They just keep reinventing trains except shittier.
What if we made the train wide and flat, gave it armor plating, bolted a pair of claws on the front, and let it run sideways?
Crustation
It’s always trains
What if we had trains, but bigger?
I’m not making a joke, I honestly think making the track a little wider would be a great innovation.
Well it would require wider curves and be incompatible with existing rolling stock.
Obligatory XKCD.
“I have invented a computer that can handle the complexities of a dense, conflicting network of streets prone to collisions with on-traffic. It just needs a specialized road that is less dense and doesn’t have conflicts with other on-traffic.”
“Is your program just ‘Accelerator-turn-on()’?”
“How did you get that information?? Who broke NDA!?”There’s more to it than that, you also have to decelerate now and then
I have to go, I’ve said too much
Just slap a
-on theaccelerate()
Techbros really going beyond to invent shittier less efficient trains.
They’re not really trying to do anything. They’re trying to get venture capital money. The more impressive and revolutionary the blender render is, the more likely they are to get some fat, unsecured VC money. Then they’ll cash out and move on to the next thing.
It’s a grift. They just need the poors to be excited about their bullshit to convince someone with money that there’s money to be made with their bullshit.
Several years back there was a startup?, I think, that tried to revolutionize rail traffic with autonomous wagons that intelligently form wagontracks with decentralized coordination. The question, how they would coordinate between all the local rulings and different track designs, was answered with ‘There is data for that to use and everyone will restructure for their glorious idea’ - safe to say they didn’t went viral
There have been a few. The best idea was a rail that went down every road. You could call train pods like an Uber to go anywhere. Computers could regulate everything. Anyone could use them. Cars are dumb.
I mean… I’d totally rock a personal mini train that left when I wanted and rode on a track.
That basically how trains work in Copenhagen. They use small, automated trains that come every couple of minutes. You just wander to the station and get on, no planning or anything.
I am currently at the tail end of a 3 week trip from Amsterdam to Lisbon, all via train. It is fucking awesome. Not to mention that as a tourist you can use the public transportation in various cities for free. Europe has it figured out.
deleted by creator
I used Interrail and I booked everything through that. Easy as pie.
deleted by creator
Trains for long haul + autotaxis (or air taxis) for short, low speed rides actually sounds pretty dope.
What is the “self-driving car problem” that the comment refers to?
Self driving cars as so far pretty shit. They have a tendency to fail ungracefully leading to considerable death and destruction.
This could be fixed by making purpose built roads for electric cars so that the environment is always predictable. However at that point you’re describing a train track and might as well run trains on it.
but… you have to lay down tarmac instead of metal rails
I’m gonna lay this on you, but it is not an attack on you specifically. A railroad track, while way more expensive upfront, has a way lower maintenance cost on the long run. Asphalt road, while cheaper upfront, essentially needs to be rebuild virtually from scratch every six months or so. Depending on weather and heavy load usage, an asphalt road –despite being made out of almost 90% recyclable material– will cost just as much and maybe even much more than rail over the span of 10 years. On the same page rail is, not entirely but almost, completely impervious to weather and heavy load damage. So the maintenance costs are nearly fixed and highly predictable. Asphalt is variable and unpredictable, a road could last 18 months or 3 months. Finally, the labor costs of road maintenance are way higher than rail maintenance, while being several times more deadly. Because drivers keep insisting on running over road workers.
considerable death and destruction
Alternative facts?
Ummm… no?
I guess you’re a shill and are going to say that self driving cars have caused way less death than human operated ones. While true, statistically the deaths caused by each self driving car is much higher than by each human operated car.
Also it should be argued that a machine should be held to a higher safety standard than a human.
I looked for studies, but completely autonomous driving has too little data yet. But from A matched case-control analysis of autonomous vs human-driven vehicle accidents | Nature Communications, severe injury and fatalities are lower. I suspect “per driven mile” it’s even less and it depends on model.
Not sure where you get your numbers shout DEATH AND DESTRUCTION!!! about self driving cars. I can only assume it’s out of your ass.
It doesn’t even matter. 65 fatalities over a few years is nothing. What matters is how the technology improves in the next years and how the numbers look once there is significant adoption. That it’s as good as it is now basically means you’re already wrong.
First of all thank you for a more well reasoned answer.
I do think that there are several issues remaining however. First of all the cited article states that in case matched scenarios autonomous vehicles are less likely to crash, however this does not apply in bad weather conditions where they are about 6 times more likely to crash.
The above illustrates my point about failing gracefully, the autonomous systems work great under a huge range of conditions, the catch being that these conditions have to be preconceived. When encountering new conditions these systems tend to fail. These untested conditions might occur to bad visibility or water over camera lenses and so on. A human just is better at adapting to new situations quickly which is also confirmed in the above figures.
Now to the point of the future development and mass adoption I am not really opposed due to safety concerns, it is possible to make these systems safe. However in order to make them safe you would have to make their surroundings extremely predictable. I.e. you would have to adapt the infrastructure to suit the autonomous car. If you’re building infrastructure anyway, why not built rail infrastructure? It’s proven, cheaper, more efficient, has a proven safety record and is environmentally friendly.
Cars are great for situations where you need transport over areas that are quite unpredictable e.g. many rural areas with badly maintained roads. However autonomous vehicles are not suited for this unpredictability.
The fact that autonomous vehicles are being pushed anyway regardless of the risks is stupid in my opinion as the resources and brain cycles could be much better invested.
I’ve recently imagined if you could build some kind of “micro monorail”. Like some simple 4x4 inch metal rail that is used for a very small “pod” similar to the podbike / a velomobile. Like a 1 seater or 2 face to face seater which only weights like 200 kg instead of large heavy trains. You could just use earth screws and poles and weld them to the microrail, have it close to the ground or rise up 6 meters high to cross over existing roads or obstacles. You could also have a welding robot on that same rail to endlessly extend the rail and do all this installation automatically. And everything could be recycled.
I’m not sure you can follow this somewhat mad idea, but this could connect rural and urban areas without the need to build costly roads, and at the same time transport internet, energy, goods, trash, maybe even water. Fully automated and with ultralight vehicles this could be the cheapest, least invasive and lowest energy transport ever.
Anyway, I’m a fan of rail, but it does have a problem: You need railroad switches and that adds a lot of complexity compared to a car. Every stop, turnaround or crossing needs it’s own stopping rail and switches which adds a lot of moving parts. So for some parts this could be a great solution, but for others it’s overkill. Basically in a city, there is a limit to how close rail can get you to your house.
So in a city you’re stuck with waiting for larger train cars and longer walking times. Small individual railcars won’t work, and so they can’t replace roads or cars. I believe that it’s like a fundamental mathematical density limit to rail. And if you go shopping, you don’t want to carry heavy bags or crates for like 10 min to your house. You can, but it kinda sucks.
And I don’t believe that within a city at 50 kmh energy consumption between a self driving “podbike” with rubber inflatible wheels on roads and a tram or metro is significant. It probably only is about 10% at max, or maybe even less.
So in an urban area self driving “micro cars” would be the most universal scaling solution that would be most comfortable to people as well because they can drive you and your baggage directly in front of your house and can pick you up.
Obviously I haven’t run the numbers, and I don’t understand why there aren’t any self driving narrow 1 or 2 seater cars build out of bicycle parts. Isn’t this the obvious solution? There are so many advantages. Just build a million of them for one metropolis and completely switch over, ban all cars and test how it works. And make it publicly owned, basically free to ride robo taxies. It’ll be cheaper for the city. Just the amount of real estate you’d gain from no big cars would be worth so much money.
Alternative facts?
No, reality.
we’re going to need a source on that
Ok Im assuming you’re either deluded, paid or an LLM. In the case you’re actually human, go find some statistics.
I don’t know how to prove I’m a human… cock shit asshole with fucking toejam stuck in my dickhole… is that something AI would say? Does that work for you.
Anyway,
https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/quantumblack/our-insights/the-state-of-ai
In 2017 about 20% of companies were using AI. In 2025 that number was at 88%
“The share of respondents saying their organizations are using AI in at least one business function has increased since our research last year: 88 percent report regular AI use in at least one business function, compared with 78 percent a year ago. At the enterprise level, the majority are still in the experimenting or piloting stages with approximately one-third reporting that their companies have begun to scale their AI programs”
“The use of AI overall is broadening within organizations. Respondents increasingly report that their organizations are using AI in more business functions. More than two-thirds of respondents now say their organizations are using AI in more than one function, and half report using AI in three of more functions.”
“By industry, the use of AI agents is most widely reported in the technology, media and telecommunications, and healthcare sectors.”
“Many companies, particularly smaller ones, have yet to integrate AI deeply across their workflows… Nearly half of respondents from companies with more than $5 billion in revenue have reached the scaling phase, compared with 29 percent of those with less than $100 million in revenues”
Cool, although I hope you’re aware that you’re confusing LLMs (mainstream in 2022) and machine learning which has existed for decades. Also what does this have to do with self driving cars?
I think the problem is that self driving cars suck
In that they can’t self-drive yes
That we still haven’t managed to build one? The current ones are all considerd level 2 autonomy, level 5 being a fully self driving car
The only way to solve the self driving cat issue is to ban all human drivers from the road.
So, if some techbro wants self driving cars, just give everybody one. All electric of course.
The only way to solve the self driving cat issue is to ban all human drivers from the road.
…and cyclists, and pedestrians, and farm tractors, and horses, and wagons, and stray pets, and wildlife, and…
Cyclists and pedestrians shouldn’t be on the road.
Unless you’re in the US (my condolences) you have a footpath/sidewalk/pavement for walking.
Bikes should (but rarely do) have their own physically seperated infrastructure, so they’re not getting hit by cars/busses/trucks/etc and not hitting pedestrians.
Cyclists can go on the road just fine, as long as the road is built and regulated for more than just cars
No, bikes should never be on Roads.
Streets, yes, Roads, no.
deleted by creator
Cyclist belong on their bicycle lanes , and those lanes belong besides every road.
Pedestrians belong on walkways, along every road
What is about stray pets and railroads? Horses , dogs, cats?
If we are talking about something so unrealistic and futuristic like autonomous vehicles lvl 5+. We may as well assume that we fixed everything else at that point of time.
Or, we just can take this as what it is. A sarcastic joke
Giving everybody a self-driving car completely defeats the purpose. Human-driven cars spend about 23 hours of each day just sitting around. A car that can drive itself doesn’t need to spend any time being parked - it can provide another ride! Liberally assuming a self-driving car would need to spend a full half of its time (12 hours/day) charging or being serviced, that would still mean that replacing all cars with autonomous vehicles could reduce traffic volume by a theoretical limit of 12× (12 hours/day/vehicle vs. 1 hour/day/vehicle).
you’re forgetting here that all people want to commute at the same time between 7am and 9am in the morning. so you can’t just operate 1 vehicle 24 hours around, you need the vehicles for these two hours especially and then some in the afternoon.
Elimination of personal vehicles would make public transit more attractive; with the previously foregone conclusion that one must own a vehicle gone, the choice is between a few dollars for transit, or several times more than that for a private vehicle. How many people currently choose to take an Uber or Lyft to and from work?
Also, it’s certainly not all people, nor all commuters.
Get rid of privately owned cars and you might be on to something. If the state owned a fleet of self driving cars you could rent at the car library, that would probably be better than everyone having their own car they park somewhere most of the time.
Building walkable living spaces with mass transit would be better for more people environmentally, economically, health-wise, socially…
Well, nobody’s gonna be able to afford an actual working autonomous vehicle, and it won’t make sense either economically or operationally to privately own one even if they could.
If the state owned a fleet of self driving cars you could rent at the car library
Until Trump or equivalent decides you’re not allowed to leave the city because you posted some nasty things about him.
Forcing non-private ownership means everyone is at the mercy of the state allowing them to borrow transport. How long before the Gays aren’t allowed to drive? Women can’t drive? That’s the future your espousing.
Do you have the same fear about trains?
Giving everybody a self-driving car completely defeats the purpose.
Not really, battery-electric cars can double as your household battery bank.
It seems a lot cheaper to buy a battery bank than to spend a sizeable fraction of a million dollars for the rest of the AV and the operational costs.
My hope has always been that if self driving cars are successful, almost nobody will own a personal car.
Cars are massively wasteful. Put aside the idea you’re hauling around multiple tonnes of steel and glass frequently to just move one person. Ignore the pollution aspect too. They’re also wasteful because they’re used for maybe 2 hours per day, and the other 22 they just sit somewhere taking up space and getting rusty.
Just think about how many stationary cars you pass when you’re out in the world. Nobody’s getting any use out of them, they’re just sitting there in case they’re needed, meanwhile they’re taking up useful space. There are other potentially expensive things you only use for a short amount of time each day: say, a good kitchen knife. But, most of them are indoors where they’re not exposed to the elements and deteriorating without being used.
In a future with self-driving cars, owning a car could be a luxury that enthusiasts could pay for, if it was worth it to them, but everybody else who needed a car could just rent a car for an hour or two.
I think that is the difference of perspective. Living in Germany, I did my driver’s license with 22, didn’t need it before. I could live without a car.
Yes, many would profit from shared, autonomous cars. But many would profit from public transport here in Germany to, and guess what. They want cars.
I hate this as much as the next dude. But if they really really want them, at least make them electric
if they really really want them, at least make them electric
And very expensive.
And very expensive.
So only the rich can afford them?
Yes
Or make motorcycles more popular ;)
trains rule
All I know is that the tunnel snakes rule. I don’t know whether a train is technically a tunnel snake or not.
I agree about tunnels snakes. You cannot deny. They just manifested ruling in their default introduction and have not given one reason NOT to rule since. They too, are born from train’s sibling using a term someone made a portmonteau of the subterranian…WAY? Normalize subtrainian.
Friend, I am acutely aware. We humans haven’t taken very good care of our habitat, and it’s showing. The next years aren’t going to be fun, but perhaps if all humans everywhere can manage to find the will, we can mitigate some damage.
LOL
Trains cant take you to specific spots, especially outside the greater urban areas.
When my public transport to work stops being 3-4x longer than simply driving, not to mention the inherent issues of being stuffed into a bus, let me know.
deleted by creator
Trains cant take you to specific spots, especially outside the greater urban areas.
That’s called the “Last mile” problem. Trains and buses aren’t much good for a whole day’s worth of shopping either. Try and haul 2 weeks worth of groceries for a family of 3 on a bus. But trains are great for longer distance travel from one area to another. And buses can be great for a quick one-stop trip to the hardware store. But a cargo e-bike would be better yet for light shopping.
I’m all for banning all motor vehicles in major cities, except emergency units. And leave the daily driving to those of us that live in the middle of nowhere and seldom visit large cities.
That line of argumentation can only be made by someone who can only imagine a car centric way of life. Why would you even do a two week shopping if a well sorted super market is just around the corner or next to your final transit stop?
That said, it is not much of a deal to do larger shopping. You can put a lot in a shopping trolley, also heavy stuff and move it with ease, to your very kitchen. The thing is, if you are shopping that much so infrequently you have to live orimarily from non-fresh food, or old food. Why would you want that?.
You assume large and well stocked grocery stores exist everywhere. That is most assuredly not the case in every city, town, or hamlet. And as for large amounts of shopping, you have never fed a teenage boy or girl have you. They can eat up their weight in groceries every week. And yes, fresh arugula is not readily available in many places. So that’s great for you. But again, don’t assume other people get to have the same choices you do.
And to be a dick about it too, really shows how disconnected from others reality some folks are.
I am talking about urban and suburban context. Not rural scenarios where transit cannot be a full alternative.
What you miss is that the way your city/suburb looks like is a direct function of your urban planning. Transit itself fosters the creation of super markets at its stops. Which is why you will usually find those at stops in transit oriented places. As their main customers are transit users they also cater to their preferences and are designed differently from car oriented stores. Usually they allow for much faster shopping while having a focused but complete sortiment (not just chips, sweets and beer)
You’d be surprised, there are plenty of young families in Vienna in the new pedestrian oriented quarters, many if not most don’t even own a car. Somehow you can manage just fine that way. It is one of those myths that you need a car with young ones, if you live in a transit oriented place or suffer for it. If need be just get a shopping trolley, folding handcart or freight bike.
PS: It is nice to see how you assume fresh bread, vegetable, meat etc are necessarily a luxury. I assume that idea also comes from the context of a car centric society.
is nice to see how you assume fresh bread, vegetable, meat etc are necessarily a luxury. I assume that idea also comes from the context of a car centric society.
cries in USA
Spoken like an upper middle class person. And yes, fresh tomatoes and lettuce can be a luxury even in a dense city. Food deserts exist even there. Not everyone lives in Vienna or the Netherlands. And ordinary people do NOT get to choose the urban planning they can afford live in. Almost all of it was decided 100+ years ago. And is nearly impossible to change now. Unless you want to move large numbers of the population out of an area to demolish and rebuild that much new infrastructure, a thing that often gets called “gentrification”. And what of the poor people who can’t afford to live where you do and how you do? They very often live the farthest away from all those things you take for granted.
deleted by creator
Like I said, your opinion seems to be formed by a car oriented society and you appear to struggle to imagine an alternative. If you need to watch your finances you can find all those fresh produces at urban discounters in transit oriented cities. Buying those without the need for a car is actually less costly than having a car and buying the cheapest worst kind of food.
That is the thing transit oriented cities generally enable that. I m well aware that not every city is transit oriented. I am not saying people living in these places have a choice. I am saying urban planers have a choice to change how the cities look for the next generation(s). You mentioned the Netherlands, they are a great example for that. 2 generations ago they were very car oriented following the US lead. Not 100 years ago, 50 years ago.
I am not saying people living in these places have a choice. I am saying urban planers have a choice to change how the cities look for the next generation(s).
Rampant fascism is on the rise, here and abroad. We can’t even get US citizens to recognize Mamdami is center, at best, or as I’m discussing elsewhere, how to even get our compatriots online not to accuse us of being trolls, and in 3D not to view us as enemy (see also POTUS reverting to full McCarthyite “Godless communists” red scare tactics on Truth Social).
It seems like you’re arguing that a better way of doing things is hard, therefore not worth doing, or that a century ago was the cutoff for deciding how we do transportation.
The way our stuff is laid out makes it difficult to live without a car. That doesn’t make the car a necessity in the abstract when that layout and design is often the direct product of designing around cars in the first place. It makes the car a necessity in the specific system we have for many people.
“We can’t do things differently because then it’s harder to do things exactly the same” is a weak argument.Spoken like an upper middle class person
Are you actually using your perception of someone else’s economic class as an argument? When you’re arguing in defense of car based suburban sprawl and buying groceries by the carload?
Food deserts.
