In a pivotal moment for the autonomous transportation industry, California chose to expand one of the biggest test cases for the technology.

      • aesthelete@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        They’re already in conflict everywhere. Infrastructure for cars robs public transit infrastructure blind in Los of government budgets. The only public transit category potentially benefiting from car infrastructure is buses, which are arguably the worst form of public transit to begin with, and still also require additional dedicated infrastructure to get any better (e.g. dedicated bus lanes).

        “Self-driving” cars obviously require car infrastructure which already steal from public transit budgets both federally and locally, but if we add government emphasis on this technology and start to develop specific infrastructure for “self-driving” cars (walled off routes, communications appliances, etc.) then they’ll start taking even more of the budget.

        And all of this for something that’s arguably much more braindead and useless and consuming of R&D dollars than the obviously more efficient, already technically possible forms of transit that could be built or expanded upon today.

    • Zalack@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Self driving cars could actually be kind of a good stepping stone to better public transit while making more efficient use of existing roadways. You hit a button to request a car, it drives you to wherever, you need to go, and then gets tasked to pick up the next person. Where you used to need 10 cars for 10 people, you now need one.

      • Nioxic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Thats still only a few people… compared to a bus?

        Why not just have a bus??

      • Raicuparta@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sure you might have a lower number of cars total, but you’ll also have way more cars on the road, making the traffic problem even worse (because you can now have more cars than people). I’m guessing we’ll be seeing legislation that disallows empty cars driving around in big cities.

        • Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t think it would necessarily mean more cars. It means that your car takes you to work but instead of sitting in the parking lot whole day it drives other people around making you money and then at the end of the day it takes you back home and perhaps then goes back to being a taxi for the night.

    • EnderWi99in@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Because one of them costs taxpayer money and the other one is just signing legislation? The two concepts aren’t even related other than that they are two different ways of getting to places.