this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2026
1402 points (99.3% liked)

memes

22505 readers
2863 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] vapeloki@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago (37 children)

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.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago (24 children)

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).

[–] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Why would it reduce traffic volume? The cars that are on the road are the ones that are currently in their hour of driving that day, it would more reduce the size of parking lots and parking space allocation, or at least move it to charging hubs away from where people congregate.

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

it would more reduce the size of parking lots and parking space allocation

Which would in turn affect city design, letting buildings be placed closer together, making it so you don't have to drive as far, which would then reduce traffic.

[–] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 3 points 2 months ago

I think the reduction would be slight versus the reduction realised by improving the quality of existing human operated public transport like buses and trains. A mass transit system relying on individual automated cars is a tech bro brain fart.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yeah it would be better still if we we had actual improved public transport systems for carry more people at once rather than automated personal vehicles, even if those automated personal vehicles are shared like taxis. The cost of automation and requirement for removing all other vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists and animals from the roads is immediately removed and the benefits obtained by reducing traffic is immediately realised just by using human driven buses and trains.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Well, one of them is happening faster than the other, so let's not perfect be the enemy of good.

load more comments (21 replies)
load more comments (33 replies)