this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2024
89 points (91.6% liked)

Electric Vehicles

3176 readers
243 users here now

A community for the sharing of links, news, and discussion related to Electric Vehicles.

Rules

  1. No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
  2. Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
  3. No self-promotion
  4. No irrelevant content. All posts must be relevant and related to plug-in electric vehicles — BEVs or PHEVs.
  5. No trolling
  6. Policy, not politics. Submissions and comments about effective policymaking are allowed and encouraged in the community, however conversations and submissions about parties, politicians, and those devolving into general tribalism will be removed.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (6 children)

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.

[–] protist@mander.xyz 19 points 4 days ago

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

load more comments (5 replies)