The Cybercab reminds me in shape and utility of nothing so much as the original Google autonomous test car, the boob on wheels, but without the nipple of lidar. It’s a devolution to two-passenger blob, and equally useful. I was derisive of Google’s approach vs Tesla’s almost a decade ago, and I’m still of the opinion that Tesla has the right approach to autonomy across useful geographical areas instead of narrowly bounded urban areas obsessively mapped to centimeter-scale regularly by surveying cars. That Tesla’s journey has taken longer and will take longer still is somewhat a symptom of the weird challenge we have where we require autonomous cars to be perfect, but allow deeply imperfect humans to text and drive. But as a physical vehicle, the Cybercab is a devolution.
Clearly getting a family to school is not remotely something that was considered with this vehicle. No, the kids are supposed to each get their own Cybercab to go to their own schools, while the parents get their own Cybercabs to get to their jobs and Pilates classes. This is the top 20% of America’s view of utopia, where everyone in the family has their own car, even if they are too young to drive.
However, there’s one current silver lining to the USA’s requirement that everyone have their own car. 95% of the time, these cars are just sitting parked somewhere, and not congesting city streets. Cybercabs, by contrast, are always congesting city streets, even when they have no passengers as they drive to where passengers are likely to be, or drive to where they have been summoned, or drive to someplace else where they are conveniently located to be summoned. Cybercabs would be on the street almost constantly. While there would be fewer vehicles overall, they would be on the streets a much greater percentage of the time.
Honestly I’m not that concerned with the author’s perspective.
Yeah maybe these cars would be running around more… But also consider how nice it would be to have actual downtowns where you don’t have to worry about parking. That’s a huge plus both due to the reduced parking pressure and the reduced need to spend acres on parking lots.
I’m not even convinced they’d be driving around that much more. Sure a robotaxi needs customers, but driving around aimlessly doesn’t make money. I don’t believe that taxi drivers increase traffic vs everyone driving their own car to crowded places and circling around trying to find parking. If a human driver is dropping someone off at soccer practice they’re also not staying for that, they’re going home … which unless home is close is probably not more efficient than a robotaxi trying to pick up riders it’s already near.
Added bonus: why put for my autonomous vehicle to park during the day? Just order it to circle the block until I’m done with work. It’s not making traffic for me then and I save some money on parking.
The likely outcomes of truly autonomous vehicles read like a sociopath’s guide to fucking up everything and not caring a whit about the side effects.
EV cars are one piece of the puzzle to reducing our carbon footprint. They’re not a solution to traffic. In fact, they’re possibly the worst thing that could ever happen to traffic.
We should require that before any fully autonomous vehicles can be used in a city, the car makers have to fund a world class public transit system of trains, bike roads, and reduced car infrastructure (fewer lanes, nearly no open air parking, etc). Then we can talk about them inflicting their sociopathic toys upon our communities.
Tesla won’t ever produce what this person is writing about. Automatic driving taxis already exist, they’ve been on the road in a few cities.
This is just ignorant fear mongering, and giving into Musks advertising.
This article is basically saying Musk’s cars are going to fuck things up…how is that helping him advertise
You’re misreading it. They believe Tesla can do it, but this vehicle is a setback. They firmly believe Tesla will deliver. They apparently have no idea anything other than what Tesla promises exists.
The author completely misses the point. It’s not supposed to reduce traffic. It’s supposed to make transport safe and more accessible. To reduce unnecessary costs of production. To reduce waste. To take back space allocated to parking lots. To reduce airborne emissions.
It only has 2 seats because cars are only occupied by more than 2 people like 10% of the time. Its also a highly-efficient design. The robotaxi is only the first step. That’s why the Robovan can seat 20 people.
Would I prefer public transit? Absolutely. But who’s paying for that? I think it’s very clear that people are not voting for that in many places, so it’s not realistic.
I think the biggest problem is that it’s still only a concept with no realistic plan for implementation. Waymo has been on the roads where I live for years troubleshooting their self-driving concept. They’ve gotten better, but still cause problems regularly, like running red lights, stopping unpredictably, and getting stuck and not being able to figure out how to proceed. And Waymo seems significantly ahead of Tesla with this concept
It’s supposed to make transport safe and more accessible
It’s going to do neither of these things either. Claims that it would are kind of insane. More traffic means more time at risk and more cost when it comes to cabs.
It only has 2 seats because cars are only occupied by more than 2 people like 10% of the time
Butt one of the biggest use for cars is going to the airport with luggage and/or going out with friends on evenings to get drunk… neither of which this is suited for.
So while the author “missed the point”, your evaluation of use cases for this greatly misses the point too.
More traffic means more time at risk
How do you figure that?
Butt one of the biggest use for cars is going to the airport with luggage and/or going out with friends on evenings to get drunk… neither of which this is suited for.
Don’t know how you figure any of that either. It has an enormous amount of storage. And this could theoretically be not just a taxi but a replacement for your car altogether.
How do you figure that?
Most accidents occur at low speeds. More traffic, lower speeds.
Don’t know how you figure any of that either. It has an enormous amount of storage. And this could theoretically be not just a taxi but a replacement for your car altogether.
Most people don’t travel alone but in groups of 3 or more.
Most accidents occur at low speeds. More traffic, lower speeds.
Most serious injury/death happens at higher speeds. Lower speeds, increased safety.
They also happen due to distracted drivers, which is not a problem for computers.
Most people don’t travel alone but in groups of 3 or more.
They absolutely do not.
Most serious injury/death happens at higher speeds. Lower speeds, increased safety.
No, safety had more to it than less deaths. If we have less deaths but many many more crippling injuries, that’s not better.
They also happen due to distracted drivers, which is not a problem for computers.
Congested and slow traffic seems to confuse self driving the most tbh.
They absolutely do not.
76% of commuters drive alone
Commuters don’t take cabs. We’re talking about cabs.
