Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
Chris L Peterson wrote in
:

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 12:26:25 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
Sissy wrote:

Chris L Peterson wrote in
news
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 23:19:09 -0700 (PDT), "Chris.B"
wrote:

"Micro" electric cars might offer some advantages but are
still vehicle sized. So they are still a waste of space on
grid-locked city roads and still need parking places.

I expect that within a few decades at the most, the only
vehicles allowed inside the denser parts of cities (and
indeed, maybe everywhere else as well) will be fully
automated. There is no gridlock with such a system.

You're smoking the Kool-Aid again.

When you have 1,000,000 cars in a system designed for 500,000
(or, in the case of LA, 20,000,000 cars in a system designed for
500,000), there is *always* gridlock.

No there isn't.

Yes. There is. There is a maximum capacity for any road system.

You can put 10 or 20 times more vehicles on the
roads, and never experience gridlock.

It may well be higher for self driving cars for the same number of
square feet of pavement, but there's still a maximum capacity. And
when you exceed it, you will have gridlock. Unless, of course,
being a retard, you have redefined "gridlock" to mean something
that normal people will point and laugh at you for.

Cars can drive a few
centimeters apart, at higher speeds than current driving allows,
with optimized routes, considerably reduced wait times at
intersections, and synchronized in all directions.

Aside from your insane, retarded belief that self driving cars will
*never* *ever* suffer mechanical breakdowns, resulting in massive,
many car pileups because everything is moving 90 miles an hour at
centimeters distance, there is still a maximum capacity to the road
system. Places like Los Angeles are *so* far behind in keeping that
capacity up with demand that no amount of automation will keep
demand from exceeding capacity.

Hint: We have cars that are, literally, inches apart *now*, for
hours at a time, and waiting lines to enter the freeway (there are
trafic lights at the on ramps to control this - you don't get on
until someone gets off somewhere down the road). It is literally
impossible to put more cars on the road than that. Automation might
make them move faster - until there's a many car pileup with dozens
dead, anyway - but there are still more people than will physically
fit on the freeways at one time come rush hour (which lasts 3-4
hours in the morning, and usually longer in the afternoon).

Less, perhaps, with a system that has no
ego drive narcissism and road rage, but once you exceed the
capacity of the system, there will certianly be gridlock.

Why would you exceed the capacity of the system? Cities already
have the roads necessary to carry far more traffic than there's
likely to ever be demand for.

You're smoking more Kool-Aid again, I see. No, many cities have
nowhere near the capacity to handle the amount of traffic *now*.
Average speed on the 405 freeway in Los Angeles is less than 10 mph
for six hours a day, every weekday, and often on weekends, too.
Assuming there's no accidents. If there is one, it's more like the
405 parking lot.

And there is *no* *possible* *way* to *ever* build enough freeways
to handle the demand *now*. Not when freeways cost over a billion
dollars a mile, and take a decade or more worth of lawsuits to even
break ground.

You are, literally, hallucinating a world you'd like to live in, to
the point of being incapable of interacting the real world.

This is, of course, not unusual for you.

And then you have
the additional gridlock of having damaged cars blocking
traffic.)

Rare. The accident rate will drop to near zero (which will be
one factor pushing the adoption of such technology), and the
hardware is very reliable (and in most cases won't fail
catastrophically).

Keep smoking that Kool-Aid, son. Auto accidents are caused by
mechanical failures now, and always will be. Adding in computer
automation will not eliminate that.

Most accidents are caused by human error.

Plus, of course, no one alive today will live long enough to see
completely automated cars. The technology isn't even *close*,
despite the marketing claims of companies looking for government
subsidies or investment dollars for a product they know thye have
no idea how to produce. (People like Elon Musk). There isn't a car
in existance today that can drive itself safetly on streets that
haven't been mapped down to a resolution measured in inches (or
less), much less in the raid, or snow, or anywhere near a
construction crew. Or even on a well mapped street with new traffic
signs. And there won't be, for a long time.

We already have this:

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...0-supplement-1


This current hallucination that we're close to truly automated cars
will last until the first death caused by something that would have
been trivial for even a bad human driver to avoid, like running
down a traffic cop directing traffic around an accident. Then the
companies making self driving cars will go out of business, and
rightly so.

That seems a contrived reason. Until self driving cars can avoid
pedestrians they won’t be allowed. In this case the policeman is just
another pedestrian.