Atlas VPN is running a huge discount for their 3-year deal, with one month free and a 30-day money-back guarantee!
Link: https://atlasv.pn/ADAM
Self-driving cars will fix traffic without any effort or result.
Check out my Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/adamsomething
Join my Discord: https://discord.gg/2YcarWsc8S
Second channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/AdamSomethingElse
Photos taken from Unsplash:
https://unsplash.com/photos/9LSTxzIaXiA
https://unsplash.com/photos/AweUC9wTnbs
https://unsplash.com/photos/V2zY-MLFgI4
https://unsplash.com/photos/Ddjl0Cicdr4
https://unsplash.com/photos/3aGZ7a97qwA
https://unsplash.com/photos/4xM5cytsdMo
https://unsplash.com/photos/oWU2w0JuHnE
https://unsplash.com/photos/sp-p7uuT0tw
https://unsplash.com/photos/xOwnyyaZ030
source
Thanks for Atlas VPN for sponsoring today's video! Get your 3-year subscription deal for 82% off with one month free using the link:
https://atlasv.pn/ADAM
Making streets where cars and people used to be able to travel on and turning them into pedestrian only thoroughfares has caused so much more traffic on backroads in banff that it is counter productive in my opinion. Instead of both bear street and banff ave getting traffic backups during peak times now it takes so much longer to get places and in peak times it feels like the entire town is under gridlock cause the main streets are pedestrian only.
That one vid just proves self-driving cars want to be trains
It could eleminate certain traffic jam becaus there is an effect where when a car is stop the one behind wil wait a few second befor to follow her but if all car just go instantly it cpuld eleminate certain traffic jam autonomus cat could work on high way
Self-driving cars are definitely not a definitive solution to traffic, but I've got to say: some of your videos (this one included) remind me of Thunderf00t content, which is not a good thing. Mostly just whining about technologies that no reasonable person would see as a silver bullet.
While I 100% agree on the conclusion, that turning all cars into self-driving ones is definitely not a solution to traffic, I found the segment on self-driving cars not existing at all a bit biased, by mostly concentrating on Tesla.
Yes, Tesla's technology is a bit of a marketing schtick, but technically self-driving cars made by other companies that are safer than the vast majority of drivers do exist (although to be fair testing in non-US urban contexts is still lacking). Their status as prototypes has more to do with regulation and whom to give responsibility by law (which mind, is super important and not an easy problem to solve) than actual technical hurdles.
CGP Grey's idea of perfectly synchronized cars reminds me of one of the scenes in LotGH, where the MC is in the capital city of his planet and then gets stuck in a massive traffic jam, because someone at the city's traffic department accidentally input bad code into the super-computer that managed the self-driving vehicles.
Nah, give it at max 20 years, and with the progress AIs are making, self driving cars will became a common reality.
They won't fix any traffic problems tho
Pretty sure get rich schemes and nonsense diets also make things worse.
I find it funny that in CGP greys self driving car video, there was an EXTREMELY close call every few seconds. And by close call I don’t been 2 or 3 feet of space, I mean 2 or 3 INCHES of space. Like if the car was just a few inches bigger there would be a crash
I swear I'm hearing "Happy Birthday" being played in the background.
Imagine paying taxes fixing problems created by supposed solutions provided by greedy capitalists.
Tesla needs to be shutdown
How to change this situation? Find a way in which people wanting the suburban lifestyle can still have its equivalent, or better, but without the cars. It might not be the best solution, but it's surely a good candidate for the path of least resistance?
So what would a suburbanite feel like they would lose by moving to a denser area (so with shorter journeys on average, so then quicker journeys)? It's probably not mainly the garage and the garden (things one misses, moving from a suburb to a traditional version of the denser neighbourhood). It's probably the isolation from neighbours, and less for the snobby reasons attributed to them by those who have a high tolerance for near neighbours – and the consequences of that nearness – than just for the peace and quiet. I can't see how it's unreasonable to prefer peace and quiet to bustle. So having framed this as a key objection, as well as a reasonable desire, the next thing is whether it's possible to get the peace and quiet while at the same time having higher density. It's a necessary part of figuring out a path of least resistance.
I've had some neighbours a gun would've been a nice solution to, actually. Gun, lots of bullets, lots of shooting, lots of blood, and then beautiful silence. No more paintings shaking on the walls. No more music I'd rather not hear, very, very, very, very loud, at 3AM. No more drunken shouting and screaming, and to hell with everyone else who has to go to work tomorrow. I exaggerate a bit. About the gun, I mean, not the neighbours. Or the extent of my anger. If someone else had gunned them down I wouldn't have bothered to phone the cops. I'd have just gone out to wonder at the beautiful peace and quiet.
But do you know where you get neighours like that? In sprawling suburbia, that's where. I've never had neighbours who treat everyone else around them with complete selfish contempt in denser accommodations (apart from one place I lived in as a student – at which time I was the neighbour everyone was praying some serial killer would take out, myself – in suburbia, of course.) Someone should've come round and gunned us all down. It would've been the right thing to do. I don't deny it.
OK so we know that the reality is that the very worst neighbours are those who don't ever end up having to respond to a good morning from you in the corridor – ie suburban ones – but we're dealing with perceptions, here. A suburbanite perceives suburbia as a place of peace and quiet, generally. A suburb-replacement (and path of least resistance) replacement must offer demonstrable peace and quiet.
I think one of the ways you could come reasonably close to guaranteeing that would be to include places in the design that are specifically designed to be somewhere to go to make a lot of noise in. This could be a basement with lead doors, or it could be a field owned by your building, out in the rural areas beyond the city, which is kept as a noise-making site. Another path of least resistance. Instead of trying to convince people that they ought to be gunned down for making a noise, and just having fun (like I eventually learned should've been done to me and my horrible noisy drunk friends after the exams), just humour them, and proceed as if it's reasonable to want to make a horrible noise that shakes the windows of everyone all around. Then it's just a matter of finding a way to have the noise only bring joy to those to whom it brings joy (could be it's just the alcohol that does that, but anyway), but not disturb anyone who has to go in at 4 AM tomorrow, because the shift starts early. (Or someone who's been up all evening stitching up bodies in the ER, because some gunman went crazy for no reason at all and started to shoot some party goers.
It's possible to at least try to figure out solutions "from the ground up" that don't depend on mythological "natural" urban layouts, and just stay focused on concretely manifested problems. Like noise, and how to get your fist into the face of the person making it, for instance. Nice and direct. (And try figure a nice direct solution, too.)
Anyway. If you could make a high rise peaceful and quiet (like it is) and also at least attached to an own castle in which you can let your hair down, and not have to worry about what the wrinklies next door are whining on about (give them the noise of suburbia that they forgot about), you've gone in the direction of inventing a way of living that doesn't require any deep-level presumptuous arguments (or outright autocratic diktats) to offer as an alternative they might learn to perceive as better than what they thought was best.
I like the very, very, very, very long block (very broadly similar to certain "commie blocks") in the middle of "wasted land". Green space. Lots of it. A whole suburb's worth.
Why? Journeys will be short. Journeys will be quick or walkable. And greenery is more valuable than anything paved – even your favourite piazza or whatever.
Engineer here:
adding more capacity does not increase the traffic, what an absurd idea, adding more capacity increments throughput, the load ( in this case traffic) is what it is, does not depend on the capacity. you design the capacity for the load (that's what an engineer do). and if you have more load than expected you need to increase your capacity.
Saying more capacity increase the traffic is like saying that adding another doctor while a woman is giving birth results in twins all the time.
0:25 Ok but I feel like this framing is very blatantly placing individual choice at the forefront of reasons behind obesity and poverty (or even just lack of disposable income)? Which is pretty cringe if intended, and very poor tone and choice of words if not.
One thing that always comes to my mind is government controlling where you can go, if we rely 100% on public transit, because they control the infrastructure of public transportation and the means to it. Private transportation should not be eliminated entirely, but used as little as possible.
I've watched a few of your vids, and this is the first one I find myself disagreeing with your core premise on. The whole thing about self-driving cars is that they would be able to intercommunicate and coordinate in ways humans can't. While you're clearly right that AI isn't there at the moment, it is developing fast and will probably be there sooner than you appear to believe. Also, the kind of inaccuracies you're seeing now could easily be remedied with very cheap-to-produce digital signalling infrastructure (I'm thinking markers or signallers to tell vehicles where static hazards are, lanes are, traffic light status, etc.). Finally, while computers aren't immune to error, they are far less prone to it than human brains and can think and react far faster.
That said, I do have to add that I don't think everyone owning a self-driving car is the answer, but I do believe self-driving vehicles of some kind have to be part of the eventual solution. Perhaps that might look like a combination of self-driving busses with some public cars for more specific needs? I'm not claiming to have the final answer, I'm just saying that the premise that self-driving would make stuff worse once fully developed is probably wrong.
I think there's a certain instinctive distrust people have of self-driving in general that comes from the sense of being out of control. I think that tends to bring in a certain bias to the whole self-driving discourse.
Problem #1 is irrelevant to the topic…thats super obvious and shouldn't have even been used….
Problem #2 has nothing to do with autonomous vehicles…its an idiots response to NOT having autonomous vehicles…
This video was dumb and not even attempting to explain the subject topic claim.
As a Houston area resident: the Katy freeway was a boondoggle to build. The only perk is that the decade of constructionis finally over. The wide swaths of lane seem to urge drivers to attempt automotive flight. Posted speed limit is 60-65 and regular commuters are deep into the 80mph range, riding bumper to bumper. When an accident inevitably happens, it turns into a 10 car pileup. The middle lanes being designated bus service was a great idea. But then it became a "carpool" lane. I drive uber in my off time and use it occasionally to bypass traffic because having 2 people in a car counts as "high occupancy". Don't have anybody else in your vehicle? That's ok, just pay the EZ tag fee…do 90 in the narrow confines of those twin lanes, wreck, and strand a bunch of folks on the buses stuck behind you. The toll road authorities here are entrenched in our transit system and are parasites. The tolls were imposed on other roads to subsidize their construction, with the promise that they'd be gone once the road construction was paid off. Decades after construction, they remain, billing all who wish to avoid the stoplights and homeless beneath.
Redesigning entire cities and leveling millions of homes to build apartments is unlikely and ridiculous. But having mass transit that actually goes somewhere would certainly be welcome. I'm unable to take a bus to my primary job because there is no way to head "out" of the city in the morning. I envied the German system when I visited. Great highways. But you don't have to use your car to go anywhere in a city unless you truly want to.
If you want to criticize nonsense technical "solutions", then you should have a good look at our renewable energy approach. One example: Solar panels. They produce clean energy at the wrong time when no one can use so much energy and then this energy cannot be stored. They theoretically cover our current household needs, but as we cannot store energy, this is just an bureaucratic trick. Furthermore: as much as they produce, this does not include our heating demands, which form more than 80 percent of our energy demands. If you wanted to cover that need too, there is is no roof big enough to cover it with the solar panels you would need. And people keep buying this shit and more people install solar panels. Next, in many places all these solar panels produce so much energy, that the electric grid cannot cope with it. In that case, for safety reasons the solar panels shut down and produce nothing…
Sorry bro I need my car I’m American. Deal with it. Have fun in Europe with your lack of natural gas.
Saying that efficiency = more capacity = more traffic is very shallow and inaccurate description of the world
Huge respect for staying conservative at least in case of this self-driving nonsense, but I have to disagree that this technology is far from being implemented, because the corporations and the leftist politicians are doing everything to control our cars, like every other aspect of our life, so this technology is inevitable so long as we're allowed to drive our own cars.
To top this off, there was a study done in some university in California (too lazy to look it up, sorry lol…) that concluded that if their cars were self-driving, they would use their cars waaaaaay more.
This video is beyond garbage lmao
If people don't own cars they wouldn't need to buy the biggest possible size car they might ever need. Self driving mopeds?! The amount of tech needed ia huge for something that doesn't work, but it is IMAGINABLE that it will get smaller.
That said I hate roads though. I would love to see lots of trains everywhere and lots of electric bikes everywhere.
Everyone knows trains and buses are the solution to all problems in the world.
Seld driving car is not a concept which mean to be a solution for "fixing traffic" at least by itself. It must accompany with a large paradigm shift on the concept of transportation as well. That include many concepts mentioned in this comment section such as shared vehicle and vehicle-to-vehicle/infra communication, which would require a lot of investment.
My criticisms of the points broughtup in the video, I overall think Self driving cars are here already and have a great utility in the USA and other counties with similar situations.
1) Self driving cars do exist, Cruse and Wemo are running totally autonomous taxi service in San Francisco. There are totally autonomous vehicles, no steering wheel or driver in current development not more that a year or two away.
Although currently limited, specific areas and speed, there is only room to grow.
Will Self driving cars exist for every use case cars currently occupy? Likely not for decades if ever, but the use use cases even possible in the near future are incredible, and more importantly for development, profitable.
2) self driving cars while not being as efficient as public transportation are better than everyone driving their own cars. You seem to think that the solution for the USA is to totally remodel the country's transportation network.
While with a blank slate of infrastructure this would be a better option to plan out, it is clearly not going to happen any time soon in the USA.
The culture, geography, economy of the USA will make this change almost impossible, the USA is not Europe.
Self driving vehicles may actually increase efficiency reduce the amount of vehicles on roads by allowing Self driven vehicles to operate all with diffrent passengers day instead of sitting in parking lots all day. Allowing for less parking and diffrent road layouts.
3) Self driving cars aren't nessicary supposed to "fix traffic" they're supposed to let people do more productive things instead of driving.
Steamships didn't fix sailboat traffic, but they made ships able to be operated more efficiently by less people.
Aren't boats less inefficient
not spending money alone will not make you wealthy, wealth is usually gained through capitalizing through products or talents, those workout and fitness examples and your answers to them rubs me the wrong way I thought this was lefttube.
Jumping from "not ready yet" to "will never work" is the conservatory way of making an argument
You forgot one big aspect of the self driving transport revolution. Self driving public transport!
This will indeed solve many problems.
I saw a self driving car test in real life before. It mounted the pavement then refused to do anything but go 1 ft forward then 1 ft backwards.
This was not a very good video, not convincing, and I don’t even need convincing…
At least I would be able to read a book while stuck in worse traffic
I would guess that the answer to the question of how would you cross a major intersection with tons of self-driving cars is the same as how we do it now: You go to the crosswalk and press a button. I can at least imagine that a system could be devised to tell the cars to stop and wait for the pedestrian to cross. That system would probably be a lot safer than just relying on the driver to not run you over as you try to cross. (Speaking from personal experience here.)
We don't have the technology to build a self-driving car now. I think Musk has demonstrated that pretty conclusively with his garbage Autopilot system. But that doesn't mean the idea isn't still sound. A car that can drive at least as well as a person and that also can't get tired, drunk, distracted or road rage-y is a huge step forward in traffic safety, and it wouldn't necessarily conflict with a more public transit-oriented future. For example, a fleet of FSD buses could run 24/7 and serve a wider area than it's practical to do now.
2:57 You're doubtful we ever will have self driving capabilities??
That's incredibly shortsighted. We're not talking about a Star Trek technology, but a technology that already exists and only needs to be perfected.
As for fixing traffic, the effect of self driving cars will be limited. But it will be there.
And, most of all, they'll eliminate the stress and loss of time associated with driving (as you can sleep the trip off, or do something productive).
They'll also VASTLY decrease road accidents.
So, it's extremely important to invest in self driving cars.
Overly critical videos like these will be laughed at in a few years…
I truly expected you to be in this CNBC video as "according to snarky self-righteous YouTuber Adam Something…" 😉 Just kidding, of course love your content. https://youtu.be/sCSkNiyYv8g
I am an weekend car user. Work from home. I can go to the grocery by walking. I want self-driving car for the easier access to shared car service. Bonus point, if I don't own a car anymore it would be harder to make to use a car for short trip.
Self-driving cars have the advantage to non-self-driving cars that you can do something else while standing in the traffic jam. That's about all.