:23 on Jan 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:How do you propose convincing people to willingly choose less convenient forms of transportation? It literally takes me an hour and a half to bus to work and honestly it's a miracle there's even a route there at all, people are not going to willingly subject themselves to that if they don't have to. This is living in the middle of a large city right by a high frequency bus line and riding at the times when the busses run most frequently. By working on making these forms of transportation more convenient
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:i don't live in a suburb and hate staying in them even briefly and it is stupid of you to think i am trying to"defend the suburban way of life" i mean that's kind what you're doing but i'll drop it if you will  nobody even said suburbs need to be eliminated but you started in with the argument "some people prefer to live in suburbs" like that wasn't ever a commonly accepted thingevilweasel posted:yes, that is my point, we're not getting rid of them, they exist, they're going to exist, if they should exist or be restructured is pointless to the discussion because they're not going to be by anything other than changing social and economic forces much broader than autonomous vehicles everyone agrees suburbs exist and will continue to exist. i think we can put this in the OP, to clarify things boner confessor fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Jan 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
dex_sda posted:By working on making these forms of transportation more convenient How?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
There is a genuine fear (with some honest weight behind it) that autonomous cars would only basically backtrack on the progress of the last two decades towards urbanization. Autonomous cars aren't the magic bullet they are cited as but at the same time I think it is fair to see them as a return to the quasi-segregationist ideals of the 1950s where you can sit in leisure in a glass box and not have to deal with the "urban underclass" whizzing by. Obviously, that already in reality happened to the US but the fear is that autonomous cars would led to a return to that period history. Also in all honesty public transportation in the US is terrible, and even in major cities like DC and SF it is a joke compared to somewhere like China much less Europe. Autonomous cars may very well be a political liability in that improvement, also it may make pedestrian life in US even worse as cities are further designed around cars. Personally, I think cities designed around pedestrians are always more vibrant and interesting than cars and I grew up in LA. A future that is a "return to the past" is honestly pretty bleak even if it more efficient. Oh yeah the health effects are probably going to entirely negative. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Jan 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:There is a genuine fear (with some honest weight behind it) that autonomous cars would only basically backtrack on the progress of the last two decades towards urbanization. Autonomous cars aren't the magic bullet they are cited as but at the same time I think it is fair to see them as a return to the quasi-segregationist ideals of the 1950s where you can sit in leisure in a glass box and not have to deal with the "urban underclass" whizzing by. Obviously, that already in reality happened to the US but the fear is that autonomous cars would led to a return to that period history. this might lead to more growth in exurban bedroom communities but really the technology to access these areas already exists, autonomous cars would just make it slightly more bearable - as if getting up at 5am for your three hour commute is any more bearable just because a robot's doing the driving and you can sit blankly while contemplating your life choices the more likely scenario is the continued gentrification of cities as well as the thickening of inner ring suburbs, this is something that is happening today even without the future promise of robot cars Ardennes posted:Also in all honesty public transportation in the US is terrible, and even in major cities like DC and SF it is a joke compared to somewhere like China much less Europe. Autonomous cars may very well be a political liability in that improvement, also it may make pedestrian life in US even worse as cities are further designed around cars. nah - urban transit expansion is being spearheaded by city and close-in metro residents of jurisdictions, who are the people who care least about autonomous cars. they'll keep voting yes on more bond measures or what have yous
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:this might lead to more growth in exurban bedroom communities but really the technology to access these areas already exists, autonomous cars would just make it slightly more bearable - as if getting up at 5am for your three hour commute is any more bearable just because a robot's doing the driving and you can sit blankly while contemplating your life choices A commute you don't have to drive is much, much more pleasant than one you do. Automated vehicles would slightly increase the appeal of a suburban commute, but people are idiots about calculating how their commute will affect them before moving anyway so it wouldn't make much of a difference.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:How? enhancing subways and tram services, making the services more comfortable and robust, prioritizing things that can take a separate route, and if that is impossible, easing congestion by providing incentives to use the urban transit instead of cars. Tram service in my city is golden and will take you across town twice as fast as a car will, with very little delay or wait time. The buses are worse because they have to deal with congestion, which is a problem that will remain the same or worse with autonomous cars replacing the urban transit. All this needs green cheddar though, and there's not many who would benefit on it (that aren't poor or the planet)
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:A commute you don't have to drive is much, much more pleasant than one you do. i'm saying a long distance commute isn't pleasant no matter whether or not you're driving, and these are the people who will early adopt the technology. my commute is about 20 minutes without traffic and on a winding 40 minute route during rush hour, self-driving cars don't mean much for me. the average american commute is 25 minutes. at this point self driving cars are really more of a luxury than something transformative for the first couple generations - the big question is if people will be willing to move further outside of the metro if a car can be counted on to do the commuting for you, and given population trends i think 1) not in any large number and 2) this would happen anyway and people would just suck it up and deal with the long commute
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
dex_sda posted:enhancing subways and tram services, making the services more comfortable, prioritizing things that can take a separate route, and if that is impossible, easing congestion by providing incentives to use the urban transit instead of cars. Subways are the loving bomb and we should build more. The issue is they're expensive as hell to run in urban areas these days though (I think the Second Avenue Subway cost $1 billion per mile) but somehow other cities can do them cheaper and I've never really heard a good explanation for why it was so expensive in New York compared to other major cities in Europe that expanded their subways recently.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:this might lead to more growth in exurban bedroom communities but really the technology to access these areas already exists, autonomous cars would just make it slightly more bearable - as if getting up at 5am for your three hour commute is any more bearable just because a robot's doing the driving and you can sit blankly while contemplating your life choices More exurbans and a harder struggle for public transportation funding is probably not something to really cheer for though considering how dire the present-day already is. Also, I could see states and suburban counties "cut cities loose" since their infrastructure is now "obsolete." At a certain point you have to be absolutely cynical about the promise of technological progress in the US especially in the Trump age. Oh yeah and I am a guy and wouldn't really like to have to take buses without some type of employee on them. I think the dream "driver-less" buses are from people who haven't had to use buses regularly in large cities. evilweasel posted:Subways are the loving bomb and we should build more. The issue is they're expensive as hell to run in urban areas these days though (I think the Second Avenue Subway cost $1 billion per mile) but somehow other cities can do them cheaper and I've never really heard a good explanation for why it was so expensive in New York compared to other major cities in Europe that expanded their subways recently. In the case of Manhattan I think it is just tunneling in a city with such density. In comparison the Cross Rail project in London cost at least 15 billion pounds and that is only partially underground. While the city couldn't live without the Subway, it is pretty antiquated to lot of other systems around the world...hell almost all of them including London. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Jan 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Subways are the loving bomb and we should build more. The issue is they're expensive as hell to run in urban areas these days though (I think the Second Avenue Subway cost $1 billion per mile) but somehow other cities can do them cheaper and I've never really heard a good explanation for why it was so expensive in New York compared to other major cities in Europe that expanded their subways recently. Even if you can't build a subway, dedicating a lane to trams works well and they can be electric and clean and fast and comfortable. You can even get whatever remaining buses for less common routes you have on the same lane and they'll avoid the worst of the traffic this way. But that's again, very expensive, and it'll only get worse if you look to the autonomous car future (which is a terrible solution to the problem for a variety of reasons, many of which boner confessor brought up). It's hard to say how we could possibly tackle this problem in the future.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Subways are the loving bomb and we should build more. The issue is they're expensive as hell to run in urban areas these days though (I think the Second Avenue Subway cost $1 billion per mile) but somehow other cities can do them cheaper and I've never really heard a good explanation for why it was so expensive in New York compared to other major cities in Europe that expanded their subways recently. because of the tenth amendment of the constitution, the us federal government is mostly blocked from spending money on "local" infrastructure like subways. anything entirely within a state is that state's business only. there are some ways to get around this, like DOT grants and fuckery with the definition of interstate - WMATA in DC, for example, has to deal with us congressional approval of some funding decisions, which is part of why WMATA is so hosed up - whereas other nations don't have this silly restriction. in england, for example, nearly all urban planning and transportation decisions are nationalized, and the french national government dumps a ton of money into the paris metro etc. i mean it's not any less costly to dig through the dirt in france, there's just more public money available because the us is particuarly stingy when it comes to urban infrastructure
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:because of the tenth amendment of the constitution, the us federal government is mostly blocked from spending money on "local" infrastructure like subways. anything entirely within a state is that state's business only. there are some ways to get around this, like DOT grants and fuckery with the definition of interstate - WMATA in DC, for example, has to deal with us congressional approval of some funding decisions, which is part of why WMATA is so hosed up - whereas other nations don't have this silly restriction. in england, for example, nearly all urban planning and transportation decisions are nationalized, and the french national government dumps a ton of money into the paris metro etc. This does play the part to some extent. Municipalities do their own funding and improve as much as they can on their own budget, but also, they can't gently caress things up for anyone else.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
dex_sda posted:Even if you can't build a subway, dedicating a lane to trams works well and they can be electric and clean and fast and comfortable. You can even get whatever remaining buses for less common routes you have on the same lane and they'll avoid the worst of the traffic this way. Boston's green line, which is the only tram I've ever ridden, isn't really any better than a bus in a bus lane because it's just as susceptible to traffic lights/people blocking the intersection/etc. It's better than nothing but it's not great. I also suspect that it's not a wise use of the space and that taking a dedicated lane from cars, while reducing pollution, lowers the amount of people the road can support. It might however support less dense areas, but I suspect those less dense areas are also where you can run a subway through much more cheaply by using old-timey cut and cover because there's routes with no expensive buildings or roads you need to keep open on top. edit: for people who haven't been reading up on subway building, "cut and cover" is where you don't dig a tunnel: you dig a big hole, then build a roof in the hole, then pour dirt on the roof. presto, cheap tunnel! evilweasel fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Jan 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Boston's green line, which is the only tram I've ever ridden, isn't really any better than a bus in a bus lane because it's just as susceptible to traffic lights/people blocking the intersection/etc. It's better than nothing but it's not great. I also suspect that it's not a wise use of the space and that taking a dedicated lane from cars, while reducing pollution, lowers the amount of people the road can support. You'd think, but the effort to provide as many separate lane trams in my city massively eased congestion (the subway was floated as an idea, but it is untenable, as the city is built on some mad tough rock). It just required a painful rebuilding of lots of roads. It is still susceptible to traffic lights and blockages though, you're right.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:because of the tenth amendment of the constitution, the us federal government is mostly blocked from spending money on "local" infrastructure like subways. anything entirely within a state is that state's business only. there are some ways to get around this, like DOT grants and fuckery with the definition of interstate - WMATA in DC, for example, has to deal with us congressional approval of some funding decisions, which is part of why WMATA is so hosed up - whereas other nations don't have this silly restriction. in england, for example, nearly all urban planning and transportation decisions are nationalized, and the french national government dumps a ton of money into the paris metro etc. I mean, the legal argument isn't true (Congress can and does fund stuff entirely within one state: that's what "earmarks" were, where you fund some congressman's pet project at home in exchange for his vote to make smoking mandatory or something). DC is a special case because DC is, legally speaking, under Congress's direct control. But Congress can and does fund plenty of local infrastructure projects and I believe the second avenue subway had a lot of federal money. Either way though, the amount of federal funding doesn't answer why it's more expensive per mile (the second avenue subway was like 10x as expensive per mile than recent projects in london), merely how often they get funded.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Boston's green line, which is the only tram I've ever ridden, isn't really any better than a bus in a bus lane because it's just as susceptible to traffic lights/people blocking the intersection/etc. It's better than nothing but it's not great. I also suspect that it's not a wise use of the space and that taking a dedicated lane from cars, while reducing pollution, lowers the amount of people the road can support. no, you can put plenty of people on that road - a tram (or light rail) is just a way for pedestrians to use a vehicle for quick road movement without getting into a car first evilweasel posted:It might however support less dense areas, but I suspect those less dense areas are also where you can run a subway through much more cheaply by using old-timey cut and cover because there's routes with no expensive buildings or roads you need to keep open on top. i can't think of anything more pointless and extravagant in mass transit than running a subway through a non-dense area, unless you anticipate using value capture to drastically densify the area evilweasel posted:I mean, the legal argument isn't true (Congress can and does fund stuff entirely within one state: that's what "earmarks" were, where you fund some congressman's pet project at home in exchange for his vote to make smoking mandatory or something). DC is a special case because DC is, legally speaking, under Congress's direct control. But Congress can and does fund plenty of local infrastructure projects and I believe the second avenue subway had a lot of federal money. yeah i mentioned DOT grants and fuckery in my post evilweasel posted:Either way though, the amount of federal funding doesn't answer why it's more expensive per mile (the second avenue subway was like 10x as expensive per mile than recent projects in london), merely how often they get funded. which project were you thinking of? a quick look at the numbers doesn't seem to bear this out
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
Yeah, a little fact about Portland, almost the entirety of the rail system was built with federal funding. Trimet basically gamed the system so it would be 100-80% on the federal government's tab. Basically, it is up to the project and how much an agency wants to essentially beg for money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:which project were you thinking of? a quick look at the numbers doesn't seem to bear this out Looks like I was remembering the city wrong (I had read this from one of the articles on the second avenue subway) but here's a bunch of subway projects broken down by cost per mile: https://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/us-rail-construction-costs/ It seems like most of the cost though is in the stations, not the tunneling itself. boner confessor posted:yeah i mentioned DOT grants and fuckery in my post no, there's no fuckery involved: congress can spend money on pretty much whatever the drat hell it wants they only have to justify laws and regulations using interstate commerce, they don't have to justify spending
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:no, there's no fuckery involved: congress can spend money on pretty much whatever the drat hell it wants having your congressperson beg for continual earmarks is an extremely unsustainable method of funding which is why basically nobody does it
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
How much are auto cars supposed to cost? Fat load of good they'll do if no-one can afford them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:How much are auto cars supposed to cost? Fat load of good they'll do if no-one can afford them. nobody knows yet but it's almost certain that it'll be luxury badges that get them first, while automakers continue to make cheap manual cars for the low end of the market
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:How much are auto cars supposed to cost? Fat load of good they'll do if no-one can afford them. The hardware probably doesn't meaningfully increase the price of the car. You need sensors, which aren't that expensive, and a computer, which won't be that expensive. How expensive the software/liability premium is, that's harder to guess. edit: Liability premium being, anytime one of these cars hurts or kills someone, the maker is probably getting sued (because there's no human driver to blame instead), so they have to effectively build in the cost of lifetime liability insurance into the car.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The hardware probably doesn't meaningfully increase the price of the car. the real question is how much the automakers think they can get away with charging for the self-driving feature
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:the real question is how much the automakers think they can get away with charging for the self-driving feature Probably depends on how many different companies independently solve the problem and are willing to license the software, and if there's any perception one company's solution is any better than the others. If someone can make an affordable automatic car they'll go whole hog on it because if you become the only affordable one in the market for any serious length of time, that's well worth the risk of undercutting your luxury sales.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:
I'd imagine that the manufacturers would litigate very aggressively in the case of any accident, at least initially. "There's nothing wrong with the software, so it must be driver error. Since our car has no driver....." This should make the first few years rather interesting to watch. As well, I expect things to get rather interesting once a sizeable 3rd party modding community springs up. What happens when a driver decides his new autonomous car drives too conservatively and slowly for his tastes, and downloads an unofficial software 'fix' to speed up his morning commute by bypassing some of the safety controls?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:How much are auto cars supposed to cost? Fat load of good they'll do if no-one can afford them. To add on autopilot to a tesla X is 8000 dollars for 8 cameras, radar, ultrasonic cameras and a new computer and software and installation. So it'll be well under 10,000 dollars, probably under 5000 for a mass produced car.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:To add on autopilot to a tesla X is 8000 dollars for 8 cameras, radar, ultrasonic cameras and a new computer and software and installation. So it'll be well under 10,000 dollars, probably under 5000 for a mass produced car. lol Soylent Yellow posted:I'd imagine that the manufacturers would litigate very aggressively in the case of any accident, at least initially. "There's nothing wrong with the software, so it must be driver error. Since our car has no driver....." This should make the first few years rather interesting to watch. As well, I expect things to get rather interesting once a sizeable 3rd party modding community springs up. What happens when a driver decides his new autonomous car drives too conservatively and slowly for his tastes, and downloads an unofficial software 'fix' to speed up his morning commute by bypassing some of the safety controls? A shitshow, that's what happens. Expect the companies to use the possibility of 3rd party modding as a scapegoat for any troubles, also.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
Soylent Yellow posted:I'd imagine that the manufacturers would litigate very aggressively in the case of any accident, at least initially. "There's nothing wrong with the software, so it must be driver error. Since our car has no driver....." This should make the first few years rather interesting to watch. As well, I expect things to get rather interesting once a sizeable 3rd party modding community springs up. What happens when a driver decides his new autonomous car drives too conservatively and slowly for his tastes, and downloads an unofficial software 'fix' to speed up his morning commute by bypassing some of the safety controls? I doubt it. That kind of litigation would be very expensive and you'd have to take it to a jury verdict every time, and would still be likely to lose even if you were not at fault because you're asking the jury to believe your expert who interpreted the computer code over their inherent bias that a machine is not as reliable as a person (this is not a "juries are dumb" thing, people have this bias in all sorts of places even when the machine demonstrates conclusively that it's better overall), and it only takes a handful of jury verdicts before your public reputation is trashed and people don't trust your car. dex_sda posted:A shitshow, that's what happens. Expect the companies to use the possibility of 3rd party modding as a scapegoat for any troubles, also. It would be, legally speaking, an insanely dumb idea to mod your self-driving car in any way that might possibly affect its driving. That said, it is not hard to check to make sure that the code hasn't been tampered with and I'm sure they'll be blocking third-party code as much as possible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
dex_sda posted:lol New 20,000 dollar honda civics right now will automatically keep you in a highway lane, let you set a cruise control speed and automatically keep distance from the car ahead as a 1800 dollar feature. Even with no actual self driving system at all installed you could get on a highway and close your eyes and make it to the next state in one of the cheapest cars on the market.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:New 20,000 dollar honda civics right now will automatically keep you in a highway lane, let you set a cruise control speed and automatically keep distance from the car ahead as a 1800 dollar feature. Even with no actual self driving system at all installed you could get on a highway and close your eyes and make it to the next state in one of the cheapest cars on the market. You aren't factoring in many variables that will drive the cost up as reasonably fully autonomous cars get to market.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
dex_sda posted:You aren't factoring in many variables that will drive the cost up as reasonably fully autonomous cars get to market. I don't get what you're driving at either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I don't get what you're driving at either. luxury at first, extra cost to reclaim money on R&D etc. My point is the sensors are not the whole cost that the consumer will incur.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:New 20,000 dollar honda civics right now will automatically keep you in a highway lane, let you set a cruise control speed and automatically keep distance from the car ahead as a 1800 dollar feature. Even with no actual self driving system at all installed you could get on a highway and close your eyes and make it to the next state in one of the cheapest cars on the market. That's not how these things are priced. Half of the price is cost (you forgot the creative and dev cost and licensing costs!), and the other half is what they can get away with given the market. Ford is putting theirs under the Lincoln umbrella in the concept stage, so that shows where they plan on pricing them to start. Tesla, etc., I'm not sure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
dex_sda posted:luxury at first, extra cost to reclaim money on R&D etc. My point is the sensors are not the whole cost that the consumer will incur. Tesla is also a luxury car company though, and they're spreading their R&D for their more limited self-driving over fewer cars as a result. There's certainly going to be an attempt to capitalize on the software and recoup R&D, but I think you're underestimating the value of sticking something in a car that sells millions of cars and making less per car than sticking it in a luxury car and charging a lot more for fewer units. It also seems like they're doing the luxury thing as sort of a way to make back the R&D money with imperfect self-driving like Tesla and other car companies are doing. But if you're the first one to market with a fully self-driving car and you know you have enough of a head start on your competitors, it seems to me you're far better off coming out with a line of self-driving cars for every market niche and trying to blitz your way to hilarious market share, instead of focusing on profits at the high-end luxury market. You'll get more money and your competitive position will last longer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
Darko posted:That's not how these things are priced. Half of the price is cost (you forgot the creative and dev cost and licensing costs!), and the other half is what they can get away with given the market. I don't mean a hypothetical honda civic in the future, I mean lane keep and adaptive cruise controls are current features. You can get on a highway then take your hands and feet off the controls and it drives you. Its not 'true' self driving by any stretch, but it's a lot of self driving already going into dirt cheap cars. They are not saving everything only for luxury cars and there isn't a ton you'd actually need to add to turn it into "real" self driving for highways only.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 05:29 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:But if you're the first one to market with a fully self-driving car and you know you have enough of a head start on your competitors, it seems to me you're far better off coming out with a line of self-driving cars for every market niche and trying to blitz your way to hilarious market share, instead of focusing on profits at the high-end luxury market. You'll get more money and your competitive position will last longer. this assumes the average consumer actually WANTS a self driving car. i think people are generally positive about the technology but definently hesitant to trust it. you tun the risk of trying to push a product onto a hesitant consumer base and burning yourself Owlofcreamcheese posted:I don't mean a hypothetical honda civic in the future, I mean lane keep and adaptive cruise controls are current features. You can get on a highway then take your hands and feet off the controls and it drives you. please god tell me you never drive in the state of georgia or anywhere else i am
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 21:35
|
|