Google Driverless Cars ----- Merged

[motch]

Good question.

Firstly I'd guess that driver operated vehicles (DOVs) will be in the majority for the next 30 or so years. Once we get to 2040 enthusiasts will split into either the classic car brigade or the low volume track day sports car brigade.

In the longer term DOVs will initially be banned from motorways then later on some larger city centres.

In the long long term the biggest issue will be driving licences. I'd guess from 2030 onwards most 18 year olds won't get a driving licence, by 2060 the majority of people won't have a licence and vast majority of those that do will be aged 50+, for the under 50s the driving licence will be about as common as a private pilots licence is today.

Another problem is that those people who do have licences are likely to be very inexperienced drivers who will never be able to do enough miles to really learn how to use the car.

In the end it'll be track days only.

and drivers making out they can drive really well/fast but secretly using the driverless mode.

[Qetesuesi]

Right, time for some hard pounds and pence on the potential benefits and savings:

Congestion costs the British economy alone an estimated £20 billion a year in wasted time and resources and lost business. This is set to rise to £32bn by 2025.

http://www.htma.co.uk/smartweb/hot-topics/congestion

[motch]

Right, time for some hard pounds and pence on the potential benefits and savings:

http://www.htma.co.uk/smartweb/hot-topics/congestion

was driving through a big Town the other day (which i do quite a bit) most travelling straight through, a couple of miles undergound tunnel to bypass town would reduce congestion a lot, be a bit pricey though i'd guess. but a reduction of thousands of cars/vans/lorries having to block up town centres would be good.

one issue with driverless cars could be people calling them up in towns/cities for just a mile or two journey which could easily be walked/cycled/bused, increasing congestion.

[Qetesuesi]

was driving through a big Town the other day (which i do quite a bit) most travelling straight through, a couple of miles undergound tunnel to bypass town would reduce congestion a lot, be a bit pricey though i'd guess. but a reduction of thousands of cars/vans/lorries having to block up town centres would be good.

one issue with driverless cars could be people calling them up in towns/cities for just a mile or two journey which could easily be walked/cycled/bused, increasing congestion.

Cycling would be 100% sure to increase congestion.

Two miles' walking is out of the question if you're either not sufficiently fit or else in a bit of a hurry - or faced with brutal weather as happens too often in ol' Blighty these days.

And the trouble with bussing is that so many buses for much of the time are well below capacity - something which ipso facto increases congestion. Whereas replacing each bus with say 5 to 10 driverless cars makes for much more efficient use of their capacity.

Taking the driverless car would increase congestion ONLY if there were currently nobody on board. If there are 2 or 3 passengers already, and your intended journey is more or less on their common route, the increase to congestion is effectively zero.

[motch]

Cycling would be 100% sure to increase congestion.

definetely not in town/city centre areas, 1 more bicycle is 1 less car (edited: IF only 1 person in car which is about 50% i'd guess, so eg for 100 people could be 70 less cars and 100 extra cycles who can filter through existing traffic mostly), plus more and more electric bikes would keep the traffic flowing better. Average town traffic speed is around cycling speed, might seem like a delay when behind but in reality no difference.

[liminalien]

Cycling would be 100% sure to increase congestion.

Two miles' walking is out of the question if you're either not sufficiently fit or else in a bit of a hurry - or faced with brutal weather as happens too often in ol' Blighty these days.

And the trouble with bussing is that so many buses for much of the time are well below capacity - something which ipso facto increases congestion. Whereas replacing each bus with say 5 to 10 driverless cars makes for much more efficient use of their capacity.

Taking the driverless car would increase congestion ONLY if there were currently nobody on board. If there are 2 or 3 passengers already, and your intended journey is more or less on their common route, the increase to congestion is effectively zero.

You should look at this photo:

How much road space do 72 people use?

On Bikes? (90 Sq m) In Cars? (at ave. occupancy of 1.2/car = 1000 sq m) On a bus? (30 sq m)

[Qetesuesi]

definetely not in town/city centre areas, 1 more bicycle is 1 less car (edited: IF only 1 person in car which is about 50% i'd guess, so eg for 100 people could be 70 less cars and 100 extra cycles who can filter through existing traffic mostly), plus more and more electric bikes would keep the traffic flowing better. Average town traffic speed is around cycling speed, might seem like a delay when behind but in reality no difference.

Yes, in fact on a moped you may well be faster than urban car traffic. But re. your first point, as you admit, if a driverless car contains more than one person, and one of them gets out to go by bike instead, that is definitely an increase of congestion. Once this technology matures in society, about the only DCs with only one person in them will contain diehard petrolheads who wouldn't be seen dead on a bike anyway!

You should look at this photo:

How much road space do 72 people use?

On Bikes? (90 Sq m) In Cars? (at ave. occupancy of 1.2/car = 1000 sq m) On a bus? (30 sq m)

(1) The density of moving pedestrians is never that high - except perhaps in central Tokyo

(2) Nor is the density of all those bikes in motion going to be as high as that - they'd have to be spread out at least twofold compared to what the photo depicts.

(3) Meanwhile the ave. occupancy of a car you cite is fantasy - once DCs become standard this will rise to between 4 and 5 (or higher if, as I suspect and mentioned earlier, minibus-size vehicles become more commonplace). Then your 72 individuals would fit into 16 cars max. - an area on the photo barely larger than that of the bikes. But whereas all those bikes in motion at 20-30mph would need to be quite spread out, those 16 DCs could indeed move at urban speeds practically bumper to bumper, i.e. at pretty much the density depicted here.

(4) As for the buses, how clunky and cumbersome they are compared to the alternatives, and how often inefficiently filled.

[liminalien]

(1) The density of moving pedestrians is never that high - except perhaps in central Tokyo

(2) Nor is the density of all those bikes in motion going to be as high as that - they'd have to be spread out at least twofold compared to what the photo depicts.

Neither of which undermines the point.

(3) Meanwhile the ave. occupancy of a car you cite is fantasy - once DCs become standard this will rise to between 4 and 5 (or higher if, as I suspect and mentioned earlier, minibus-size vehicles become more commonplace). Then your 72 individuals would fit into 16 cars max. - an area on the photo barely larger than that of the bikes. But whereas all those bikes in motion at 20-30mph would need to be quite spread out, those 16 DCs could indeed move at urban speeds practically bumper to bumper, i.e. at pretty much the density depicted here.

Ah, and here we meet the big problem. Urban areas dominated by motor traffic are unpleasant and unliveable. Imagine how much more unpleasant and unliveable the city of your mooted future will be, with swarms of motorcars travelling at pedestrian-lethal speed in bumper-to-bumper convoy.

(4) As for the buses, how clunky and cumbersome they are compared to the alternatives, and how often inefficiently filled.

Your proposed minibus-sized driverless vehicles are nothing more than a routine upgrade of the many, well-used existing dial-a-ride bus services which are already quite common in the UK, or the community-taxi minibus which is ubiquitous in Africa. It surprises me that you're advocating this, when you disparage buses so much.

[motch]

Yes, in fact on a moped you may well be faster than urban car traffic. But re. your first point, as you admit, if a driverless car contains more than one person, and one of them gets out to go by bike instead, that is definitely an increase of congestion. Once this technology matures in society, about the only DCs with only one person in them will contain diehard petrolheads who wouldn't be seen dead on a bike anyway!

it wouldn't increase congestion because most of the bicycles would be filtering through the traffic, with cycle lanes in towns/city helping this enormously, it would reduce congestion. What would increase congestion would be more and more cars on the road in built up areas, esepecially around rush hours (which seems to be a bigger and bigger span as the years roll on in my experience)

I don't think the majority of petrolheads would want to be seen in DC's as they're not in charge of the vehicle, quite a few may well turn to the super lightweight carbon fibre bicycle or even better equivelent by then, as they're be able to get fit and zoom past the hordes of stationary cars in towns/cities as population grows and grows.

(2) Nor is the density of all those bikes in motion going to be as high as that - they'd have to be spread out at least twofold compared to what the photo depicts.

same for the cars, possibly even more so.

(3) Meanwhile the ave. occupancy of a car you cite is fantasy - once DCs become standard this will rise to between 4 and 5 (or higher if, as I suspect and mentioned earlier, minibus-size vehicles become more commonplace). Then your 72 individuals would fit into 16 cars max. - an area on the photo barely larger than that of the bikes. But whereas all those bikes in motion at 20-30mph would need to be quite spread out, those 16 DCs could indeed move at urban speeds practically bumper to bumper, i.e. at pretty much the density depicted here.

would work ok if no pedestrians or bicycles, mopeds alowed on the road, otherwise would need to be bigger gaps to avoid squishing loads of city folk. I think the attraction of driverless cars would be to be in them with people you're with, so lots of 1's and 2's in them.

I've put my replies in bold as i mucked up the quotes

[Qetesuesi]

Neither of which undermines the point.

Next time, remember to read both halves of an argument before venturing to reply.

Ah, and here we meet the big problem. Urban areas dominated by motor traffic are unpleasant and unliveable. Imagine how much more unpleasant and unliveable the city of your mooted future will be, with swarms of motorcars travelling at pedestrian-lethal speed in bumper-to-bumper convoy.

(1) As I seem to be repeating on this thread until blue in the face, the so-called swarms will be one-quarter their present size.

(2) The concept of convoys is being developed principally for motorways and other high-speed mainways.

(3) They wouldn't be travelling at pedestrian-lethal speed any more than at present; on the other hand the end of congestion means an end to an average speed of 3mph or whatever it so often is in much of London.

Your proposed minibus-sized driverless vehicles are nothing more than a routine upgrade of the many, well-used existing dial-a-ride bus services which are already quite common in the UK, or the community-taxi minibus which is ubiquitous in Africa. It surprises me that you're advocating this, when you disparage buses so much.

The African minibuses (also in widespread use in the Balkans and elsewhere) are a good urban transport solution for the time being - I wonder why London doesn't make more use of them. However DCs will drive more safely, more compactly and more fuel-efficiently than their equivalent vehicles today. The Kent Karrier's range of destinations seems limited, particularly for a service advertised as helping the wheelchair-bound.

Both these examples are no match for a system which doesn't depend on the availability of human drivers, which can pick you up and drop you off EXACTLY where you wish, and where the vehicles in question never really need any parking space, but can be leveraged for different purposes over the 24-hour cycle, viz. as courier/freight transport during 'quieter' hours as regards passengers.

[liminalien]

(1) As I seem to be repeating on this thread until blue in the face, the so-called swarms will be one-quarter their present size.

Yes, noted. I don't use the term 'swarms' in any sort of emotive way, but rather as atechnical term for a self-organising group of autonomous units.

(2) The concept of convoys is being developed principally for motorways and other high-speed mainways.

I thought we were talking about urban transport. If swarms aren't deployable in urban areas, where is the congestion-busting space-saving benefit to come from -other than the fact that you hope that they will be HOV's? But, in that case, to combat congestion - why not just mandate HOV's in central urban areas anyway, without the necessity for this expensive new technology?

(3) They wouldn't be travelling at pedestrian-lethal speed any more than at present; on the other hand the end of congestion means an end to an average speed of 3mph or whatever it so often is in much of London.

See above. The new urbanism agenda currently sweeping the world is centred on a *reduction* of motor-traffic speeds and the general discouragement of motor transport. This is the very opposite of what you hope that Driverless Cars will bring.

The African minibuses (also in widespread use in the Balkans and elsewhere) are a good urban transport solution for the time being - I wonder why London doesn't make more use of them. However DCs will drive more safely, more compactly and more fuel-efficiently than their equivalent vehicles today. The Kent Karrier's range of destinations seems limited, particularly for a service advertised as helping the wheelchair-bound.

Both these examples are no match for a system which doesn't depend on the availability of human drivers, which can pick you up and drop you off EXACTLY where you wish, and where the vehicles in question never really need any parking space, but can be leveraged for different purposes over the 24-hour cycle, viz. as courier/freight transport during 'quieter' hours as regards passengers.

All of which is fine - like I said - driverless HOV's would be a routine upgrade. But will they be able to pick you up and drop you off in areas where motor transport is banned? In which case there are now many cities across Europe and increasingly the US where their use will be limited. Maybe they're just good for the UK, stuck as we are with an attitude to personal transport which is stuck somewhere in the middle of the car-crazy 20th century?

[Qetesuesi]

Yes, in fact on a moped you may well be faster than urban car traffic. But re. your first point, as you admit, if a driverless car contains more than one person, and one of them gets out to go by bike instead, that is definitely an increase of congestion. Once this technology matures in society, about the only DCs with only one person in them will contain diehard petrolheads who wouldn't be seen dead on a bike anyway!

it wouldn't increase congestion because most of the bicycles would be filtering through the traffic, with cycle lanes in towns/city helping this enormously, it would reduce congestion. What would increase congestion would be more and more cars on the road in built up areas, esepecially around rush hours (which seems to be a bigger and bigger span as the years roll on in my experience)

I don't think the majority of petrolheads would want to be seen in DC's as they're not in charge of the vehicle, quite a few may well turn to the super lightweight carbon fibre bicycle or even better equivelent by then, as they're be able to get fit and zoom past the hordes of stationary cars in towns/cities as population grows and grows.

You can't get lots of bikes without slowing down the overall traffic.

The whole point of the potential of DC is to have far fewer cars on the road, particularly in rush hours. They certainly won't be "stationary" any more, quite the opposite. As for petrolheads who insist on travelling alone, they may well wish to avail themselves of the new kind of "narrow car" being developed which combines the stability and weather-proof-ness of cars with the agility of mopeds. It was on BBC's "What If?" a few weeks ago, perhaps you saw it?

(2) Nor is the density of all those bikes in motion going to be as high as that - they'd have to be spread out at least twofold compared to what the photo depicts.

same for the cars, possibly even more so.

No, because they're computer-driven, unlike the bikes.

(3) Meanwhile the ave. occupancy of a car you cite is fantasy - once DCs become standard this will rise to between 4 and 5 (or higher if, as I suspect and mentioned earlier, minibus-size vehicles become more commonplace). Then your 72 individuals would fit into 16 cars max. - an area on the photo barely larger than that of the bikes. But whereas all those bikes in motion at 20-30mph would need to be quite spread out, those 16 DCs could indeed move at urban speeds practically bumper to bumper, i.e. at pretty much the density depicted here.

would work ok if no pedestrians or bicycles, mopeds alowed on the road, otherwise would need to be bigger gaps to avoid squishing loads of city folk. I think the attraction of driverless cars would be to be in them with people you're with, so lots of 1's and 2's in them.

Much of the current attractiveness of bikes and mopeds vs. cars, i.e. environmentality, economy and agility in traffic, will disappear with the mass adoption of DCs, which will therefore largely displace them for necessary journeys (i.e. rush hour commutes) as opposed to riding for pleasure which will continue.

I must admit I don't quite understand your last sentence!

[liminalien]

Much of the current attractiveness of bikes and mopeds vs. cars, i.e. environmentality, economy and agility in traffic, will disappear with the mass adoption of DCs, which will therefore largely displace them for necessary journeys (i.e. rush hour commutes) as opposed to riding for pleasure which will continue.

So, no cycling for utility in this odd 'back to the future' motopia, then? Will we be allowed to walk to work or the shops? Or will walking be "for pleasure" only, too?

I have to say, as many progressive cities demolish the motor-vehicle expressways of the car-crazy 20th century (yes, even in the USA where latterly the car was king), I find that this vision of a motorised (if routine-upgraded) future more than a little old-fashioned and prescriptive (and, if you have your way, proscriptive too!)

When compared to the growing implementation of the easy, low cost, high-liveability, high-choice, proven urban policies of smart growth, transit-orientated development and walkability, it seems that driverless cars are a 'solution' looking for a problem.

Reminds me of the time when a local businessman risibly suggested that a monorail would be a 'solution' for transport along the trackbed of a local Beeching-dismantled suburban branch-line railway. Of course, what this businessman could not see - would not see - was that the route was very well used already, by hundreds of commuters who walked and cycled to work every day. They didn't have engines, and they weren't paying a fare or rental or subscription - they didn't have car insurance or accident breakdown cover - they didn't have a season ticket or pay VED or need an MOT - so he just couldn't - just wouldn't - see their activity as being in the category of 'transport'.

I'm sorry if my tone's a bit disparaging - I've edited this post a couple of times so it would come across less contemptuous than my first draft - but maybe you should look at this:

List of towns and cities with area-wide zero-fare [that is - free of charge] transport

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_public_transport#List_of_towns_and_cities_with_area-wide_zero-fare_transport

and this:

Current bicycle sharing systems around the world

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bicycle_sharing_systems

The future is already here.

[motch]

I think a lot of bicycle commuters sorta enjoy the commute to work compared to stuck in stationary traffic, at least if there's enough decent bike lanes it works well around towns and cities. If/when there's large amounts of DC's in the future then cycling together would be 100 % safe from any DC's accidents (in theory anyway) so even better to cycle through London and elsewhere. I'd still guess they're will be at least as many if not more wanted to exercise for recreation or general health well being in the future.

Bicycles are quickly becoming advanced in terms of lightweight components, and can be made very cheaply at decent weights/quality.

With 3D printing possibly even lighter and cheaper if massed produced (I don't know much about this though).

1 off bikes have been made at an incredible 3kilos in weight, with advances in materials and mass production sub 5kilo bikes could be made in the not too distant future at possibly highstreet affordable prices.

if the DC's can be so accurate/safe (between themselves) and sit behind another car at a foot or so through traffic it can only be done with 100% DC's, banning pedestrians, therefore in towns/cities with pedestrians/bikes the gap would have to widend considerably to accomodate us humans (which is what it's all about really, making things easier/better/safer for us).

Keep up the good work though Q. I think driverless cars/vehicles will be used in the future, quite when/if it will be 100% who knows, I'm guessing if it comes about will be 50 years+ at least (for 100% DC's)

For the record I think it would be fantastic for the handicapped, elderly and so on to get about better with DC's. Plus transporting goods/people about out of hours so to speak along more specific routes Motorways main A roads etc.

with the 1's and 2's and people who they are with - it's about people not really wanting to share space with strangers, which what private car use is about with most people, having there own little bubble. eg if you're in a taxi with your partner and it stopped to pick up another stranger, then another stranger further down the road most wouldn't like it.

[liminalien]

[Qetesuesi]

Yes, noted. I don't use the term 'swarms' in any sort of emotive way, but rather as atechnical term for a self-organising group of autonomous units.

I thought we were talking about urban transport. If swarms aren't deployable in urban areas, where is the congestion-busting space-saving benefit to come from -other than the fact that you hope that they will be HOV's? But, in that case, to combat congestion - why not just mandate HOV's in central urban areas anyway, without the necessity for this expensive new technology?

For one thing, going DC will free up the current driver's space. The other thing is that once a rush-hour DC has taken its passengers to their various (e.g.) central London locations, it can drive out to a less congested area (unless immediately called upon as a taxi in CL) thus relieving the centre. NB congestion is caused by the need to park unused vehicles as well as their presence in motion on the roads.

Also the tech. isn't expensive and of course will plummet in cost - Google's car two years ago was a Toyota Prius modified at a cost of $3000, and Paul Newman of Oxford, in the second video of the link in the OP, talks of using cheaper sensors to do the same job.

See above. The new urbanism agenda currently sweeping the world is centred on a *reduction* of motor-traffic speeds and the general discouragement of motor transport. This is the very opposite of what you hope that Driverless Cars will bring.

Remember that for any given speed, DCs will drive (much) more safely. So the whole concept of an appropriate urban speed will change.

All of which is fine - like I said - driverless HOV's would be a routine upgrade. But will they be able to pick you up and drop you off in areas where motor transport is banned? In which case there are now many cities across Europe and increasingly the US where their use will be limited.

True, but at least that's no worse than now, and therefore no argument against their mass introduction.

Maybe they're just good for the UK, stuck as we are with an attitude to personal transport which is stuck somewhere in the middle of the car-crazy 20th century?

Yes, which attitude is maintained principally by the status-minded petroheads who will be the very last people to welcome DCs with open arms....

[motch]

Qe, what sort of scenario are you thinking regarding ownership of DC's ? Large corporation or state owned. Or individual's owning them. Combinations of these etc.

Electric only cars or conventional petrol/diesel. ?

[liminalien]

For one thing, going DC will free up the current driver's space. The other thing is that once a rush-hour DC has taken its passengers to their various (e.g.) central London locations, it can drive out to a less congested area (unless immediately called upon as a taxi in CL) thus relieving the centre. NB congestion is caused by the need to park unused vehicles as well as their presence in motion on the roads.

Let me see if I understand what you're saying: You're actually confirming that DC's will lead to an *increase* in the miles travelled by motor transport for each journey. You're actually proposing that the number of journeys undertaken by motor transport in urban areas will *increase* as the empty vehicle shuttles itself back and forth to and from the suburbs. And you're actually trying to assert that all these extra motor journeys undertaken will *decrease* congestion because it's better than having to park. Really? I'd like to see some modelling on that.

Also the tech. isn't expensive and of course will plummet in cost - Google's car two years ago was a Toyota Prius modified at a cost of $3000, and Paul Newman of Oxford, in the second video of the link in the OP, talks of using cheaper sensors to do the same job.

Well, compared to all active and sustainable transport, cars - car tax, fuel, insurance, maintenance - are expensive already without this robotic premium on top.

Sure, electronics and software become less and less expensive with time. It's the infrastructure this new technology requires which is expensive. Will you have all those US cities re-instate their urban expressways. Take a look at this:

That's an urban expressway in Utrecht in 2011, which is currently being removed and replaced by the canal that originally existed here, a bus route, and cycle tracks. In Utrecht and elsewhere across the developed world (apart from the UK) these roads are being removed completely because they’re just not needed anymore as these cities embrace new urbanism and smart growth. Would you have them put it back?

Remember that for any given speed, DCs will drive (much) more safely. So the whole concept of an appropriate urban speed will change.

The whole concept of "an appropriate urban speed" for motor traffic *will not change* from the viewpoint of pedestrians, cyclists and other vulnerable road-users who do not have the security of a metal safety cage insulating them from the environment. That is, unless DC's are completely segregated from active and sustainable transport users. See my expensive infrastructure point above.

But will they be able to pick you up and drop you off in areas where motor transport is banned? In which case there are now many cities across Europe and increasingly the US where their use will be limited.

True, but at least that's no worse than now, and therefore no argument against their mass introduction.

Did you see my use of the word "increasingly" there? I've noted your use of the word "worse". Do you think pedestrianisation and limiting the use of motor transport in urban areas is a bad thing? Forgive me, but I have to ask: Why do you think that?

The proposed European Single Transport Area will largely prohibit private motor vehicles from entering city centres by 2050 - they're pushing at an open door there, many European cities have already mostly achieved this: Berlin, Amsterdam, Copenhagen spring to mind. And every time we go to New York, we're impressed by how much more and more of that most vibrant of world cities is off-limits to cars. Broadway, Times Square - Amazing. And this initiative in NY has reduced motor traffic congestion elsewhere in the network. While maximum vehicle speeds have slowed, cross-town journey times have quickened by up to 17% because of the improvement to congestion levels, and there's been a decrease in injuries to all road users. All this without DC's, just with less road-space available to motor-traffic. In this context, DC's seem more and more like a solution looking for a problem. They're just not needed.

Yes, which attitude is maintained principally by the status-minded petroheads who will be the very last people to welcome DCs with open arms....

DC's will be the very last redoubt of these die-hards, and they will use the same motorism arguments you've tried to use in order to rationalise their ongoing dependency/addition complex.

[Qetesuesi]

Qe, what sort of scenario are you thinking regarding ownership of DC's ? Large corporation or state owned. Or individual's owning them. Combinations of these etc.

Electric only cars or conventional petrol/diesel. ?

I guess the market will sort all those questions out....

Let me see if I understand what you're saying: You're actually confirming that DC's will lead to an *increase* in the miles travelled by motor transport for each journey. You're actually proposing that the number of journeys undertaken by motor transport in urban areas will *increase* as the empty vehicle shuttles itself back and forth to and from the suburbs. And you're actually trying to assert that all these extra motor journeys undertaken will *decrease* congestion because it's better than having to park. Really? I'd like to see some modelling on that.

This is the whole point: it wouldn't be empty. As soon as it had dropped off its commuters in the rush hour, it would respond to a demand for use as taxi or freight, depending - with priority probably given to longer round journeys taking it right away from the city. I don't really envisage it being left idle for any considerable amount of time at all between 9 and 5.

So the picture is one of, overall, fewer vehicles being used more efficiently over the 24-hour cycle. At the moment our grand motorways are pitifully underused for many hours of the night because all need to be driven by humans, very few of whom are prepared to drive during those hours. Automation gives a tremendous opportunity to shift a vast chunk of current daytime haulage flows to the night, immensely lightening the daytime burden on the road network.

Well, compared to all active and sustainable transport, cars - car tax, fuel, insurance, maintenance - are expensive already without this robotic premium on top.

Just think how the insurance premium will fall to next to nothing!

Sure, electronics and software become less and less expensive with time. It's the infrastructure this new technology requires which is expensive. Will you have all those US cities re-instate their urban expressways. Take a look at this:

That's an urban expressway in Utrecht in 2011, which is currently being removed and replaced by the canal that originally existed here, a bus route, and cycle tracks. In Utrecht and elsewhere across the developed world (apart from the UK) these roads are being removed completely because they’re just not needed anymore as these cities embrace new urbanism and smart growth. Would you have them put it back?

The whole concept of "an appropriate urban speed" for motor traffic *will not change* from the viewpoint of pedestrians, cyclists and other vulnerable road-users who do not have the security of a metal safety cage insulating them from the environment. That is, unless DC's are completely segregated from active and sustainable transport users. See my expensive infrastructure point above.

Did you see my use of the word "increasingly" there? I've noted your use of the word "worse". Do you think pedestrianisation and limiting the use of motor transport in urban areas is a bad thing? Forgive me, but I have to ask: Why do you think that?

I never said or thought it. Why must it be either-or? Your knowledgeable discussion in these posts is exclusively about the urban scene; I've been considering the entire road transport system. I'm quite happy for there to be fewer cars, per se, in urban centres, but the point remains that for any given level of car usage, the switch to DCs brings an amazing range of sometimes quite spectacular benefits. As such it's a revolution we should be grabbing with both hands for all it can offer, in solving a range of problems which e.g. using more bicycles never can.

The proposed European Single Transport Area will largely prohibit private motor vehicles from entering city centres by 2050 - they're pushing at an open door there, many European cities have already mostly achieved this: Berlin, Amsterdam, Copenhagen spring to mind. And every time we go to New York, we're impressed by how much more and more of that most vibrant of world cities is off-limits to cars. Broadway, Times Square - Amazing. And this initiative in NY has reduced motor traffic congestion elsewhere in the network. While maximum vehicle speeds have slowed, cross-town journey times have quickened by up to 17% because of the improvement to congestion levels, and there's been a decrease in injuries to all road users. All this without DC's, just with less road-space available to motor-traffic. In this context, DC's seem more and more like a solution looking for a problem. They're just not needed.

DC's will be the very last redoubt of these die-hards, and they will use the same motorism arguments you've tried to use in order to rationalise their ongoing dependency/addition complex.

At present many people feel they have no practical alternative to cars, and moreover to driving in them alone, car sharing being awkward in terms of who drops whom off. Once that issue is eliminated, and so much commuting time freed up for work or relaxation, who knows the social impact. And financially the diehards will be left right out on a limb; the economic argument should be decisive to move most towards using DCs to their full potential.

And speaking of the potential to work on the commute, could it be that some companies will be happy to count travel time from 9 to 10 and from 4 to 5 as part of the working day? Then this would help spread out the rush hour, making it less acute.

And now could we change tack once again? Some posts ago I referred to ways DCs will save fuel. Let's try to nail down some hard figures on this.

At present, for example, the UK's oil consumption is of the order of 1.6 million bbl/day.

http://www.indexmundi.com/united_kingdom/oil_consumption.html

On the exaggerated assumption that that all goes into road transport fuel, a barrel being 159 litres and a litre costing £1.30, you can all figure out what a given % saving would mean in absolute £billions.

If for example the maturing of DC technology led to a quartering of fuel costs re. passengers;

- and "It has been estimated that perhaps a third of city traffic is lost or looking for somewhere to park"

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/10058821/How-to-save-money-on-fuel.html)

- and slip streaming in convoys could reduce drag "by as much as 40%"

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peloton)

- and throw in the more efficient driving, minimising braking/acceleration and all that -

- then we're looking at literally tens of billions in savings.

Can we afford to miss out?

[motch]

If the govt were that concerned about keeping the fuel bills down to a minimum they'd of spent billions in the electric battery/car industry. Billions in fuel receipts is a huge amount of revenue brought in for the govt. I'm not sure on the exact figures but the overwhelming percentage of the price of petrol/diesel is tax or distribution costs.

Electric costs would be minimal compared to diesel/petrol, but thats mostly because it's not taxed for road use. If it was to be mainstream use for vehicles it would be taxed, or indirectly elsewhere to bring in the lost tax.

In a ideal world (for the masses) a DC working for them would be good, however I think a employer (or the state) would count the hour each way commute for example as your own time, if it's 100% driverless and safe and you can relax/sleep.

I thought the other day when on one of the walks (in a van) I do for Royal Mail a DC would save me a bit of time as there's several bits of walking 200m's down a road with about 20-30 houses on one side and no houses on the other, so calling up the van would save time. However any time saved by this method would result in the workload increasing elsewhere so no gain there for me.

Yes Cycling in a mass peloton can save 40% I know it first hand as I used to race years ago as a 1st cat Amateur. A 100 rider or so bunch riding several abreast and inches from each others wheels must cause a big mass of vehicle and a large amount of air being pushed forward. However there are times when you have to put in big efforts to keep with the group/hold the wheel, on and off the power quite a bit, it's not a super smooth constant effort. A rider and bike must have a high drag Coefficient compared to a car, and very light and little power compared to a motorised vehicle, i'm no expert into how that would fair compared to say 100 cars doing the same but i'd hazzard a guess and say it's nowhere near a 40% saving.

[liminalien]

Your knowledgeable discussion in these posts is exclusively about the urban scene; I've been considering the entire road transport system.

OK - so that's terms of reference, fair enough. (Thanks for the flattery too, BTW. Shucks!)

The reason I concentrate on "the urban scene" is because that's were the people are. Per WHO :

One hundred years ago, 2 out of every 10 people lived in an urban area. By 1990, less than 40% of the global population lived in a city, but as of 2010, more than half of all people live in an urban area. By 2030, 6 out of every 10 people will live in a city, and by 2050, this proportion will increase to 7 out of 10 people. Currently, around half of all urban dwellers live in cities with between 100 000 - 500 000 people

I'm quite happy for there to be fewer cars, per se, in urban centres, but the point remains that for any given level of car usage, the switch to DCs brings an amazing range of sometimes quite spectacular benefits. As such it's a revolution we should be grabbing with both hands for all it can offer

"Amazing", "spectacular" - a "revolution" to "grab with both hands" - ach, these are just emotive terms that you're using there. You're trying to appeal to emotion. You say *yet again* that a "range of problems" will be "solved" by this tech. But I've already demonstrated with examples from the field that these problems are either chimeras, or if not, are already being/have been solved by low-tech smart-growth approaches to transport. You are forming your beliefs about DC according to what might be pleasing for you to imagine rather than appealing to evidence, rationality or reality. If you truly want to "solve" transport "problems" you should be lobbying your representatives for near-term, low-cost policies based on smart growth and new urbanism. These exist today, and they work.

solving a range of problems which e.g. using more bicycles never can.

That one's called appeal to ridicule. No-one's suggesting that bicycles are a panacea, but they do have a part to play as part of a multi-mode integrated urban and inter urban transport system, such as exists in the core-EU where just about any journey can be easily undertaken without a car (of any kind).

At present many people feel they have no practical alternative to cars, and moreover to driving in them alone, car sharing being awkward in terms of who drops whom off. Once that issue is eliminated, and so much commuting time freed up for work or relaxation, who knows the social impact. And financially the diehards will be left right out on a limb; the economic argument should be decisive to move most towards using DCs to their full potential.

And speaking of the potential to work on the commute, could it be that some companies will be happy to count travel time from 9 to 10 and from 4 to 5 as part of the working day? Then this would help spread out the rush hour, making it less acute.

Or maybe you could just live closer to where you work. Or work closer to where you live. Like in the old days. Or like what's happening in America, Germany, France, Netherlands, (I don't have time to provide all the citations right now, but I'll get them if you really want) where policies are being implemented to end urban sprawl in favour of smart growth and "Compact City" models as car use enters a spiral of decline around the developed world.

Or you could join the exponentially growing number of clusterers, office sharers, eCommuters.

DC's as proposed to "solve the problem" commuting do not solve it at all. They would just be a form of palliative care, while failing to tackle the pathology of sprawl. In fact, as you frame it, DC's promote, normalise and perpetuate sprawl. Not good.

And now could we change tack once again? Some posts ago I referred to ways DCs will save fuel. Let's try to nail down some hard figures on this.

At present, for example, the UK's oil consumption is of the order of 1.6 million bbl/day.

http://www.indexmundi.com/united_kingdom/oil_consumption.html

On the exaggerated assumption that that all goes into road transport fuel, a barrel being 159 litres and a litre costing £1.30, you can all figure out what a given % saving would mean in absolute £billions.

If for example the maturing of DC technology led to a quartering of fuel costs re. passengers;

- and "It has been estimated that perhaps a third of city traffic is lost or looking for somewhere to park"

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/10058821/How-to-save-money-on-fuel.html)

- and slip streaming in convoys could reduce drag "by as much as 40%"

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peloton)

- and throw in the more efficient driving, minimising braking/acceleration and all that -

- then we're looking at literally tens of billions in savings.

Can we afford to miss out?

All of which is just an excuse, a rationalisation, a negotiating position with the intention of perpetuating motorism (however routinely-upgraded) in the face of its ongoing and inevitable decline. And all that.

[Guest eight]

Or maybe you could just live closer to where you work. Or work closer to where you live. Like in the old days. Or like what's happening in America, Germany, France, Netherlands, (I don't have time to provide all the citations right now, but I'll get them if you really want) where policies are being implemented to end urban sprawl in favour of smart growth and "Compact City" models as car use enters a spiral of decline around the developed world.

Or you could join the exponentially growing number of clusterers, office sharers, eCommuters.

Isn't this all Agenda 21 stuff though? Not exactly an organic process but policy right from the top, for unclear reasons and unknown beneficiaries?

[liminalien]

Isn't this all Agenda 21 stuff though? Not exactly an organic process but policy right from the top, for unclear reasons and unknown beneficiaries?

mmm. I don't think there's anything necessarily sinister about wanting to inhabit pleasant liveable cities designed for people rather than machines.

[MarkG]

mmm. I don't think there's anything necessarily sinister about wanting to inhabit pleasant liveable cities designed for people rather than machines.

That's the ideal that gave us the Stalinist tower blocks of the 50s and 60s.

People don't want to be crammed into cities, they want a place of their own where they can't hear their neighbours arguing and shagging through the wall. They don't want to be tied to one particular company because they can't travel to a different job thirty miles away. They don't want to have to move house if they finally decide to take that other job.

Which is why it's just more left-wing authoritarian ******** designed to push people into lives they don't want.

[Qetesuesi]

That's the ideal that gave us the Stalinist tower blocks of the 50s and 60s.

People don't want to be crammed into cities, they want a place of their own where they can't hear their neighbours arguing and shagging through the wall. They don't want to be tied to one particular company because they can't travel to a different job thirty miles away. They don't want to have to move house if they finally decide to take that other job.

Perfectly true; on the other hand for some people driverless cars might be a decisive factor tipping them to accept a 60-mile round commute they'd otherwise have refused. It's no mean thing to get 1 or 2 hours per day of your life back....