Apple Car's Decade of Development and 'Failure' Detailed in New Report

[lysingur]

Yeah, yeah. I’ve heard the talking points many many times. Saying them more aggressively and accusing me of being ignorant is just nonsense posturing. My comment stands. The costs and logistics involved with upgrading the NATION’S roads to accommodate self driving vehicles would be astronomical and provide a questionable end benefit, assuming such upgrades actually would lead to safer trips, which is itself a questionable assumption.

So skip the insulting “do your research” quips. That isn’t productive and it proves nothing. If you have data to back up your claims, show it. Telling me to “do your research” is a common mistake in casual debate.

You're the one claiming that the costs "would be far too high". The onus is obviously on you to do the research. In fact, I don't think you even know what's involved in upgrading the roads to make them self-driving-friendly. I would go even further— you haven't bothered to learn anything new on this subject since this conversation started.

I've seen you going back and forth to no end with others. You sound like a humanity major who's got way too much time on his hands. So good luck to you. You're right. I'm wrong.

 

[lysingur]

Autonomous vehicles don't have to be just EV's. They could be hybrids or full on gas powered cars as well.

What makes a vehicle autonomous? The chips inside. Because you need powerful chips capable of making instantaneous yet complex calculations.

What power these kinds of chips? Electricity.

What kind of electrical architectures do hybrids (which are still fundamentally ICEs) and ICEs have? 12V, which isn't enough to power the aforementioned chips.

Of course, they could, but should they? No. Will they? No.

 

[B S Magnet]

You're the one claiming that the costs "would be far too high".

Trust me: a physical retrofit of arterials and sideroads, at a national or economic zone scale the size of a U.S., a Canada-U.S.-Mexico, or an EU, will be astronomical.

Even factoring how prior arterial infrastructure was put into place, much of it by expropriation; and even factoring how, in that day nearly a century ago, costs were high under currency values of that day, the kind of road work required to accommodate autonomous vehicles guided by technologies involving some or several aspects of retrofitting paving, signals, signage (for sensor legibility), places where segregation of autonomous vehicles from human-piloted vehicles, and so on, is substantial — on the order of trillions of USD for a nation-state the scope and road complexity as the U.S.

Even the cost of maintaining what exists presently in the U.S. — to ensure key points of transportation infrastructure are in safe, good repair and relieved of risk to failure — required USD$1.2 trillion in the 2021 passage of what is called, colloquially, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.

This is not an outrageous claim. In this sense, @Surf Monkey is correct: any fundamental retrofit — even a demolition — of what exists already amounts to ten-figure sums. This is but one of the considerations transportation planners have to be aware of when considering how best to implement a design objective to meet a region’s key mobility targets.

 

[lysingur]

In forestry, one cannot fixate on a patch of pines within of a giant forest containing many other interwoven, interdependent species and thinking to ignore all else will help them understand that patch thoroughly.

In transportation planning, one cannot fixate on (experimental) AVs without taking into context the applied interrelatedness of everything — and everyone — who uses streets and arterials (including the capital allocation for building and maintaining those routes).

Nor can one in transportation planning observe certain economic hard walls and dismiss them, blithely, as a “cultural commentary” (that was precious, by the way!) and, thus, will them into not really being there or treat them as inconsequential and irrelevant.

Just because one declines to see — or believes to decline seeing — the wall they’re about to slam into doesn’t, automagically, avoid the impact, nor the pain from hitting it. A good planner must be a knowledge generalist in order to grasp the big picture they’re trying to manage and/or solve — something an AV-evangelist in Silicon Valley demonstrates themselves as something they’re not.

By cultural commentary, I was actually referring to what you said about the Japanese.

I get it. You don't like cars and you think car companies are greedy f*cks. It's not exactly "grasp[ing] the big picture" to have a superiority complex not rooted in accomplishments but in purported virtues. It doesn't make you a "knowledge generalist" to have Copenhagen-envy and live such a comfortable life that you start finding anarcho-primitivism an attractive alternative to our current system, which produces all the fancy gadgets that people are talking about on this very site. And news flash, transit or city planners don't have the kind of mandate to solve big-picture problems that you're talking about.

Like that other dude, you also seem like a humanity major who's got too much time on his hands. To make matters worse, one has to wade through a lot of fluff and suffer your pedantic tendencies to get the few simple points that you're making (these four paragraphs could've been reduced to two sentences and still get the point across).

 

[lysingur]

Trust me: a physical retrofit of arterials and sideroads, at a national or economic zone scale the size of a U.S., a Canada-U.S.-Mexico, or an EU, will be astronomical.

Even factoring how prior arterial infrastructure was put into place, much of it by expropriation; and even factoring how, in that day nearly a century ago, costs were high under currency values of that day, the kind of road work required to accommodate autonomous vehicles guided by technologies involving some or several aspects of retrofitting paving, signals, signage (for sensor legibility), places where segregation of autonomous vehicles from human-piloted vehicles, and so on, is substantial — on the order of trillions of USD for a nation-state the scope and road complexity as the U.S.

Even the cost of maintaining what exists presently in the U.S. — to ensure key points of transportation infrastructure are in safe, good repair and relieved of risk to failure — required USD$1.2 trillion in the 2021 passage of what is called, colloquially, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.

This is not an outrageous claim. In this sense, @Surf Monkey is correct: any fundamental retrofit — even a demolition — of what exists already amounts to ten-figure sums. This is but one of the considerations transportation planners have to be aware of when considering how best to implement a design objective to meet a region’s key mobility targets.

It's actually 2.6 trillion over 10 years. The costs are high because there has been underinvestment in the maintenance of roads and bridges in the US since at least the 80s.

Most of what makes a road self-driving-friendly are already part of traditional road maintenance, e.g., clear lane markings, pothole-free surfaces, and well-maintained and standardized road signs. I don't know what you and that other guy are talking about. Demolition? Demolish what? Where did you get the information that making a road self-driving-friendly involve demolition that's outside of regular road maintenance?

This is not to mention infrastructure investment creates jobs, which boosts the economy.

 

[Surf Monkey]

You're the one claiming that the costs "would be far too high". The onus is obviously on you to do the research.

Actually, no. Your claim is the extraordinary one, not mine. You’d need to show that it can be done AT ALL and then give some kind of cost analysis to go with it. Because my position is that it’s cheaper to repair our existing roads and give up on the idea of fully autonomous vehicles.

In fact, I don't think you even know what's involved in upgrading the roads to make them self-driving-friendly.

Well, again, since it’s key to YOUR position it’s on YOU to demonstrate how and why it would work.

would go even further— you haven't bothered to learn anything new on this subject since this conversation started.

It isn’t my responsibility to make your argument for you.

I've seen you going back and forth to no end with others. You sound like a humanity major who's got way too much time on his hands. So good luck to you. You're right. I'm wrong.

As hoc attacks aren’t an argument.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Trust me: a physical retrofit of arterials and sideroads, at a national or economic zone scale the size of a U.S., a Canada-U.S.-Mexico, or an EU, will be astronomical.

Obviously. It isn’t an extraordinary claim to note that this kind of infrastructure upgrade would be outright prohibitive.

I mean, just consider ONE average size city. Portland OR (where I am) for example. Portland currently has the largest amount of unpaved roads of any West Coast city. More than LA, San Francisco and Seattle COMBINED. So in this city ALONE the upgrades necessary wouldn’t be possible without paving a large percentage of those currently unimproved roads first. Hundreds of millions of dollars worth of construction, if not billions.

Who pays for that? The city can’t maintain the UNPAVED roads they have now due to limited monetary resources. Now they’re supposed to fund what would be a multi-billion dollar upgrade so that people can passively watch a movie on the way to the grocery store? And what happens in the unincorporated areas outside the city? And county roads? And the roads and bridges in smaller cities like Eugene and Salem? And what about the interstates? Are we to believe that congress would allocate the additional hundreds of billions needed upgrade those? They won’t even allocate funds to FIX them.

I mean, it’s all so drastically fantastic as to be pure fiction top to bottom. Not to put too fine a point on it.

And THAT is why I’ve said several times now that resources of that magnitude would be far better spent on some kind of mass transit solution. The whole idea of every individual owning a vehicle is so corrosive that it’s literally damaging the environment to the point that it may no longer be able to support human life in many places. But yeah. We all need to spend obscene amounts of money so that we can all jet around completely passively in a giant chunk of plastic. Alone.

 

[Surf Monkey]

By cultural commentary, I was actually referring to what you said about the Japanese.

I get it. You don't like cars and you think car companies are greedy f*cks. It's not exactly "grasp[ing] the big picture" to have a superiority complex not rooted in accomplishments but in purported virtues. It doesn't make you a "knowledge generalist" to have Copenhagen-envy and live such a comfortable life that you start finding anarcho-primitivism an attractive alternative to our current system, which produces all the fancy gadgets that people are talking about on this very site. And news flash, transit or city planners don't have the kind of mandate to solve big-picture problems that you're talking about.

Like that other dude, you also seem like a humanity major who's got too much time on his hands. To make matters worse, one has to wade through a lot of fluff and suffer your pedantic tendencies to get the few simple points that you're making (these four paragraphs could've been reduced to two sentences and still get the point across).

This nonsense doesn’t help your case.

 

[Surf Monkey]

It's actually 2.6 trillion over 10 years. The costs are high because there has been underinvestment in the maintenance of roads and bridges in the US since at least the 80s.

Most of what makes a road self-driving-friendly are already part of traditional road maintenance, e.g., clear lane markings, pothole-free surfaces, and well-maintained and standardized road signs. I don't know what you and that other guy are talking about. Demolition? Demolish what? Where did you get the information that making a road self-driving-friendly involve demolition that's outside of regular road maintenance?

This is not to mention infrastructure investment creates jobs, which boosts the economy.

I admire your idealism but come on.

 

[B S Magnet]

By cultural commentary, I was actually referring to what you said about the Japanese.

Understood.

I get it. You don't like cars and you think car companies are greedy f*cks.

No, that’s incorrect.

What I don’t like, as an urbanist, are orthodox takes that the private automobile is an inherent net-good, still, in the face of hard limits which are very hard for a lot of folks to face, much less to acknowledge as unavoidable.

I haven’t an opinion on car companies with respect to the discussion of limits on available corridors for transportation infrastructure.

I do, however, have an informed opinion on how best we, as people, can use existing built form in much more efficient, smarter, more productive, and more civil ways. Unfortunately for some, this does mean a weaning of principal reliance on the private motor vehicle; a weaning of monocultural development schemes; and a weaning of the expansion of low-density, single-family dwelling exurbs (which grow more costly to build, maintain, and compensate for the damages they cause, the more distal they’re sited from a city).

It's not exactly "grasp[ing] the big picture" to have a superiority complex not rooted in accomplishments but in purported virtues.

Pardon me, but this is a Tim Hortons ordering counter.

It doesn't make you a "knowledge generalist" to have Copenhagen-envy and live such a comfortable life that you start finding anarcho-primitivism an attractive alternative to our current system, which produces all the fancy gadgets that people are talking about on this very site. And news flash, transit or city planners don't have the kind of mandate to solve big-picture problems that you're talking about.

Your remark is the first to bring up Copenhagen. This is called “making a projection”.

I now know you are clearly not reading me anywhere in the area code where I’m coming from here.

Like that other dude, you also seem like a humanity major who's got too much time on his hands.

Ahem.

I don’t have a background in the humanities. I have a background in engineering. Urbanism, specifically.

Dial it back a little, please.

To make matters worse, one has to wade through a lot of fluff and suffer your pedantic tendencies to get the few simple points that you're making (these four paragraphs could've been reduced to two sentences and still get the point across).

Well, I’m sorry the manner by which I communicate casually don’t sit well with you, and I’m also sorry you’re breaking out the salt.

I do think you’re out of your element.

It's actually 2.6 trillion over 10 years. The costs are high because there has been underinvestment in the maintenance of roads and bridges in the US since at least the 80s.

Fair. Whatever the case, the means to cover it is to cover remedial fixes and replacements which should have happened, as you noted, over previous decades. This, of course, didn’t happen, but that goes down a PRSI path which bores me, frankly.

Demolition? Demolish what? Where did you get the information that making a road self-driving-friendly involve demolition that's outside of regular road maintenance?

Unless there’s a political will for cities to invite human-operated vehicles co-exist side-by-side with autonomous vehicles, then the relative equivalent of high-occupancy vehicle-styled partitions will require being built. This involves demolition at some level — whether to the existing, paved thoroughfare, or to expropriating land on the periphery of that arterial, to demolish whatever is there, to make room for an expanded thoroughfare with those accommodations and the usual buffer for easements to deliver underground infrastructure.

 

[B S Magnet]

Obviously. It isn’t an extraordinary claim to note that this kind of infrastructure upgrade would be outright prohibitive.

I mean, just consider ONE average size city. Portland OR (where I am) for example. Portland currently has the largest amount of unpaved roads of any West Coast city. More than LA, San Francisco and Seattle COMBINED. So in this city ALONE the upgrades necessary wouldn’t be possible without paving a large percentage of those currently unimproved roads first. Hundreds of millions of dollars worth of construction, if not billions.

Curiously, there is probably a net-benefit to keeping low-traffic unpaved roads unpaved for a bevy of reasons — including the capital expenditure of maintaining the re-paving of back roads which field fewer than 2,000 vehicles per diem (day). The cost of a paved upkeep on such routes escalates rapidly at the 20- and 30-year mileposts. For small municipalities and townships, these re-paving/re-surfacing costs can get far out of reach quickly.

If unpaved roads end up being where autonomous vehicles struggle the hardest, then it may be that autonomous vehicles should, if legalized on a widespread basis, be confined to paved routes where the rationale for keeping those routes paved, maintained, and marked (with paint) can be justified owing to the volume of vehicles using it, on average, per day.

Who pays for that? The city can’t maintain the UNPAVED roads they have now due to limited monetary resources. Now they’re supposed to fund what would be a multi-billion dollar upgrade so that people can passively watch a movie on the way to the grocery store?

This is very good point.

And THAT is why I’ve said several times now that resources of that magnitude would be far better spent on some kind of mass transit solution. The whole idea of every individual owning a vehicle is so corrosive that it’s literally damaging the environment to the point that it may no longer be able to support human life in many places. But yeah. We all need to spend obscene amounts of money so that we can all jet around completely passively in a giant chunk of plastic. Alone.

That was put elegantly. Thank you.

 

[diamond.g]

What makes a vehicle autonomous? The chips inside. Because you need powerful chips capable of making instantaneous yet complex calculations.

What power these kinds of chips? Electricity.

What kind of electrical architectures do hybrids (which are still fundamentally ICEs) and ICEs have? 12V, which isn't enough to power the aforementioned chips.

Of course, they could, but should they? No. Will they? No.

Most EV low voltage systems are 12V because the automotive industry is mainly 12V.

Tesla LV is 16V on "newer" vehicles and 48V on just the Cyber Truck. No one is using HV to power their computer chips.

 

[voy@ger]

Four depictions towards a "not yet another car" kinda vehicle:
1. 90 percent of the cars are wider than their ususally only occupant (the driver) is tall,
especially during commuting when roads are jampacked. Effectively, that's like moving sideways.

2. With the transition to EVs, the car is to become a household's biggest kWh consuming 'appliance'.

3. The bigger the car, the highter the front-end, the unsafer for pedestrians,
but also smaller cars. Vehicle mass co-determines kinetic energy, therefore impact.
Also: the heavier the car, the bigger the tires, the more road wear & tear, the more tire dust.

4. In 2016 Apple considered 'buying' Lit Motors. We're talking a self-balancing cabin-scooter.
Cramped seating for 1+1 person. This is as close as you can get to a Personal Mobility 'device'.

 

[B S Magnet]

Four depictions towards a "not yet another car" kinda vehicle:
1. 90 percent of the cars are wider than their ususally only occupant (the driver) is tall,
especially during commuting when roads are jampacked. Effectively, that's like moving sideways.

2. With the transition to EVs, the car is to become a household's biggest kWh consuming 'appliance'.

3. The bigger the car, the highter the front-end, the unsafer for pedestrians,
but also smaller cars. Vehicle mass co-determines kinetic energy, therefore impact.
Also: the heavier the car, the bigger the tires, the more road wear & tear, the more tire dust.

4. In 2016 Apple considered 'buying' Lit Motors. We're talking a self-balancing cabin-scooter.
Cramped seating for 1+1 person. This is as close as you can get to a Personal Mobility 'device'.

It is very nearly never that I react with a thumbs-down following a MR forum post, but this one has earned it.

EDIT to add: The thumbs-down comes from your lacking any thesis whatsoever.

 

[voy@ger]

The illustrations speak for themselves. No 'thesis' needed.
I decide what I want to write dowm here, not you.
I quit participating here. I think in time.

 

[B S Magnet]

The illustrations speak for themselves. No 'thesis' needed.
I decide what I want to write dowm here, not you.
I quit participating here. I think in time.

Inside your mind, perhaps they bear context.

Outside your mind, it looks like spit-balling and guessing at things far beyond your remit.

I say this not to discourage you, but to encourage you to formulate your thought processes in a meaningful manner.

To do that, you need a point, a thesis, when making your post. (Yes, I’m mindful how English may be your second language.) I gave you a thumbs-down because you did not do that, and what you posted didn’t aid this discussion… outside your mind (that is: before the audience who is reading and responding to your post).

Food for thought.

 

[lysingur]

Ahem.

I don’t have a background in the humanities. I have a background in engineering. Urbanism, specifically.

Dial it back a little, please.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but 😆 urbanism is hardly "engineering". You are not an engineer. Most engineering departments where you're from, i.e., Canada, give BAs, not BSc or BEng for this particular area of study. It's a fancy word for urban planning, which depending on how your degree is structured, can be mostly sociology, architecture, and arts classes. Based on the long and convoluted prose you love to employ and the subject matter you wrote about the most on this site, this most likely is the case. So I was right on the money.

I do hope you stop telling people you have a background in engineering if urbanism is the only subject you studied in university. It's like a political "scientist" telling other people he or she has a background in science or a Ph.D. insisting on people calling him or her a "doctor".

I'm sorry you didn't get that reference about Copenhagen, which many consider the bicycle capital of Europe, and whose urban planning many of your ilk in Canada try to emulate, causing the never-ending struggles over bike lanes.

I'm not really sure who's really out of his or her element in this conversation. You haven't been able to refute anything factual that I've stated, yet you're an urban planner claiming to "have a background in engineering".

Upgrading roads to be self-driving-friendly doesn't involve "demolition". It's 60%, if not more, regular maintenance. If you really have a background in engineering, you would know. Most newer cars with drive and lane assists can do a fine job driving themselves with minimal driver supervision on most highways with clear lane markings. It's not thinking outside the box when you have an ideological axe to grind. Self-driving EVs can play an integral role in public transportation. They will be a boon to the elderly and the infirm, prolonging their independence, as a last-leg vehicle. They will also allow people who can't afford to buy cars to work in places not accessible by metro or buses.

Unless there’s a political will for cities to invite human-operated vehicles co-exist side-by-side with autonomous vehicles, then the relative equivalent of high-occupancy vehicle-styled partitions will require being built. This involves demolition at some level — whether to the existing, paved thoroughfare, or to expropriating land on the periphery of that arterial, to demolish whatever is there, to make room for an expanded thoroughfare with those accommodations and the usual buffer for easements to deliver underground infrastructure.

What makes you think the goal is to replace human-operated vehicles with autonomous ones? So you are not projecting but I am? You're making that assumption for me, aren't you? Since you know about Japan so well, why don't you do some research and find out how they're upgrading their roads to be self-driving-friendly?

Whether you like it, self-driving cars are inevitable, especially in a rapidly ageing society where most seniors are living alone. This is one of the main reasons Japan is so interested in self-driving technology. I frankly don't know what about self-driving per se that you're railing against. You seem very confused. If autonomous vehicles are to replace human-operated vehicles as you're assuming, the total number of cars on the road won't actually increase. In fact, it might go down because autonomous vehicles can be rented out while not in use and it's easier to carpool in them.

Most EV low voltage systems are 12V because the automotive industry is mainly 12V.

Tesla LV is 16V on "newer" vehicles and 48V on just the Cyber Truck. No one is using HV to power their computer chips.

Not sure if you know what you're talking about, but I guess this is the level of expertise I'm dealing with here.

 

[B S Magnet]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but 😆 urbanism is hardly "engineering".

Sorry to burst yours. And you are incorrect.

You are not an engineer. Most engineering departments where you're from, i.e., Canada, give BAs, not BSc or BEng for this particular area of study. It's a fancy word for urban planning, which depending on how your degree is structured, can be mostly sociology, architecture, and arts classes. Based on the long and convoluted prose you love to employ and the subject matter you wrote about the most on this site, this most likely is the case. So I was right on the money.

If that will help you to sleep tonight, then let me stand clear of your way.

I know my credentials. I know my qualifications. I know my alma maters. I know my experiences. I know my work. And I know the humility to not only admit, candidly, what I don’t know, but also know there is always room to learn more from folks who know their stuff (which, alas, in this area? it definitely excludes you).

HBU?

But all this — your going on a tirade at me — ain’t it. And you’re out of your element. And full of spite, no less.

The thing I don’t understand is why.

I'm sorry you didn't get that reference about Copenhagen, which many consider the bicycle capital of Europe, and whose urban planning many of your ilk in Canada try to emulate, causing the never-ending struggles over bike lanes.

I saw your tired bait, and I ignored it. It was petty, combative, and not germane to this thread’s discussion topic.

Your high horse needs watering. Look at it sometime. Give the poor thing the break it deserves.

I'm not really sure … but I guess this is the level of expertise I'm dealing with here.

tl;dr

You must be a blast at parties.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but 😆 urbanism is hardly "engineering". You are not an engineer. Most engineering departments where you're from, i.e., Canada, give BAs, not BSc or BEng for this particular area of study. It's a fancy word for urban planning, which depending on how your degree is structured, can be mostly sociology, architecture, and arts classes. Based on the long and convoluted prose you love to employ and the subject matter you wrote about the most on this site, this most likely is the case. So I was right on the money.

I do hope you stop telling people you have a background in engineering if urbanism is the only subject you studied in university. It's like a political "scientist" telling other people he or she has a background in science or a Ph.D. insisting on people calling him or her a "doctor".

I'm sorry you didn't get that reference about Copenhagen, which many consider the bicycle capital of Europe, and whose urban planning many of your ilk in Canada try to emulate, causing the never-ending struggles over bike lanes.

I'm not really sure who's really out of his or her element in this conversation. You haven't been able to refute anything factual that I've stated, yet you're an urban planner claiming to "have a background in engineering".

Upgrading roads to be self-driving-friendly doesn't involve "demolition". It's 60%, if not more, regular maintenance. If you really have a background in engineering, you would know. Most newer cars with drive and lane assists can do a fine job driving themselves with minimal driver supervision on most highways with clear lane markings. It's not thinking outside the box when you have an ideological axe to grind. Self-driving EVs can play an integral role in public transportation. They will be a boon to the elderly and the infirm, prolonging their independence, as a last-leg vehicle. They will also allow people who can't afford to buy cars to work in places not accessible by metro or buses.



What makes you think the goal is to replace human-operated vehicles with autonomous ones? So you are not projecting but I am? You're making that assumption for me, aren't you? Since you know about Japan so well, why don't you do some research and find out how they're upgrading their roads to be self-driving-friendly?

Whether you like it, self-driving cars are inevitable, especially in a rapidly ageing society where most seniors are living alone. This is one of the main reasons Japan is so interested in self-driving technology. I frankly don't know what about self-driving per se that you're railing against. You seem very confused. If autonomous vehicles are to replace human-operated vehicles as you're assuming, the total number of cars on the road won't actually increase. In fact, it might go down because autonomous vehicles can be rented out while not in use and it's easier to carpool in them.

Not sure if you know what you're talking about, but I guess this is the level of expertise I'm dealing with here.

I’d submit that your continuing string of ad hominem attacks and persistent condescension towards others isn’t helping your argument very much.

And no, self driving cars are not “inevitable”. Not by a LONG shot.

 

[lysingur]

Sorry to burst yours. And you are incorrect.




If that will help you to sleep tonight, then let me stand clear of your way.

I know my credentials. I know my qualifications. I know my alma maters. I know my experiences. I know my work. And I know the humility to not only admit, candidly, what I don’t know, but also know there is always room to learn more from folks who know their stuff (which, alas, in this area? it definitely excludes you).

HBU?

But all this — your going on a tirade at me — ain’t it. And you’re out of your element. And full of spite, no less.

The thing I don’t understand is why.




I saw your tired bait, and I ignored it. It was petty, combative, and not germane to this thread’s discussion topic.

Your high horse needs watering. Look at it sometime. Give the poor thing the break it deserves.




tl;dr

You must be a blast at parties.

That's a long-winded way of admitting you aren't an engineer, but whatever helps you sleep at night. I worked at one of the largest building materials and aggregate companies in North America. I know what urbanists or urban planners do and I also know they don't dare to call themselves engineers in front of real engineers. Just because you believe you're an engineer doesn't mean you are one in real life. It's sad and laughable that you'd even say something like "I know my qualifications" as if whether a person is qualified to perform a certain task is something purely subjective.

You can gaslight me all you want: tirade, full of spite, out of your element, high horse, or what have you. It won't change the fact that I'm not the one telling everybody here I'm an engineer when I am not. You aren't an engineer. You just aren't. The fact that you're larping as an engineer on this forum trying to bolster your position through argumentum ad verecundiam betrays your deep-seated elitism.

While preaching to others to be open-minded, you aren't open to looking at an issue from the other side at all. So it never occurred to you to look at the limits of public transportation in the North American context? Here is a surprise for you: most metro and bus routes aren't profitable because the ridership is low. This is a problem that won't be solved by increasing the number of buses (supply) as you have advocated because there just aren't that many people who live along certain bus routes (demand). Self-driving EVs can contribute to the solution by drastically lowering the cost of sustaining suburban and exurban transit routes. I don't say self-driving can solve every transit problem in Canada or the US, but I also don't say it's a "fantasy" or cost-prohibitive without having done any meaningful research.

Good luck to you and your self-delusion. Thanks to you, I think I finally understand what my Canadian friends (several of them engineers) have been saying about what has befallen their country since 2015.

 

[diamond.g]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but 😆 urbanism is hardly "engineering". You are not an engineer. Most engineering departments where you're from, i.e., Canada, give BAs, not BSc or BEng for this particular area of study. It's a fancy word for urban planning, which depending on how your degree is structured, can be mostly sociology, architecture, and arts classes. Based on the long and convoluted prose you love to employ and the subject matter you wrote about the most on this site, this most likely is the case. So I was right on the money.

I do hope you stop telling people you have a background in engineering if urbanism is the only subject you studied in university. It's like a political "scientist" telling other people he or she has a background in science or a Ph.D. insisting on people calling him or her a "doctor".

I'm sorry you didn't get that reference about Copenhagen, which many consider the bicycle capital of Europe, and whose urban planning many of your ilk in Canada try to emulate, causing the never-ending struggles over bike lanes.

I'm not really sure who's really out of his or her element in this conversation. You haven't been able to refute anything factual that I've stated, yet you're an urban planner claiming to "have a background in engineering".

Upgrading roads to be self-driving-friendly doesn't involve "demolition". It's 60%, if not more, regular maintenance. If you really have a background in engineering, you would know. Most newer cars with drive and lane assists can do a fine job driving themselves with minimal driver supervision on most highways with clear lane markings. It's not thinking outside the box when you have an ideological axe to grind. Self-driving EVs can play an integral role in public transportation. They will be a boon to the elderly and the infirm, prolonging their independence, as a last-leg vehicle. They will also allow people who can't afford to buy cars to work in places not accessible by metro or buses.



What makes you think the goal is to replace human-operated vehicles with autonomous ones? So you are not projecting but I am? You're making that assumption for me, aren't you? Since you know about Japan so well, why don't you do some research and find out how they're upgrading their roads to be self-driving-friendly?

Whether you like it, self-driving cars are inevitable, especially in a rapidly ageing society where most seniors are living alone. This is one of the main reasons Japan is so interested in self-driving technology. I frankly don't know what about self-driving per se that you're railing against. You seem very confused. If autonomous vehicles are to replace human-operated vehicles as you're assuming, the total number of cars on the road won't actually increase. In fact, it might go down because autonomous vehicles can be rented out while not in use and it's easier to carpool in them.



Not sure if you know what you're talking about, but I guess this is the level of expertise I'm dealing with here.

I know the difference between the low voltage system and the high voltage one in Teslas. The motors and HVAC system run on HV (400+V) while pretty much everything else is LV (12-48v) the PCS converts HV to LV.

 

[lysingur]

I know the difference between the low voltage system and the high voltage one in Teslas. The motors and HVAC system run on HV (400+V) while pretty much everything else is LV (12-48v) the PCS converts HV to LV.

That's by design. Capability is a whole other issue, isn't it?

You also introduce inefficiencies in each step of the conversation from gas to electricity (chemical → mechanical → electrical). So why any sane person/car company/engineer would want to do it in a self-driving car?

 

[B S Magnet]

I worked at one of the largest building materials and aggregate companies in North America.

Neat. So you know how to mix and pour wet concrete. Congratulations.

View attachment 2358482

And you know how to use ChatGPT.

In LLM you trust.

 

[Jgboys1]

Things have gotten so bad for EVs that environmentalist are sabotaging EV factories.

Leftwing group claim responsibility for Tesla factory arson attack in Berlin

Vulkan activist group release 2,500 word letter claiming it set fire to pylon at factory that produces half a million electric cars a year

www.theguardian.com